I’m not in your timezone.
9,801 karma · joined June 26, 2018
LEDs mean that the light itself is cheap so you can basically ignore energy usage concerns.
Generally, I think it is better to have:
- multiple dimmer sources of light instead of a single bright central light
- shades to diffuse the light (or lights pointed at walls or ceilings) instead of having bright point sources
- some ability to adjust brightness (eg reasonable quality dimmable LEDs)
- replaceable ordinary-looking bulbs from a reputable source (if you have 10 bulbs, it will be sad if one fails and you can’t get a similar looking bulb with a matching brightness and temperature)
- lamps, potentially wired up to light-switches for the room, which can provide light closer to where people will be and from better directions (eg maybe you sit somewhere where you can’t or don’t have a nearby wall-mounted light so a lamp can provide good light for reading). This also works in rented accommodation where one has less control over built-in fixtures.
- general considerations as to the purpose of the room (eg brighter cooler directable ceiling-mounted spotlights are more useful in a kitchen than a drawing room)
- sparing use of can lights (though this can be difficult if ceilings are low)
The divorce rate doesn’t really show that people are bad at judging the ‘quality’ of romantic partners for the same reason that cars breaking down or needing maintenance after hundreds of thousands of miles does not show that people cannot judge the quality of second-hand cars.
It feels to me unlikely that PISA scores should be particularly related to ‘country average IQ’ (except by confounders like malnutrition rates) where my understanding is that much of the research has been limited or of such poor quality that the topic has become so toxic as to discourage most potential further research.
I’m not sure it is even blaming lefty teachers. The blamed people are in university education departments, where I don’t think it’s controversial to say that their faculty tend to be very left leaning (there are surveys on this sort of thing). Their research often being more focused on social justice than finding evidence for better ways of teaching particular things lines up with my (weak) understanding of education research.
I think more senior members of teachers unions are going to be more left-leaning on average and more likely to prefer approaches more on the ‘social justice’ end than the ‘phonics’ end of the education research spectrum. I would generally expect teachers to be more politically left than the general population, as is the case for many professionals, and a little more leftist than other professionals. I also expect many to be a bit naive about how things work in organisations outside the public sector (especially high-functioning organisations). But mostly I think they care a lot about helping kids learn and not very much about the latest education research (expecting some other school leaders will direct them towards the right way to do things). I think it’s therefore reasonable to care about the relatively low quality of education research(ers) without blaming teachers here.
- Maybe the better teachers retired or quit due to burnout/better opportunities (the pando surely increased both of these and I think one could imagine reasons for better teachers to disproportionately stop teaching). One thing we observe is the best decile being a lot less affected than the average or worst, which vaguely lines up with the hypothesis. I didn’t try to look into attrition or retirement rates.
- There could be a new teaching method that is popular with teachers, teachers’ unions, administrators, or governments but which is actually quite ineffective. My weak understanding is that the quality of education research is very poor and that evidence-based decision making for how to teach is extremely rare, so this also feels plausible. I think many HN readers would have seen stories about math teaching in SF public schools, and there’s also the positive case of Mississippi seeing great successes from some teaching methods that are supported by good evidence. In some sense this isn’t really a case of teachers being bad.
I don’t think I agree with your take around religion or ‘evil’. (Imo two big advantages of religion we are currently or will soon be wanting for society are firstly the social/community component and secondly the idea that one can lead a worthy and fulfilling life through acting virtuously and faithfully, rather than through the worth implied by educational or career achievements, which are often a rough proxy for certain kinds of intelligence, that are neither evenly distributed across the population nor easily changed, and which may become unimportant as machines outcompete us there)
- there are lots of different long term trends that vary by country
- some seem to have started too long ago to be tick tock or similar
- some countries see a pandemic drop and recovery
- this implies to me that:
(I) the pandemic had a strong temporary effect on average educational attainment (though I have strong priors here), and
(II) other things like long-term trends in teaching approaches, new distractions for students, or availability of AI for ‘cheating’ also have an impact
See coverage of the recent test results in the FT here: https://www.ft.com/content/724f8ecb-1e2b-4c7f-bbb6-14239abd5...
I don’t know how the cost-benefit analysis happened within Meta when considering approaches but presumably they would rather be getting paid to show more ads rather than not being paid. Their policies may also change over time as they invest more in their systems or if the rules change.
Ultimately it seems to me like the real problem was that the advertiser in this case was quite tiny and the representative they spoke to perhaps didn’t do a great job of explaining the issue (and the customer was too insignificant to justify a more high-touch approach). Presumably if you’re paying a lot more for advertising you can get better treatment and perhaps Meta would also appropriately label political ads if you were wanting to spend a lot on them.
One thing you could imagine is doing some kind of mvcc system so that if two tasks don’t interfere with each other, they can execute in parallel (and if not, abort one and rerun it sequentially).
But maybe that still doesn’t work because all the things that should be run concurrently are using the same buffer and doing manipulations of it. You could imagine trying to make save-excursion introduce an opportunity for parallelism: split into a separate thread for the body as that thread is no longer modifying global cursor state (in some sense). Don’t let two threads write to the same buffer for concurrent tasks that should appear sequential, but do allow them to read in parallel (surely most things are merely reading).
However I’m not sure you actually need all that cleverness. I think you could have some combination of:
- tools to make multithreaded elisp more viable
- manual attention to improve major sources of slowness by introducing parallelism (eg font-lock, rendering, autocomplete, indentation). A stupid thing could be precomputing (in the background) what would happen in the user pressed RET (or TAB) and then being able to execute it sooner if they press that key.
The randomness properties of the PRNG will be very similar to other random number generators, it is just chosen to be vulnerable to a particular cryptanalytic attack (that requires a private key known only to anthropic). I think of it like the Dual_EC_DRGB generator rather than a biased coin.
I also think a lot of the difference is that a much smaller percentage of the population grows up as poor as she did. A person from a similar wealth/income percentile today mightn’t seem to have had such a difficult start.
Obviously lots of other things are different today – it’s easier than ever to access a wide variety of music but that’s not what people tend to do (iirc); there’s less money to be made selling music; there’s perhaps less interest in more ‘rural’ genres of music.