715 karma · joined December 5, 2018
Engineer at ngrok, formerly at Replicated
https://laverya.com
I would say I am trying to return education to its original purpose, instead of the world's worst but also most common form of daycare.
Then perhaps there should have been more available to be learned. If most people are above 90%, then you're holding the best back. (If you're saying that more should be taught, but not be on the test... Why?)
The only way for everyone to reach full understanding at the same time is for everyone to be the same or for some people to have been held back. I view the latter as being far more achievable than the former. I would also say that holding the best back... is probably not what we want the #1 ranked University in the world to be doing.
> A perfect educational system would have every student getting 100% on every test, right? That's the ideal. Unless, of course, that the purpose of the educational system isn't actually to educate people but instead to weed out certain classes of people.
No, a perfect educational system would not have every student getting 100% on every test because not every student is the same and also such a test fundamentally provides no information to the tester.
A perfect system would probably have every student on an individual (or near-individual) learning schedule, and even there I would expect perfectly calibrated tests to average around 50% with adjustments as required for psychological impact or to improve recall. From that, you can identify what elements need to be covered again, and what can be skipped when moving forward because they are already known.
> "We want the best" is what every employer will always say but the truth is that they really only need someone who can do the job. We as a society put way too much importance and faith in credentials.
This is probably correct for your average community college. It might be correct for a average state school.
When you get to 'literally the number one Univeristy on the planet', perhaps employers are also actually looking for the best people on the planet.
Harvard admits quite a few people who would normally not qualify as the cream of the crop. Above average, even good - but the worst Harvard admit is probably on par with the smartest kid at the local community college. They might bring other things to campus! But that doesn't mean you want them handling your legal defense or managing your money.
> and were subsequently successful there.
If 80% of the grades at Harvard are As, this just means you're not in the bottom 20%. I would also generally assume that this 80% is not uniform - some classes or even majors will give out higher percentages of As than others.
"Back and forth begging/busking" is another.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is an analogy that was used to justify banning antidraft activism in the first world war. It is very much allowed under current precedent.
"Directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action" is the current standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
This is true for Australia, for India, for the USA, for the EU - an airline like Delta can fly to Sydney from LA but not sell domestic flights from Sydney to Melbourne. (Or, for that matter, international flights between Sydney and Singapore)
However, there is a catch! Airliners did not used to have quite the range they do today, and so the treaties allow things like refueling stops. And they (sometimes!) allow passengers to embark/disembark at those stops - but those passengers still have to be flying the international leg, or else it would be a domestic flight.
There's a Wendover video from years ago that's relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thqbjA2DC-E
Presumably it reduced people copying answers from their neighbors.
> In May 1973 the Supreme Court accused the government of flouting judicial decisions and the law. The medical and bar associations took a similar stance. On Aug. 22 the lower house of the Chilean Congress passed a resolution denouncing Allende’s power grab and calling on the military to uphold its oath to the constitution.
Not exactly the sort of coup that's normally portrayed. Allende getting a lower fraction of the vote than Hitler is also cute. (Slightly less than 37 percent vs slightly more than 37)
Paupers from London didn't get on ships to the new world - not without selling themselves into indentured servitude.
When the economic barriers to migration fell to the point that subsistence farmers could travel between continents, we were always going to see either an equalization of living standards or the rise of political barriers.
This way the difference between an H1B and a real citizen employee is transparent to the employer, and the employee can move between companies without issue (or even take time off work, as long as they still pay)
(I say likely negative because a system of trials that didn't cost 100k+ and take years for an actual defense would be a dramatic improvement)
Not to mention "works" and "worth it" are not quite the same thing.
My assertion is that things like this will happen whenever LLMs are tuned to match political beliefs.
The Common App is great, but it's not magically less open to bias than standardized test scores.
"Students of Color" receive scores in the same distribution as white/asian/hispanic students (same fraction of 1s, 2s ... 35s, 36s on the ACTs for example)
AND
Top scores are meaningfully distinct from the population average? (because the first condition can be trivially fulfilled by having everyone score the same)
I don't think this is true. Low frequency was and continues to be the best option for early warning and over-the-horizon use cases.
> good enough to throw up flak, though - and that's how the one that was lost got hit
It was hit with a 1960s era SAM after running the same route again and again. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
If you "just" want to send custom designs to an existing fab that's far easier.
(There's also more than 100x more flights with the NG than the MAX)
Really the ideal test would be, in order of preference:
1. randomization (some parents get the classes, some do not, chosen randomly)
2. geographic (parents in state/area A get classes, rest do not)
3. temporal (parents after year X get classes)
4. twins (parents of twin A get classes, twin B do not)
They're capturing carbon to turn into a useful product (fossil fuels) though.