MiroF

If someone has "elite science and engineering" ability and came from a background where they were raised by a family with a household wealth of $5, and someone has a slightly more "elite science and engineering" ability and was raised by a family with a household wealth of $1,000,000, I am not confident that long term the second person will be the greater innovator.

I thought you meant 800 across the categories.

> By the time of the ACT/SAT test it's too late to fix those things. Fix those upstream.

Based on?? If someone is smart, but denied opportunity, often times this can be resolved by exposure to things - even for an 18 year old.

Indeed, environmental factors become less important for intelligence starting precisely at this age.

I don't know what "800 minus noise" means. All 800s is something only about 500 people achieve a year, and not all of them are going to MIT.

But there are a number of studies demonstrating how race & class impact things (when controlled for other factors) like teacher perception, grading, letters of recommendation, not to mention just the fact that if you are growing up in a black (or white) household that has $5 in wealth, you'll have less access to educational opportunity than the white (or black, albeit far more rarely) household with $200,000 in wealth.

We shouldn't seek to control for these factors?

> Harvard considers roughly 4 in 5 applicants to be academically capable of doing the work at Harvard

I have no doubt that this is true of Harvard. I mean, after all, you can pick your own classes! That said, I think there is a difference between admitting just those capable of doing the work vs. a set of some of the best of the best, in that that second group will be the one filling the advanced physics classes for first years or whatever.

But shouldn't starting points be taken into consideration when you are judging someone's merit?

> I'd expect that most students who will be able to survive at MIT can make the SAT threshold with no gaming of the test and no test prep other than maybe doing one or two free sample tests.

Eh, not so sure. The "threshold", if we really trust that they do threshold and don't consider overperformance beyond that threshold (something I am skeptical of), is likely quite high.

The SAT doesn't testing anything as high level as that.

The deficit is not printing money, because the money is borrowed.

> Any multi-family older than 15 years falls under rent control and eviction control. Considering how little housing is built in CA, that's a huge number of housing units.

Nope, only if it is owned by a corporation. AB1482 exemption is standard in leases.

Wait, but they do point out the law requires them. And as you said,

> Pointing out that a law is requiring them to do something is the least anybody can do if they object to that law's requirements

Generally, I prefer comments blatantly contradicting each other to at least be a little more spaced out than yours are.

Have a good day.

Are you still not following that this "omission" is something you've entirely made up in your own mind by selectively copying one quote from an entire article?

Doesn't matter if they have missed rent, they still need 30 days notice. These laws exist for a reason, they weren't created to address a problem that didn't exist at the time.

You're comparing a quote from an article clearly being written in the context of this Australian law to the actual quote from Google's implementation of DMCa law. There is nothing in your quote indicating they are "protesting" DMCA law.

Here is the full quote.

> Over the coming month, we will also be introducing a new age assurance step on YouTube and Google Play. This added step is informed by the Australian Online Safety (Restricted Access Systems) Declaration, which requires platforms to take reasonable steps to confirm users are adults in order to access content that is potentially inappropriate for viewers under 18.

> This is in line with the actions we took in the European Union in response to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).

> As part of this process some Australian users may be asked to provide additional proof of age when attempting to watch mature content on YouTube or downloading content on Google Play. If our systems are unable to establish that a viewer is above the age of 18, we will request that they provide a valid ID or credit card to verify their age. We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.

Pulling out a quote and then saying "they don't mention the law", when they actually do mention the law a few lines above is frankly... a bad objection.

It only applies to homes owned by a corporation, you are incorrect that most properties are not exempt.

It's discussed on other parts of the thread. Also, I was assuming that this was not an owner-occupied duplex. It falls to state law if it is.

I didn't understand the GP to mean they were occupying the duplex. But in that context, it still violates california fair housing law.

Yes, you're correct.

> But there are areas (e.g. San Francisco) where getting a non-paying tenant out is close enough to impossible that it might as well be.

You absolutely can evict people in SF, unless you are discussing the recent eviction moratorium, which is not ongoing.

I think the large majority of units in CA are not covered by any sort of just cause eviction law. This law has several very large exemptions.

> In a tenant protection environment, landlords cannot just decline to renew leases.

Unless we're talking about some rent controlled context, where in the US is this law?

Civil Rights Act of 1968, Unruh Civil Rights Act, ... there are a few other California specific legal statutes around civil rights/housing discrimination.

If you want to control who lives next to you, feel free to buy the neighboring properties.

> Why aren't landlords able to do this? Isn't it seen as immoral to steal property from an owner?

Well, for one, the government should enforce contract neutrally - so if you sign a contract leasing your property, you can't unilaterally break this without cause.

Second, we as a society have an interest in giving people time to move their stuff out and find a new place to live.

> It's like no one could agree on happy medium between "landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason" and "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason".

No place in the US actually has the latter unless you've been letting them squat for half a decade or something, the issue is court delays and landlord's wanting to make their lot out to be worse than it is.

You're not a liberal if you're casually violating fair housing law :)

Everyone wants to call themselves a liberal or progressive nowadays, it's bizarre. These things are about actions, not self-assigned labels.

> Holodomor is relevant, ot orthogonal. > I meant purgers, internal thing toward Russians.

Neither of those were covered on the TV. They are also from over half a century ago.

> 2011 to 2015 is long time of escalations.

But 2014 to 2022 isn't?

The idea that Russians care equally about the lives of Syrians and the lives of ethnic Russians & Ukrainians is fantasy. It's obviously false, even if Russians killed Russians in purges 60 years ago.

It'd be more like if the US were fighting a civil war and substantial fighters on the government side were part of neo-Nazi paramilitaries that had swastikas as their flag.

Oh and also if the US government started banning other languages then english.

None of this justifies Russian imperialism, but I think we get too caught up in war and can often brush the crimes of the side we agree with under the rug.

So many mis-statements of fact here.

> They expected to win quickly and easily - and are shocked it did not happened.

Very possible, but neither you nor me are in the position to know that.

> Holodomor, which is still debated whether it counts as genocide or not. For that matter, historically, Russia holding punches was not exactly the thing. Not even toward Russians.

The Holodomor was clearly a completely orthogonal issue to this as it wasn't a military conflict.

> Not even toward Russians.

What are you referencing in terms of conflict? Probably not chechens, because that would only go in favor of GPs point.

> War in Syria did not started by indiscriminate bombing of cities. It got there through series of escalations when rebels refused to give up.

Russia started intervening in 2015, 4 years into the civil war, and immediately began with indiscriminate bombardment of cities like Raqqa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_...)

> The idea that this will stop punches now that they are refusing, purely because both are white, is something only Americans can think.

The domestic opposition in Russia over killing far fewer people is already much larger than it was to the intervention over Syria which killed far more civilians early on.

It is not something "only Americans can think" that Russians care more about the lives of people of close ethnic relation to them as compared to Syrians.