camelite

The resiliance of any fake news detection heuristic is impossible to prove until it is consequential enough to incentivise subversion.

Ken Robinson is the problem, not the solution [0].

[0] https://edtechnow.net/guest-posts/ken-robinson-rebuttal/

> People are hiring more women because it improves performance and productivity

> those in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean, and those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have returns above the industry mean.

Let's play spot the difference...

A cultural issue perhaps, and one mediated by biology at that. I very much doubt that you go around telling the women in your life that the time they spend outside the office, and lack of vocational ambition, are a social problem that need a political solution.

> the senior person should not date the junior person

What if the junior person realllllly wants to date the senior person. And the senior person kinda wouldn't mind giving it a go. Should the junior be reprimanded for their outrageously flirtatious behaviour? Perhaps we should have a committee draft an exhaustive set of rules that unambiguously eliminate this danger.

The guy who used it was discussing the difficulty of ascertaining whether or not power-imbalances between people in a relationship implies coercion. Women's general preference towards dating up is obviously a factor, so to ascribe a dismissive attitude to anybody who mentions it is uncharitable to say the least.

> it seems to me that the teacher is in a bind because of the assumption that it is necessary that all students learn the same things.

That's not the starting point. The starting point is that there is one teacher and many students. The necessity for student to learn the same thing derives from the impossibility for the teacher of teaching more than one thing at the same time.

> we have to accommodate all the different abilities and interests that the students have

The craft of teaching is actually the opposite: it is to boil down the necessary priors for some specific learning to occur, and ruthlessly disregarding all other factors. If those priors are not in place you go back and teach them instead, recursively. It helps a lot obviously if students are grouped by current capabilities.

> What the teaching profession has to be able to do is not to teach specific subjects but to enable the students to learn and somehow enthuse them to do it.

Failure is demotivating; success is motivating. Motivation is baked into the pie.

> And in these days when quantifiability is regarded as the only necessary attribute of pretty much anything we end up falling back on measuring what we can rather than producing students who want to learn and are able to learn.

In the world of education, quantifiability is absolutely 100% not a priority. If it was, successful approaches to instruction would have propagated long ago, instead of the typical aspirational mush that passes for analysis these days.

> And when it comes to employment what most employers need is not someone with specific skills in mathematics or computer programming but someone who is willing to work, to improve, and to work with the rest of the department, someone who sees beyond narrow self interest.

They need both actually. Neither competence nor motivation alone will do the job. And frankly, it's somewhat going beyond your remit as an educator to decide what students should be motivated by. That's on them. The teacher's job is to teach.

Jobs was 49 when iPhone development began.

I meant something more than that. Maximally guided instruction doesn't rule out checking for understanding every 10 seconds for instance. It doesn't rule out choral responses. IMO the main benefit of explicit instruction is that it provides a framework for constructing the prompts that check if each atomic concept has been correctly generalised. It's extremely hard to do as a teacher and requires deep subject expertise and very good technical abilities regarding how to communicate.

Guided instruction doesn't have to mean students don't participate.

> Sexism kept women out of medicine and law for centuries.

Have you noticed how this is inconsistent with your prestige argument?

This is great. Not wanting to get too fanboyish, but neverthless, do you have a blog or somesuch?

brilliant! I don't have experience in big companies, but for sheer comedic value, I have to commend you!

> As long as the speech and expression does not contravene any laws the ACLU will defend it – it's irrelevant to them what values the speech and expression they are defending promotes or espouses.

Not anymore:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...

Thank you for that.

> You suggested I was missing your point, but to be candid I wasn't sure what that was -- do you mean your criticism of the project because you didn't know if it was sustainable?

More or less, yes.

Are you having us all on? The only citation for the claim you are highlighting comes from a mcclatchley article titled "Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis" (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article...) whose thesis is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you've been arguing in this thread

> As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

> Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

> Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Furthermore:

> Federal Reserve Board data show that:

> More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

FURTHERMORE

> But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending....Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent...During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market.

And then we get to the only 70% in the article:

> fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market. About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

I mean what the hell is going on here? You link to a wikipedia quote which points to an article methodically dismantaling the case you are making, which flatly contradicts the wikipedian citing the article, and whose only connection to your comment is that they both have a "70%" in them, though referring to different things (secondary market dominated by investment banks VS fannie and freddie, NOT THE SAME THING)

> in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market...mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans... only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime

This is honestly the first time on hackernews I've felt like I'm talking to a shill.

You, along with very many other people, are assuming the banks were convinced by the government to do something they didn't want to do. You mustn't forget that giving loans to people you know won't be able to pay them back, and lying about their ability to do so, is an absolutely classic form of fraud. Bankers lie their asses off, make big bucks in bonuses, and their banks in the long run are fucked, or not (perhaps the taxpayer will bear the burden). The disgustingly simple explanation is that bonus money doesn't get clawed back. If these poor little bankers were getting bullied by the government into doing something against their interests, why the hell did they lie their asses off about their borrowers' financial prospects. Why wouldn't they say, 'sorry guv, you gotta look at these numbers, the black and brown folk coming to us for house loans simply aren't viable'

What law did the government pass that forced the banks to ignore their risk assessment processes? Particularly, supposing you can point to some law or intervention, why do you suppose the banks are so childish and naive that when a law forces them to do one thing they don't want to do (make dumb loans to low-income groups), they'll respond by over-generalising and doing a whole other bunch of things they hadn't up to that point wanted to do (make dumb loans to middle- and high-income groups).

What laws did the government pass which "screwed up" the market?

What government interventions caused the doubling of subprime lending from 2004 to 2006?

> Did you watch the video?

Yes, and I still don't know much about the topic. Hence, the questions.

> Why do you assume this is inevitable? Was there something in the video that made you think these will go dry?

Dude, I don't know much, so I'm signposting the potentially incorrect assumptions I might be making, to help out whoever wants to answer my questions. You have a smug attitude, but I don't see you attempting an answer. What's up with that?

> Are you under the impression that people are moving into the areas that these things are being built?

No, and you appear to be missing my point if you think that is necessary for the criticism to hold.

> What does sustainable farming mean for you?

For the purposes of this discussion, enough water in perpetuity.

It's a lot easier than many people believe: you give them a good script, and a year or two of training in how to deliver it.

Can you comment on what will happen to that community when the hand pumped wells go dry? (assuming this is inevitable?) The best argument I've seen against what you are doing is that you are moving farming from sustainable areas to unsustainable areas. But I don't know much at all about the topic.

> As such, the big sentence isn't actually one anyone wants to give unless the defendant basically gives the middle finger to the system.

2 years for the crime, 18 for pissising off your friend. Does your friend think he is a God of some sort?

Bussing is actually a classic example of a well intentioned policy most supported for its symbolism which ended up damaging its supposed beneficieries because it ignored the necessity of matching peoples' abilities with the expectations placed on them. Putting 2nd-grade readers in classes with 4th-grade readers is a recipe for frustration and failure, not matter how pure your heart.

That's unfortunate[1].

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/08/ricardos-vice-vir...

If we could solve the gender pay gap for working mothers, computer programmers, machine-shop workers, and other jobs where men still earn more, we might finally be able to celebrate equality between the sexes.

That's the second time in two days I've seen that cited in response to the claim no Banker went to jail. But as far as I can make out it's about Tarp fraud, which came at the crisis. Wheres it coming from, first Google result?

This article [1] states that the nature of the offense doesn't necessarily distinguish civil from criminal fraud, but rather the party pursuing the legal action:

> A single act of fraud can be prosecuted as a criminal fraud by prosecutors, and also as a civil action by the party that was the victim of the misrepresentation.

> It might lead to an inference to that effect, but it's not indisputable proof.

Again we're back to the lack of evidence not implying innocence if the supposed crime wasn't adequately investigated. That's what an investigation is for, to find and assemble evidence for a suspected crime.

Its a common belief that no serious effort to incriminate top bankers was initiated. To me it is beyond argument at this point. Do you still believe that is a questionable supposition?

[1] http://bochettoandlentz.com/criminal-fraud-vs-civil-fraud-wh...

As far as I can make out from that article all the executives were jailed for tarp-related crimes. Since tarp post dates the crisis, it's not really accurate to cure it in response to a claim about bankers responsible for the crisis. They admit most of those jailed were low level. Certainly the one top executive using cited was tarp related. Which makes sense, since there were quite good anti fraud controls in tarp.

> It's not illegal, generally speaking, to make dumb investment decisions, and or to take a lot of risk, and lose money

You're not going to find criminals if you don't look for them. Bill black:

> All right so you have massive fraud driving this crisis, hyperinflating the bubble, an FBI warning and how many criminal referrals did the same agency do, in this crisis. Remember it did well over 10,000 in the prior crisis. Well the answer is zero. They completely shut down making criminal referrals

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/09/william-black-why...