If you actually want to find out, instead of 'believing,' then go read the actual studies, for that is where knowledge is to be found.

I am not a psychologist, where do I find such things? Even the responses to my post are all over the place. I'm not doing a "citation please" troll, but all I have found in my searches is very contradictory evidence and in PRACTICE IQ is the gating factor in most texas school districts, and several others I've looked at. IQ continues to be seen as the gold standard practice, or metrics that amount to the same. Innate ability is preferred over achievement. Yet any time you look at IQ results you see it strongly correlated with things that clearly have nothing to do with intelligence (race, upbringing, background, flynn effect, etc.). If psychologists have deprecated IQ or related metrics (i.e. g, and others), why do they still exist? My opinion is it has more to do with money than actual science, but it remains in belief until I can justify it to myself.

I disagree about what companies want, at any given time I am usually employed by one of the top end tech companies, they're all relatively similar. Companies still being seen in a growth phase (which are companies I try to be at, because $$$) tends to want to hire geniuses, we set the bar extremely high and effectively administer an IQ test (granted a very narrowly focused one). We don't make you demonstrate experience, we make you solve problems on the fly, under pressure in a test-taker format. Companies that have peaked want to hire the cheapest person they can find who is fit to do the job, but give them a way to quantify that and I assure you they'd be all over it and make spreadsheets with a red line on it.

That's fine so long as the device manufacturer continues to make replacement batteries. For example, now that 10 inch laptops are hard to find new, where should one find a replacement battery pack after the maker of one's existing laptop EOLs it?

Khan Academy isn't smart. I watched one of their "courses" on moments of inertia. It's a colored etch-a-sketch of someone writing, with voiceovers. There were major factual errors and wrong signs. It's low-budget content with no proofreading or editing. Subjecting kids to that is just wrong.

If we're going to have have massive online courses, the quality needs to come up to at least History Channel level.

Never? Toy safety regulations in some countries require certain classes of battery-powered devices to have a screw on the battery door so that toddlers can't open it and eat the batteries.

My fault. I parsed "like" to mean "such as". I could do without the abusive language though.

And there are many applications not ported to Android. If your employer is a member of the iOS Developer Enterprise Program, its internally developed apps are among them.

I'll grant that it's not the best option for rural dwellers.

I bring a device on which to browse Slashdot and Cracked and edit All The Tropes. Others may bring an electronic or paper book. But because more than one load runs at once, the total time spent babysitting loads is less.

I think the point is that more rated peak power doesn't necessarily mean more average power over the course of use.

Why do you actually care how much time your washing machine uses?

Because although you can do other things while it runs, you really can't just take off and go about your day (Ever had an unbalanced washer shake itself loose of the drain hookup? Not a pretty sight). So if you have four or five loads to do on a typical Saturday, at one hour per load it means getting out of the house by noon to enjoy the day; at 2.5 hours per load, it effectively kills your entire day.

Dogs are cute cats that are also dumb. Encourage your dog with a growth mindset and one day he may be a cat.

If this is true, why do psychologists continue to focus so much on IQ? Why do they insist there is a strong, undeniable link between IQ and success that must be catered to? Why has funding for students who, as they say, "are merely bright, but not gifted" entirely disappeared in favor of a fully mainstream approach? Why are the hard working students who achieve but who are not obvious savants lumped in with the merely average, and worst, the probably hopeless (whatever the reason)?

Is this real science, or feel good "also-ran" science for the ignorant and unspecial, as one might be led to believe if one actually believed psychology was anything like actual science? We all want to believe articles like this are true, IQ is a bitter pill to swallow and one that seems even murkier the more one reads about it, however it represents our cultures mindset towards success. No company wants a merely bright hard-working person, they want a genius, they worship that genius. Give an academic institution a test, and they will run off with the truly exceptional students (the SATs allegedly correlate to IQ at 0.82, so they actually DO this). Give a corporation that test and they'll probably rather do without than hire anyone with an IQ below 120, which of course, represents the majority of people.

I prefer to believe what is in this article in the same way that I prefer to believe in Free Will, but, however disappointing this may be, this does not reflect the prevailing attitudes of people that matter. Nothing in this article is substantial enough to use as a weapon to change education, and ultimately it's just feel good drivel, much like I think the IQ studies to date are, although sadly they represent the established convention. From a magazine like Scientific American I want something I can USE to make change.

If you have that much laundry to do regularly, you could always do it at the coin laundry instead of buying and maintaining a washer and dryer, buying water to run the washer, and buying gas or electric power to heat the water and dryer.

Confusing with Bill and Ted? Someone in #nesdev last night confused Bill and Ted with Wayne's World so I can see how it might happen.

Let me rephrase: What makes a thing "related to computing"?

I thought some middlemen were standard operating procedure in selling physical goods. I buy from a middleman when I buy anything at Walmart or Amazon. I bought my ASUS Nexus 7 tablet from Google Play Store; is that too much of a middleman?