> b/c he was clear about who he is and what he was going to do.
This was a much needed change; because it was insane having a dementia patient as a president. I dont mean that hyperbolically; the democratic party was ready to have him serve another 4 years when he couldnt hold his train of thought on the debate stage. The democratic party needs to explain why his mental condition was swept under the rug at the expense of the American people.
For sure there are - I currently drive a '96 Toyota T100, which I bought for $5500 a few years back. It is reliable as hell, but the miles take their toll, and one must keep up with the maintenance. Timing belt, water pump, brake calipers, starter motor, etc... they wear out, and it adds up; but it still costs less overall than a newer car would.
I've done plenty of wrenching in my time, out of necessity and enjoyment alike (used to do a lot of jeeping, then motorcycling), though these days I usually prefer to employ professionals. That's why I prefer older vehicles I can afford to buy outright: I can trade time against money, depending on which I happen to have more of at the moment, instead of being locked in to the fixed monthly expense I'd have with a low-mileage car.
Timing belt is a 10 year maintenance item. ~1000 dollars mostly labor
Waterpump is replaced at the same time as the timing belt, and they rarely fail now a days. ~ 300 bucks for one as added part during the timing belt labor
I assume you are talking about brake pads as calipers rarely fail, 5-7 year maintenance interval, easy DIY job ~500 for a set of 4.
Starter motors also very rarely fail I've had the same one for 20 years in my rx8 hpde toy. Even still they are ~200 bucks and literally 2 bolts and 30 minutes of time.
We havent even hit 2000 dollars yet in critical maintenance over 10 years. If you actually knew anything about wrenching you wouldn't be saying newer cars are easier and cheaper to work on either. I dont know how you are doing 1000/ year on maintenance on an ICE but then again you presumably offroad " jeeping " which would make your experience an outlier on what commuter cars actually experience for yearly maintenance.
You asserted that ICE maintenance is cost prohibitive, but when I break down the cost its called nitpicking? New car note cheaper than maintenance. Yeah youre a wrenchlet. bye
Someone quoted a figure for electric car maintenance, as a downside to the technology. I remarked that this actually sounded pretty good, relative to my experience with ICE cars. Someone else observed that I could choose to buy cars with a lower maintenance cost. I agreed that this was true but explained why I prefer to do things the way I do. Then you came along with a chip on your shoulder and started griping, for reasons known only to yourself.
>Someone quoted a figure for electric car maintenance, as a downside to the technology.
It is a downside compared to ICE maintenance which is significantly lower.
>Life is full of trade-offs: if I did that, I'd have to carry a loan
to which I replied there are plenty of cars sub 10K which you wouldnt need a loan for and that you could easily maintain for less than 1000/year
>I remarked that this actually sounded pretty good, relative to my experience with ICE cars
When I broke down the cost of the maintenance items YOU listed as over 1000/year over 10 years I said that those items you listed dont need maintenance every year, and the cost of replacing them is far less than 1000 dollars a year. To which you replied that I was nitpicking
> Then you came along with a chip on your shoulder and started griping, for reasons known only to yourself.
Im not griping I am just telling you that you are wrong when you say that 13k/10 years is cheaper than the maintenance items you listed. Just like the other guy said.
Then again you own a jeep and you know what they say about jeep: Just Empty Every Pocket :P
Its actually 60-80% heritable. The twin adoption study showed that twins raised in different environment have the same IQ. It also makes sense logically; why would only physical characteristics be heritable and not mental ones.
>Read Bourdieu
"Bourdieu contended there is transcendental objectivity, [definition needed] only when certain necessary historical conditions are met."
You're saying "60-80% heritable" as if that meant something. But you're also wrong: not only do separated twins raised in different SES settings have differing IQ results, but the heritability of IQ itself (whatever its cause) is also SES-dependant.
recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[8] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults."
Bouchard, Thomas J. (7 August 2013). "The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"
This doesn't respond to what I just said. Heritability is not evidence of genetic determinism. It makes sense that age would amplify both any extant genetic influences on intelligence, and any gene-environment interactions, while minimizing shared environment facts. The basic idea of "heritability" isn't in question; the genetic determination and fixity of intelligence is.
Heritability is genetic determinism. It's not like you get a different set of genes as you age. Are you indirectly saying that the genes responsible for physical characteristics follow different rules than the genes responsible for intelligence? Like could your environmental factors change your height? I would say maybe it is something in the middle like the genes determine your maximum potential in physical and mental expression.
No, it very obviously is not. This isn't something we need to argue; you can simply go look it up. The number of fingers on your hands: not very heritable. Whether you wear lipstick: very heritable.
You can set your watch to people on message boards making arguments about the genetic determination of intelligence that rely almost entirely on heritability statistics. It seems pretty clearly to be a cargo culting phenomenon; how else could you have very specific heritability numbers without even knowing what the term means? I'm curious where you got it from.
Heritability means that parents having a trait explains, in a statistical sense, some amount of how much a randomly chosen person has a trait. So some of heritability is genetics and some is the shared environment.
For example, someone is quite likely to speak the same first language as their parents, and for this reason, the statistics for heritability come up with a high number for how heritable a trait first language is. But this isn’t because of some English-speaking gene, it’s because lots of environmental conditions are common between parents and children.
The intuitive reason that the number of fingers on your hand is not heritable is because lots of the variation comes from injuries which are not explained very much by whether one’s parents lost fingers from injury. Genetic causes for an unusual number of fingers are much less common than accidents and so can’t cause much of the variation that is observed across a population.
Because it is quite reasonable to get a high heritability number for something that is not genetically determined (and a low number for something that is), one cannot really argue anything about genetic determinism from heritability numbers.
>some of heritability is genetics and some is the shared environment.
This is not the definition of heritability you are mincing words.
Heres the definition of heritability:
(HAYR-ih-tuh-BIH-lih-tee) The proportion of variation in a population trait that can be attributed to inherited GENETIC factors.
>For example, someone is quite likely to speak the same first language as their parents, and for this reason, the statistics for heritability come up with a high number for how heritable a trait first language is.
you are conflating inheritability with heritability.
The reason we are able to have crops that yield more is because we genetically modified them to do so; not because we grew wild corn in the perfect environment.
You're lost here. Heritability is defined technically as h^2 = V_a / V_p, with V_a additive genetic variance and V_p phenotypical variance. Look at your hands. The number of fingers on it are extremely genetically determined; the Hox genes that define your body plan are very conserved. V_a is practically zero. But plenty of people have fewer than 5 fingers, and some are born that way (for instance, children exposed in utero to Thalidomide); V_p is nonzero. Evaluate the expression (0/nonzero).
If you read your own words carefully, you're trying to rebut the parent commenter with their own argument.
You cited this reference up thread: "The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age". It should give you pause for your definition of heritability that this paper is saying it changes with age. As you point out a couple of comments later, genes don't change with age.
If you're going to cite heritability numbers, you have to use the technical definition of heritability (which is what these papers are using).
(HAYR-ih-tuh-BIH-lih-tee) The proportion of variation in a population trait that can be attributed to inherited genetic factors.
The study title is saying that heritability INCREASES with age: as you age your IQ is more closely correlated to the IQ of your parents from whom you inherited your genes from.
>As you point out a couple of comments later, genes don't change with age.
Your genes dont change but the correlation between you and your parents IQ does.
You're not making sense. If heritability means genetic determination, as you say it does, and genes are fixed at birth, then heritability can't change as you age.
None of what you're being told is first-principles axiomatic reasoning. This is all stuff you can just go look up. You got so close with that Wikipedia definition of heritability! All you need to do now is understand what those words mean.
Correlation is not causation. Generally, adoptive families in these studies come from similar socio-economic backgrounds [1].
With your theory, how would you explain adopted refugees children doing much better at IQ tests than they would have if the stayed in their home countries?
Also dismissing Bourdieu as a midwit? Yeah, ok. Come back when you actually want to expand your world view.
From your own low-effort wikipedia 1st google result link:
" recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[8] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults."
Bouchard, Thomas J. (7 August 2013). "The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"
As for Bourdieu:
"Bourdieu was in practice both influenced by and sympathetic to the Marxist identification of economic command as a principal component of power and agency within capitalist society."
"According to Bourdieu, tastes in food, culture and presentation are indicators of class because trends in their consumption seemingly correlate with an individual's place in society."
If both of these were true you would never have class mobility. I do well for myself but still like hamhocks and beans.
"I like beans but I'm rich, checkmate". You're an idiot.
People do not grow up in isolated vats, and social class is one of the largest influence on one's life. Obviously there are exceptions, not 100% of your life is determined by that. If you can't even fathom how your social class might inform your taste on red wine and such then I don't see what more we have to talk about. Goodbye.
You're making swathing character attacks and claiming that you are qualified to know who is qualified. If anyone has a hero complex its you with your emotional argument and alarmism.
Very compelling argument, definitely not partisan rhetoric.
Because hes not arguing in good faith for the truth of the matter. Even if you posted that someone was getting all 9billion of that administrative budget as salary; the next argument would be " ah that employee is worth 9billion no fraud here". The standard of proof hes looking for is likely a direct admission of guilt and intent lol.
This was a much needed change; because it was insane having a dementia patient as a president. I dont mean that hyperbolically; the democratic party was ready to have him serve another 4 years when he couldnt hold his train of thought on the debate stage. The democratic party needs to explain why his mental condition was swept under the rug at the expense of the American people.