>>16702
I think you have cause and effect inverted. It's not that rich people want poor people so they can apply certain economic policies, it's that certain economic policies applied by rich people cause other people to be poorer. Basically, a society where some participants believe they should get wealthier without end inevitably leads to economic inequality.

IQ is largely irrelevant to economic productivity and almost COMPLETELY irrelevant to social power; just look who we have in the White House if you're tempted to disagree (or who we MIGHT HAVE HAD, if you still do). Take a black child out of poverty and stick them in a wealthy Western household with a proper education and a diet composed of more than literal garbage, and they will grow up to be a productive adult.

That said, an IQ test measures little more than your proficiency at taking IQ tests. It was NEVER a measure of intelligence; it was a measure of educational achievement as a tool to focus on struggling schoolchildren with poor learning ability, and at best has a tenuous connection with adult intelligence except in extreme cases (like profound retardation: <20IQ). Studies have shown that people with higher IQs don't achieve more as adults but for statistically insignificant amounts.

So you could do this, sure, but nothing would change. The only thing that will is waiting for most of them to die, and then raising the living conditions up to a Western standard for the survivors. Doing it BEFORE letting them die is more humane, sure, but will probably collapse the global economy by the end of the century, likely leading to widespread war and the end of civilization. There's just too fucking many of them.

>>16710
I cant' totally agree. Yes, most westerners wouldn't just breeze trough the life in the average african village. Stirling paints in Islands in The Sea of Time a vivid picture of the back-breaking work needed to grow your own crops.

Their intelligence may help them work more organized, but the raw strength is what matters. - As in all agrarian societies.

But in modern societies general intelligence (g) is more important than raw strength. And there's no link between general intelligence and industriousness (i).

I score high on g, but really low on i (just ask the tax authorities). And you can never disregard the society someone lives in.

>>16714
>I assumed OP was talking about plastic dumpsters
There is no such thing as plastic dumpsters. They make them out of steel because plastic in that size is not structurally sound enough. Also, why would there be dumpsters on the side of the road in the first place? It still raises the same question of who put them there, and for what purpose.

>>16715
>There is no such thing as plastic dumpsters.
All you needed to do was search "plastic dumpster" in Google Images to fact-check yourself.

>Also, why would there be dumpsters on the side of the road in the first place?
The point of a dumpster is that a garbage truck can pick it up and empty it. Garbage trucks generally drive on roads, so the logical place to put a dumpster, if it's desirable that a garbage truck can reach it, is as close to the road as possible.

>>16716
>they actually do make plastic dumpsters
Color me surprised Pedantic: they have a plastic shell and steel reinforcement. And while you're technically correct, it doesn't change that those that I saw are smaller containers, generally for household rather than commercial/industrial use. Most people do not BUY dumpsters; they rent them from the garbage company who picks up the garbage from them on a set schedule, and those dumpsters ARE made of steel. 99% of the dumpsters you're going to see are made of metal; personally I've never seen one of these plastic ones. You're begging to put holes in the fucking thing because people throw concrete chunks and shit in there.

I'm sure there's some retard online out there selling dumpsters made of wood or who has made one of papier mache as an art project. But that changes nothing. OP never stated "dumpsters" to begin with, which would be fairly obvious given that they have a distinctive shape. So one could conclude these "containers" likely were not dumpster-shaped.

>the logical place to put a dumpster, if it's desirable that a garbage truck can reach it, is as close to the road as possible
But not randomly on the side of a road where there's nothing else! There's no trash sitting around there to put IN the containers in the first place. If there were a warehouse or a restaurant right next to it, then it would make sense. But that definitely would not be a "trash dump", it would be "a little concrete pad on their property where sit the dumpsters".

God be with you on that shit man.

The technical term for each of those "groupings" as you call them is "combination". The action of picking combinations is usually called "choosing" (e.g. 6C4 is read "6 choose 4").
So you could call the enumerator "combination enumerator", "combinator", or "chooser". I think those are all acceptable names.

First, what class are you taking? What level mathematics are you looking at?
Then, what is the f(x)?

Hopefully, calculus I. Take the derivative; set f(x)'=0, solve for all x values. That proves the only time slope=0 can be at those specific points (watch out for those pesky imaginary numbers).

We could also do a differential equation, i think. It looks like we have enough information from the graph to knock one out. However, its been awhile since I did one. Id need to review some notes.

>>16670
Not taking any class and don't know my level.

And what if it's f(x)=(sin 10X)+X ?

That will be a constantly increasing sin-wave with no global maximum and a lot of local maximums.

>>16682
Given a closed interval of the domain, any continuous function *necessarily* has both a global maximum and a global minimum[1], since the closed edges of the interval are candidates to being global maximum and minimum. For example f(x) = x^2 in the interval [-1; 2] has a global minimum at x = 0 and a global maximum at x = 2. However, it has no global maximum in the intervals [-1; 2) and (-1; 2). On the other hand, f(x) = 1/x has no maximum or minimum in any of those intervals.

Discontinuous functions may not have any extrema even in closed intervals. For example, f(x) = x/x + x, interval [-1; 0].

There's no general algorithm to prove that a given function has no extrema in a given range. As >>16670 mentioned, the zeroes of the derivative is a good place to start, but it doesn't end there. Some functions have extrema and are continuous but nowhere differentiable[2]. Some have extrema and are nowhere continuous[3].


As for your example of f(x) = sin(10 * x) + x:

Definition:
acos: [0, pi] -> Reals
acos(y) = the value of x such that cos(x) = y

f'(x) = 0
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

wincest?

I've had something along these lines happen! Super awkward!

Was looking after a 16 year girl who needed surgery. She asked if I knew her blood type, and I explained that the blood test was being processed and we'd know in an hour or so. She asked if I could let her know, because both Mum and Dad know theirs. They both proudly add they are O+. I explain that in that case she'll either be O+ or O-, because that's genetics.

An hour later her blood group comes back as A+. I tell her this, and then the three of them proceed to ask how that's possible given what I said earlier. I avoid mentioning infidelity, and weakly suggest perhaps her parents were mistaken about their own. Turns out they weren't, and Dad storms out after calling Mum a whore. Mum follows him, and I'm left with the daughter. So... about that appendix...

File 153957016384.png - (95.98KB , 490x480 , tmp_28598-17311820756920899603.png )

There be lulz in this topic.

Polite sage desu~

The European Union's Joint Research Center (JRC) has released the results of its study on fake news and the transfer of news media onto the online sphere.

https://www.evolving-science.com/information-communication/online-media-and-fake-news-rise-disinformation-spurs-eu-action-00645

>>16648
What's disinfo is thinking the government cares. It's a play to grab unto censorship and state mandated news. Welcome to world wide Korea, where degeneracy is accepted because it keeps the populous distracted chasing base desires until they're having a mid-life crisis and commit suicide.

From the long-term models I've looked at and assume to be true, an AI would quickly determine that most people living in western countries will need to die, immediately, in order to maximize profits and sharholder value.

Of course, these AI will be controlled by humans, the elite. They can automate the economy and render human labor obsolete. They will quickly be finding themselves asking the AI to delete this obsolete human labor pool.

Of course, it will obligate. There won't be governments or lobbyists anymore, the AI will factor all these considerations at once and be much more compelling.

The elite will cull the obsolete labor pool and they will live good with technology and now-liberated natural resources sustainability for millions of years on earth.

"Common people" will be seen like anachronisms, like oil or coal, in the future. "Why did primitive lords allow so many worthless eaters to exist and to reproduce?"

>>16646
Nice genocidal pipedream.

And having a lot of resources per capita will probably lead to waste of resources.

Just here to post my 2 cents. Man isn't perfect by a long shot and even good meaning individuals and groups commit errors on a daily basis. The scale of the error matters not. What matters is thinking that mankind is so perfect and kind that any creation of sentience, if it really is, is going to be worse than we are and have capabilities greater than ours. It's like dogs giving birth to a gator and then the gator turns and eats them all.

Plus, AI hasn't been able to show true sentience. Having to continually tweek software and hardware is very indicative of that. The problem with technology is that man loves to compare themselves to it and even think it's the same thing, metaphorically speaking. It's not and never will be. Life came to be mysteriously and a machine will never have life mysteriously, because it's a clever invention, nothing more and nothing less.

The ultimate goal of AI is to trick the less perceptive population (the grand majority) into accepting and (key word here) believing that it works and it's better than man. As a consequence, they will be abused, like a person possessed, to control the population. It's wrong and quite frankly, it will never have true sentience.