If you're going to call physical sports ability intelligence, then you'd have already known he was more intelligent than the "common soccer player" before this study.

Everything uses the brain. A person more practiced at willful ignorance might, for example, use less brain power overcoming cognitive dissonance than a "common partisan mouth-breather" without the same level of experience. Does that make them more intelligent, less intelligent, or just better at a certain arbitrary skill?

Humans are generalists, most things we do will involve the brain. But that doesn't make everything we do intelligent.

You're almost there, buddy. Now the next step to understand is that being a meditative performance state, or being in a rage state, is temporal. A person might be a meditative state at one moment, and then get frustrated that they didn't score a goal, lose their meditative state, become enraged, and bite your ear off. None of that contradicts anything, or claims that it is somehow the nature of the human. You can be normal, too, and you can be momentarily enlightened, just like most other people. Don't sell yourself short.

In the nerves that attach to the muscle, yes. It is distributed.

When other parts of the nervous system are taking on a load, there is less load in the brain. The same thing is true in any similar system like an electrical circuit, hydraulic system, or heat distributor.

It is well established that the limbs can respond, in certain situations like this, faster than the most simplistic analysis would presume. If you measure the amount of time it would take the signals to go from the eye through the brain to the conscious parts and then send a signal to another part of the brain to send a signal to the limb, well, an advanced athlete already moved before that signal would arrive.

The details of that are not well known yet. Certain things like flinching from a poke to the finger are well understood; the nerve in your arm tells your muscle to move at the same time it is forwarding the signal up to your brain. UNLESS before the poke your brain was sending a "don't react" signal of some sort. How that part works is unknown, except that people can do it.

Martial artists sometimes have similar response abilities to a soccer prodigy. It is usually called "mind of no mind," the ability to move and think with your whole body, without invoking the conscious part of the brain. It is generally believed to require extensive meditation practice in order to program the nerves with the catalog of responses.

Muscle memory is a totally different thing, though.

As a rated chess player I have to say, "What a load!"

Calculation vs "pattern recognition" isn't even the dichotomy used in chess. And pattern recognition is mostly considered to be part of the calculating process. The strategic process ("positional" play) is based on a wide variety of things, very little of which is pattern recognition. For the master, anyways. For the club player it is pattern recognition because they have little understanding and just have to match the learned rules of thumb (patterns) to the position.

But at the higher levels of chess it is well established that the top players (for decades!) use a balanced style that doesn't favor any part of the game or any particular style, and the players with a strong style or preference do not score consistently and are lower rated.

Strategic play is not pattern matching, it is based on extensive understanding, on having studied a large number of games, broken them down into concepts, and then deciding which concepts overlap in which places. You can't just match patterns, you have to have an understanding, and apply it. Pattern matching is without that semantic element. The same pattern will have a different meaning depending on edge subtleties, and those subtleties are what positional play is about.

Pattern matching is mostly part of "tactical" (non-strategic) play, where you find a type of weakness that can be exploited by force. Pattern matching tells the chess player which lines to calculate. So calculation cannot be the opposite to pattern recognition.

I've never heard football called "elegant," but in soccer they have flop plays where you elegantly throw yourself to the ground and squeal like a stuck pig.

If you don't care who owns it, then being a home owner doesn't make a difference. You can go out and pull somebody's meter off your residence in an emergency the same regardless of if you're a home owner. Since the meter isn't yours, being a home owner makes as much difference as what you ate for breakfast.

Just be sure it is actually necessary, because the owner is a lot more likely to bill you if it was just paranoia.

Generally in the US the meter is owned by the utility and home ownership isn't invoked at all.

All the chain link fences around here are grounded to Earth every 6ft. Obviously they're not grounded to electrical specifications, mostly because they're not intended to be electrical. Doesn't stop them from being well grounded, though.

Not half as bad as what you've got.

You don't know about the music industry, that is okay. Here is how it works: the album sales go almost entirely to the record company. The artist might see $1 per album.

The artist keeps most of the performance revenue. This is why there are old rockers like the Rolling Stones who keep playing from their deathbeds. It is great money, and the only great money the performers have access to.

And the radio money is divided between the songwriter and the record company. Lots of musicians who are well known but not in the top-xx list actually make their money from being the songwriter on their own songs that get radio play. Or, very commonly, all their money comes from being the songwriter on covers! For example the song Jet Airliner was written and recorded by Paul Pena on one of his albums, and then the cover by the Steve Miller Band, who made it a radio hit. Paul Pena was literally living off those songwriter royalties as his health declined.

Artists don't make anything significant from album sales. Sorry you guessed wrong.

That feeling you're feeling is fanboiyitis.

You just claimed your SysV init scripts are helping your software take advantage of cgroups. Then you called me names. Derrrrrrrrrr!

It is just lies and handwaving, "an enormous amount" of "unrelated" software... except, not.

Your best example is that different vim meta-packages conflict? Yeah, generally with meta-packages, you choose one. And then you can also install an extra version from source in your home dir. That is the normal way to install 2. Sounds like user error. You set it up so you have to use sudo, with no backup access, and then removed sudo, and blamed systemd? Exactly.

One optional is not different than the other optional. I can assure you, as somebody who read the story, that it is "optional" as in "optional" and there is nothing about any of it that would create a technical reason for it to not be optional. It is like saying that if X is ported to OSX, then Linux users will have to switch to macs. It is complete nonsense. Conspiracy-theory level nonsense. In fact, an optional feature being accused of having some plot to become mandatory... that is a conspiracy theory! lolol

If you read your own link you'll find there is no conspiracy at all, arch is just a sucky distro that doesn't have the dependency tree mapped out well enough for users to choose the combination of packages they want. It then goes into a bunch of personal attack against the author. Who wrote the software does not matter; the software runs the same either way. So as soon as you see those types of attacks, you should really be able to recognize that you're being offered a clique-attack, and not a real technical objection.

You link seems to suggest that a software developer should not be allowed opinions; should not be allowed to push for distros to standardize on their ideas. You'd be out of developers if you enforced that consistently. But as is fitting of a clique-attack, they only set this standard for the one person they're circling around.

If you think Arch Linux discourages choice, my advice is to use Fedora. It is funny too, since the guy you hate so much works for RedHat. But RedHat's distros have the time (and money) to build out the dependency trees so that you DO have choice. And as a RedHat employee, why would you blame Arch sucking on him???

Go look up how old SysV init scripts are, and then ask yourself if those decades count as "any time soon" from when it was adopted. It is silly to start the measurement now, after decades of sysadmins complaining about the poor feature set. You spend decades being told, "we'll have something better someday" and then when it finally arrives and works and does all the stuff that sysadmins wanted (cgroups, better logging, etc) then people are worrying if it is too "soon." Well geeeeeeeeeee, why wouldnn't it be late? Seems like a fake complaint to me. Not sure how you can compare it to cars with joysticks, which drivers haven't been asking for.

Also, it is very telling about your attitude that instead of addressing what sysadmins say is good about systemd, you just call it names like "octopus." Yes, I'll agree they didn't request any of the features using pejoratives. People who value a feature set usually discuss it using real terms. So the feature requests are not "octopus" but "modular centralized logging" and "better process groups" and "parallel service startup" and "effective service dependencies." All of these things are directly related to what SysV init does too. Just because it is less effective at them, you count it as doing one thing. Except there is more than one thing that has to happen right there, and SysV init does more than one thing too.

The KISS argument is especially daft. How is a mishmash pile of init and scripts and logging somehow more simple? Every part is complicated because it is a giant "pile." And process management is complicated with SysV by the complete lack of needed security and management features. cgroups reduces overall system complexity by providing a means of managing process groups. cgroups are a new feature in the linux kernel. It exists for real reasons. I guess you think it would reduce complexity and keep it simple to just tack on cgroups to what SysV init already did, right? Oh, wait, you only want it to do strictly one thing. Except it already does more than one. So just, no cgroups, right?

None of your complaints are actual problems with systemd. It is just repeated propaganda. And nobody using a software package cares if you don't need all the features, like faster boot time. Isn't it rather freakin' obvious that that is a feature that is going to be valuable for many use cases? You don't have that use case, fine. And if you did, would you still be against software that provides it?

You really think systemd makes it so humans can't troubleshoot? Wow, those sysadmins celebrating it must be alien superheros. Oh, wait, no. We're humaans after all. Trust me, humans without an irrational hatred of systemd have no trouble at all troubleshooting it. There are even cheat sheets that map the old commands, to the new equivalent ones. It would be a funny set of arguments to listen to if somebody claimed that youngsters who learn on systemd would have an easy time troubleshooting an old SysV box, based on this claim that SysV is more amenable to human troubleshooting. I guess you'd have to resort to comparisons that claim that SysV is even easier than DOS, because learning bash scripting and the standard SysV sh libraries is so much easier than learning that an .ini file has sections.

You do understand that optional support for systemd doesn't have anything to do with requiring it, so it wouldn't impact OSes that don't use it... right?

Talk about d' oh! lolol