>PhysiognomyIs it real? Do great men have a distinctively look to them that separates them from the herd?
>>524445269Yes also phrenology.
>>524445269unironically yes. and it doesn't actually have to be good looks. But they have to look interesting or unique in some way.Also, you can detect liberals at a glance very easily
Phrenology [The study of weights and measures around skull and facial features] was not a """"failed science"""" as the people back in the late 1800's and early 1900's doubleplus insisted. The creators of these professions were onto something, that yes, a person can isolate information gain in the measurements of a mans nose, or a mans ear, or of his jaw, teeth, and spine segments, and find useful "information gain" in those numbers when you do gradient ascent on it and a model that predicts what you want, such as his religion, his tendency to violence, his aversion to social, or pretty much anything else, much more than you're prepared to admit since the simulation hides this information gain inside everything. The make and model of your car stores information gain about the color of your skin, because of a process that occurs when a person picks a car is afflicted on by your race which is itself determines the color of your skin. Said another way, a neural net operated upon by gradient ascent that consumes every measure of the skull from every measure and outcome of your desired want-to-know answer, can be isolated to better than chance at minimum, and up to 97% accuracy in the best sense. You can't close that final 3%, because yes there are niggers out there with white people faces because the mother did a gain of funciton graft and used the father's body and the mothers head area. And your model will fail completely on the case of the Nigger with the white man's face, skull and brain, since evolution makes this not impossible and practically inevitable. The reason it's a failed science, is because a model was found that separates these shapeshifting kike Jews from everyone else, and you can do it with your minds eye, but you must observe many tens of thousands of examples positive and negative before you see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cP71WyP54A
>>524445723why?
>>524445723The rats nest of calculus 9, aka minimizers in N dimensions, at open sourced link related, really is the better half of the beating heart of artificial intelligence people are crowing about the last twenty years, just click down and show source and you'll get the face full of calculus you want to show you how it works.https://docs.octave.org/latest/Minimizers.htmlThe other hard steps are data plumbing since it's really fucking hard to have 80 petabytes of observations on one side of the 570 layer recurrent neural network matrix and another 8 terabytes as outcomes and make positive progress with that. Now your ship of state is mired in 4 feet deep of mud and sludge of "how do I postgresql sharding" and "why is my gpu overheating and melting" and a thousand other problems.Phrenology isn't a failed science, but it's tracking in toward political science and anthropological sicence and biology as evolution as science. And so you'll get your answer, but then when it fails, you'll have a recipe for "show me what doesn't belong" and you'll get the function that shortlists a human with a monkey as a head. And now you're left wondering: "How the fucking hell did this silverback orangitan get his skull onto a human person?"And the answer comes back: "This is apparently the only example of life with this contradictory property", if you don't like it, you'll need another hinge of cyclomatic complexity in your neural net. oh see his mother had sex with a monkey and it "took". So now I need a brain with knowledge of this one example, so can sniff if this is priority or not.
>>524445723Absolutely. For example, I can tell that you're retarded by the afflicted way you write.
