What's the best laptop that is not Fatally Flawed?
Non-free BIOS/EFI = Fatally Flawed
Non-free drivers = Fatally Flawed
Macbook Pro, pic related
T61
>>52191093
Imaginary Laptop by Non-Existent Company
>>52191216
Why are they all producing fatally flawed laptops?
>>52191216
They do exist. However, most people won't appreciate the specs.
>>52191303
They are not interested in promoting freedom. The status quo is all about encouraging users to buy into their curated gardens.
>>52191333
I'm interested, got any links to said laptops?
>>52191494
http://libreboot.org/docs/hcl/index.html#supported_list
Quite old laptops but you can build a high-end AMD Opteron workstation with 100% free software, up to 2x CPU with 16 cores each.
>>52191507
Nicely.
I'm a Lenovo fan as it happens. I don't need anything high spec so I'm going to look into this as a thing for myself.
Glhf with your search family.
>>52191093
#triggered
Median is the word he's looking for, not average.
I'm pretty sure less than 50% of the population is less intelligent than the average because outliers on the less intelligent side are likely further from the average level of intelligence than people on the intelligent side.
>>52191690
I thought that IQ=100 defined the average and median intelligence of a population.
>>52191690
>Median is the word he's looking for, not average.
They are the same thing in a Gaussian distribution.
>>52191093
Why is Richard Dawkins so based?
>>52191721
The intelligence of the population is not a Gaussian distribution.
I think the mentally handicapped people with an incredibly low intelligence weigh more than the geniuses with an incredibly high IQ, which means more than half of the population is above the average level of intelligence.
>>52191690
Honestly, we should have government ran eugenics and weed out about 75% of the population. That should remove the unintelligent and undesirables from society.
>>52191815
>The intelligence of the population is not a Gaussian distribution.
Yes, it is. It's also commonly called a bell curve distribution in social science, or more formally a normal distribution.
This is Statistics 101 tier. Take that course sometime.
>>52191844
This, NEETs are first to go.
>>52191857
That's nice for making models, but it assumes that for every mentally handicapped person there's a genius equally far off of the average, which is completely unrealistic.
>>52191690
I believe we can safely guess that you belong to the lower part of the IQ spectrum.
>>52191908
Your opinion doesn't agree with the data. And that's fine. Lots of people have opinions that are simply wrong.
>>52191878
And religious people also. If you believe in a magic sky man, I must assume you're a low intelligent neanderthal.
>>52191844
I'd also say euthanize anyone with autism or who doesn't have a full time job/ full time education
>>52191093
But... would he touch poop for $20?
>>52191925
>>52191950
Let me simplify it for you:
Let's say 10 is the average level of intelligence.
The distribution could be either like:
6,10,12,12
8,8,10,14
6,10,14
The average is 10 in each case, but the median is 11,9,10 respectively. In case 1 the majority is above the average, in case 2 the majority is below the average.
I find it likely that the distribution is more like case 1 than like case 2, because the dumb people are more significantly dumb than smart people smart.
>>52191975
>magic sky man
>>52192039
Listen: you choose a model that fits your data, not the other way around.
Take statistics 101 if you're actually interested in how this works. This is really basic stuff that you're getting wrong.
>>52192039
I think we all know what median/average is. The problem is that IQ curve is provably Gaussian, you example holds no ground whatsoever.
>>52191975
>>52192067
Atheists too, no point in having closed minded people in a universe where physics denying black holes exist
i'm doing a mensa test next week, what should i expect?
>>52192098
Mensa is just a scam ran by a bunch of pricks who like to circlejerk about how intelligent they are.
>>52191303
>Why are they all producing fatally flawed laptops?
Because in the real world, no one gives a flying fuck about whether something is free or not
Step out of your room for once you fat piece of shit
>>52192096
What part of black holes deny physics?
>>52192121
It's not a scam when you get what they advertise.
http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom
This link contains some laptop's endorsed by the FSF. You could also get the Novena Laptop:
> https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/novena
>>52192074
I do know statistics 101, I do know how these things work. But this goes further than some basic abstraction.
First thing there is not such thing as perfect level of intelligence data, it will remain speculation to some degree.
Secondly if there were perfect data, the chance that the amount of people more intelligent than average would be exactly 50% would be 0%, because the accuracy would be unlimited.
Your basic abstraction of the data will make the average equal the median, but it would be somewhat *inaccurate*.
This inaccuracy comes from the fact that abstract the population's intelligence denies the fact that factors like diseases and brain damage can make people a LOT dumber, but there's not so much of a similar thing to make people to such extent and amount smarter.
If you do ignore that, then sure, the average is the median, but in reality that's just not the case.
>>52192074
>Listen: you choose a model that fits your data
How is his model not fitting the data? It's an asymmetric Gaussian distribution.
>>52192147
The very nature and existence of them.
>>52191950
>Your opinion doesn't agree with the data
Ok, then can you prove that for every Downie there's a symmetric genius? Or are you going to repeat "it's Gaussian because I say Gaussian and you should study"?
>>52192327
But their existence was predicted before they were found. If they didn't exist it'd be a surprise.
>>52192327
The statement "this denies physics" doesn't even make sense. Physics is a field of study, not a model. They can defy Relativity or whatever, but not physics itself.
>>52192348
It took about 200 years to prove black holes existed when they were first theorized and even then people were skeptical if they existed or not.
>>52192382
I forget how close minded atheists are I guess I should've said break laws of physics*
>>52191815
Intelligence isn't.
But IQ is.
Dawkins stays wrong though.
>>52192430
But it doesn't. You just have no clue what you're talking about, don't blame me. What you meant to say here >>52192396 was "black holes were theorized, but not accepted because they went against Classical Mechanics, which was the most widely-accepted theory at the time". They went against a THEORY, not against a FIELD.
It didn't deny Physics in the same way bitcoin didn't deny Economics.
>>52192485
Different word for virtually the same thing, hide your autism anon
>>52191975
>If you believe in a magic sky man, I must assume you're a low intelligent neanderthal.
It's just compartmentalization. Someone can be highly intelligent, but hold irrational beliefs. Mainly because he is unwilling to touch them for whatever reason.
It's not necessarily an intellectual defect.
>>52192096
>atheism is derived from the laws of physics
Nope. Even if the laws of physics were completely refuted tomorrow, that would not make the existence of a god more likely.
>>52191878
it's like you WANT a NEET uprising.
>>52191093
isnt it kinda sad that all there is to this guy is that he's an atheist? like those faggots that are as flamboyant and ridiculous as possible about it because there's nothing more to their personality
not to mention the cynicism with which he calls others pretentious kek
>>52194206
>i got offended
>i unfollowed
>i posted my butthurt on 4chins
>>52192396
200 years?
Try a couple decades.
Black holes are a natural extension of relativity and the curvature of spacetime- the extremes of spacetime curvature causing a well so great that even light cannot escape. A local infinity.
Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted them, and they were found once we saw that there were stars orbiting around objects that emitted no light. Also accretion disks a little while later. Then gravitational lensing.
Black holes are not physics defying constructs, they are part of physical theory.
If you want physics defying contructs, try 10^-30 seconds after the big bang.
>>52194206
You get the privilege of being arrogant when you're right.
>>52191844
>government ran eugenics
>weed out the undesirables
How about we contract the eugenics out to a private company?
How about the purism laptop?
https://puri.sm/
>>52192345
pretty sure you didn't have statistics 101
Dell xps 13 tell me something wrong with it
>protip: you can't
>>52191975
Isaac Newton believed in a magic sky man
