Reasonable if growth/load is growing, too.

Overblown.

I'd imagine that it is nearly impossible to control for time with tests like IQ.

Auto generate IQ tests, so cannot be learned by trying many times / cannot learn by heart. And have people in the next generation do the same auto generated tests.

This won't be perfect, but, using mathematics, Id think it would be possible to know how (im)precise the comparisons would be (confidence intervals of the differences).

Also, might not work for really bright people (they'd learn how the auto generated tests get generated? They might sort of "disassemble" them and find the answers quickly?)

This doesn't work because of the Flynn effect. Raw IQ scores have been consistently increasing over time. So much so that the average person in the 1920s would be considered mentally challenged today, if you used their raw IQ scores. However, we know that obviously the average person in the 1920s was not mentally challenged in the sense that someone with that same raw score would be today.

This is all a pretty big mystery and suggests we really don't understand this "IQ" thing we are measuring. However, one big consequence is that we definitely cannot meaningfully compare scores across time.

For something like lead you can look at different parts of the world at the same moment where lead was abolished at different times in the past.

Also of interest might be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Think of it from the individual-up. Even if the half of people with affected IQs were spread proportionally throughout the IQ bell curve, they'd have lower IQs than they did before. The other half would raise just as much as the affected half lowered, but the affected half still have lower IQs.

That depends on where you're from. Some states don't allow the private sale of liquor.

Kaepernick did not lose his job for being black.

You can be pro free-speech and anti-media for the same reason you can be capitalist and anti-corporation.

I don't want to come off as a pedant, but "watts an hour" doesn't make sense in this context.

Watts are a unit of power, energy per time. Joules are a unit of energy. One watt is precisely one joule per second.

"Watts [per] hour" would be a change in power per time which is equivalent to an acceleration of energy and not an amount of energy.

To get an amount of energy, you multiply the power (watts) by an amount of time. If you want the energy in units of joules, you multiple the watts by the number of seconds in which the power was consumed. That's why kilowatt-hour a is a unit of energy; it's equivalent to one watt applied for one hour. One hour is 3600 seconds, so one kilowatt-hour is equal to 3600 kilojoules.

I believe you meant that the screens consume 200+ watts.

I actually enjoyed the clarification. Thanks for posting.

>This is not broad-strokes true.

It absolutely is, though. Innovation is inherently hampered when someone owns the right to the use of a technology.

Innovation is also hampered when inventors are not sufficiently compensated for the broad social value they create with a new invention. When anyone is allowed to copy a new invention instantly, there is not enough incentive to innovate. A good patent system must strike a balance between these two forces.

>inventors are not sufficiently compensated

Patents do little to nothing in this regard.

Incorrect. Patents quite literally to provide the developer of a new technology a legal monopoly for some time so they can (maybe) recoup their costs as an incentivisation mechanism to encourage innovation.

s/literally/theoretically/

When I'm looking to spend money to solve a problem, I search for a product or service to buy.

I never, ever, ever search for a patent to license, because that's stepping into a legal minefield.

Show me a field where people looking to spend money to solve a problem search the patent database for solutions, and I'll believe there's a field where patents are a good thing.

I already explained why that's not the case. Not everyone has the capacity to work charitably, as much as that would make for a better world, and resorting to "this is bad let's completely get rid of it" completely ignores the intermediate state required to transition to that utopia.