Safety? We don't need no stinking Safety!
-
That's what I said, yes :)
-
If you have the list 1,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,1000, the arithmetic mean is 112.56…, the median is 2, and the mode is 1. Also, the geometric mean is 3.07, and I can't be bothered to work out the harmonic mean…
-
-
It's more like, survival of whatever gets to reproductive age.
That's what "survival of the fittest" means. The fittest, in the context of any discussion about evolution, are not those best able to lift the heavy thing; reproductive success is biological fitness.
-
But what's the average? ;)
-
But what's the average? ;)
1.54
So I bothered to compute the harmonic mean after all. (Reciprocal of the arithmetic mean of the reciprocals…)
-
I think I got it.
The fittest is a group, not a single person representative of a set of qualities. The group being adapted enough to the environment to get to reproductive success, and do so the most times.
There could be multiple sets of qualities with enough fitness to get in the top reproductive set.
Like, say one could be a welfare baby factory.
And the other could be the 18 going on... family.Those two are certainly the opposite ends of the spectrum on several qualities.
- personal wealth
- intelligence
- education
But both are "fit enough" to be highly reproductive.
-
I think I got it.
Stop worrying about "fittest." It's kind of misleading as pithy statements often are.
-
As usual, you're allowing your peculiar politics to cloud your understanding of what really is a very straightforward concept.
-
It's kind of misleading as pithy statements often are.
...which is why Twitter is not a discussion platform.
-
Is it hard to understand that two competing sets of traits can perform equally well when it comes to reproductive capacity, and therefore are both "fittest" at the same time?
It's obvious that some traits are superfluous to fittest.
Like, if running 8 miles an hour gets you away from your predator, running 11 miles an hour doesn't make you more fit.
-
"They are the fittest compared to other traits."
Doesn't mean that there can be only one trait. Just like you can say that the upper 1% of a populaton are the richest.
-
Then, does it scale to "fitness"
So, say there's a set of traits that's in the top 10% of fittest, and another set that's in the top 1% of fitness.
Does that mean in newer generations the top 1% will become more prominent, and the remaining top 9% less prominent?
-
Fitness is a "a posteriori" definition.
-
You determine what was fittest, by what survived.
Fine got it.
But there can't be any variance?
Like a trait is 80% shared, and another is 50% shared, and both directly affect surviving to reproductive age. Is it because the 80% shared trait added more to fittest, than the other trait.
-
It's not quantifiable this way. Because having several "good" traits can also become counterproductive.
-
You determine what was fittest, by what survived.
Nope. It is offspring that determines it. So something that pops out a slew of kids and then immediately croaks wins vs lives a long time but only a few offspring (assuming that living long doesn't have a really strong correlation with offspring having their own offspring).
-
I should have clarified "survived". I get that too.
But can you have different levels of fittest, and is it simply a count of children?
Example
One animal is pretty pathetic, but has 1 trait that contributes greatly to its survival for multiple generations.
Another set of the same species is missing that trait, but has 50 traits that when summed give it the same chance to survive multiple generations.
-
That is different methods not levels of fittest, but yeah the measure is offspring.
-
But can you have different levels of fittest, and is it simply a count of children?
-
Well, memes are sticky because they can be written down.
It doesn't mean that the creator of that website had any children.But then again, to spark evolution, all you need is to show a few generations of success, and all of the sudden, your set of traits become sexy.
Yeah, fuck, Twitter is going to fuck over the genepool.
-
Final update...
The feature was removed. Still using software safeties, but they can't be disabled now.
-
-
But then again, to spark evolution, all you need is to show a few generations of success, and all of the sudden, your set of traits become sexy.
This is the thing that gets some people when talking about evolution. It's not that the trait "becomes sexy". The individuals that found the trait sexy were more often attracted to individuals with that trait. There's an inheritable component to both the trait and to finding the trait sexy, which means that as more members of the population are descended from members with those traits, the trait becomes more prevalent.
Essentially, evolution doesn't cause things. Evolution is the description of what already happened.
But can you have different levels of fittest, and is it simply a count of children?
It's more involved. For example, if you have genes that cause you to look after your sibling's children, but not have children yourself, that gene can continue to thrive even if the individuals it is expressed in don't have children themselves. Your siblings have a mix of your genes, which means your nieces and nephews also share some of your genes. By having an uncle take care of them, the children have a chance of spreading the uncle's genes too, even if they don't have children. That makes the family group fitter than families that don't have these "uncle" genes.It's also important to understand, evolution is statistical. The individual doesn't matter.
-
"Sisters matter more than daughters."
-
Who made the call? Good on them.
-
-
-
Still using software safeties, but they can't be disabled now.
Next step: put the hardware safeties back in. Step after that: get HR to agree to summarily fire anyone who tries to remove the hardware safeties from the design.
-
All they are doing is letting the client set them up for a frivolous lawsuit.
-
The fittest is a group, not a single person representative of a set of qualities. The group being adapted enough to the environment to get to reproductive success, and do so the most times.
Incidentally, that was covered in a discussion about Nationalism here when it bridged over into group survival, with Nationalism being one possible group trait, for better or worse (I was arguing examples for better, to rebut another's apparent claim that it only makes things worse): https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/taxing-production-tests/49462/72
Also, to your point, an individual is not a species or race. A species by definition is a group, not an individual. Any discussion of evolution is typically taken from a species' perspective, as individuals do not evolve.
Think of an individual as a "sample snapshot" of its species as it appears today, with other variations likely available.
There could be multiple sets of qualities with enough fitness to get in the top reproductive set.
Like, say one could be a welfare baby factory.And the other could be the 18 going on... family.
Numbers are one way to increase the odds of one's genes propagate into the future. It is not a guarantee. One couple could have 18 kids who all die within 10 years of being born, so none have children. Another couple could have one kid who survives into adulthood, takes a mate and they have 5 kids of their own. The latter is more successful in this case, from an evolutionary perspective.
Good financial circumstances, mutual protection with others, having many kids, living long enough to protect those kids until they reach maturity, available workable medical/health care, etc. - are merely means to raising chances of being successful at achieving an end: propagation of the species. Success is measured in the creation of subsequent generations who are then able to create subsequent generations.
Filed under: I'm stopping right here before this turns into a freakin' novel that no one wants to read.
-
Final update...
The feature was removed. Still using software safeties, but they can't be disabled now.
You mean we've had this whole thread for nuffin? Sanity prevailed?
-
A species by definition is a group, not an individual.
Depends on how close to extinction the species is, doesn’t it?
-
Well, reality is stupid....
I hate reality....
runs off crying like a emo teenager
-
@nullptr said:
Final update...
The feature was removed. Still using software safeties, but they can't be disabled now.
You mean we've had this whole thread for nuffin? Sanity prevailed?
Has there been a tear in the space-time continuum? I feel like my world has just been turned upside down!
-
@Mikael_Svahnberg, post:182, topic:49482, full:false said:
You mean we've had this whole thread for muffins?
hmmm.... muffins....
Hungry....@Mikael_Svahnberg, post:182, topic:49482, full:false said:
Sanity prevailed?
Fixed
-
Sanityevolution prevailedThere!. Fixed that for
EVERYBODY
-
Success is measured in the creation of subsequent generations who are then able to create subsequent generations.
You might try measuring it in terms of the number of grandchildren.
-
But if those die out without reproducing.....
Let's try measuring it in terms of great grandchildren.
-
I think you measure what's alive right now. You're trying to predict the future, which is fine, but that's all just guesswork.
-
-
Apparently not. It would seem that there are a few
predatorspedantors about that haven't realised that it's all over, bar the finalextinctionexpiration.
-
-
Why live in the world when you can live in your head?
-
Speak for yourself, I've got lots.
-
Let's try measuring it in terms of great grandchildren.
You can, but that's starting to get annoying to implement. Number of grandchildren is a reasonable proxy though, since the generation in-between can then worry about the stage beyond that.
-
Any discussion of evolution is typically taken from a species' perspective, as individuals do not evolve
But natural selection pressures operate at the individual level rather than the species level (mores specifically, the level of each individual gene hence the uncle example above)
I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins, but back when he wrote about biology he was very good at it. The selfish gene is about how natural selection is expressed via genes passing on through generations
-
Still not as good as this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoA-m5iHG9sI wonder if it's safer though, even with the someone's-gonna-die issue in the OP.
Robot kills man at Volkswagen plant in Germany
A 22-year-old worker was grabbed by the robot and crushed against a metal plate
(The article appears to mis-date the first robot death as being in 1971, but others sources claim the same incident was actually in 1979.)
-
The dumbest person you know is smarter than the smartest person in 1200 AD.
Many people today have trouble with algebra. Algebra is not at all new. Babylonians were doing (some) algebra a few millennia before 1200 AD.
-
I attribute that line of thought to arrogance.
People think they're smart because someone else, during their lifetime, invented some thing / idea that's cool and they use / agree with it.
