268 karma · joined March 19, 2016
MIT cares more about scores and STEM and MIT actually has around the lowest family income and lowest percent of rich people in the Ivy League tier.
It conveniently falls in line with racial diversity goals but it is unclear what other goals it accomplishes. The reasonable assumption is that any soft skill goals or measures will have a high preference for white males. It is very suspect that this isn't true.
I guess Harvard's defense is that they do most of the "work" at the subjective personality score stage where races are conveniently ranked in the same order as their desirability for "diversity".
The results contradict the expectations. Conveniently, it is black > Hispanic > white > Asian which is exactly the diversity hierarchy
He got to keep the money even though he got convicted for wire fraud?
I don't think that is their literal message and goal. SpaceX's real mission is to innovate space travel which they've been capable of doing and have demonstrated with clear achievements.
SpaceX's revenue is in the billions and is very close to profitable. It most likely would be profitable if it wasn't constantly spending money to expand like Amazon in its early years.
Note that having children is something that only women choose.
Men and women choose to have sex. Women choose to abort or have a child.
Teaching children in poverty is a specialization. Teachers can excel at teaching children at upper middle class schools but fail miserably at an inner city school. People complain about privilege on teacher quality difference between inner city and good schools. The truth is that the "good" teachers at an upper middle class school wouldn't be much of an improvement over the "bad" teachers at inner city schools. The "good" teachers only know how to teach well-behaved, studious students!
That is why integration failed. The environment at good schools are good for children with familial support and low behavioral issues. It is not good for children with behavioral issues without familial support.
> Like many charter schools in New York City, the Promise Academy has an extended school day and year, with coordinated after-school tutoring and additional classes on Saturdays for children who need remediation in mathematics and English Language Arts skills. Our rough estimate is that Promise Academy students that are behind grade level are in school for twice as many hours as a traditional public school student in New York City. Students who are at or above grade level still attend the equivalent of about fifty percent more school in a calendar year.
The students are working twice as hard as others and attend remediation classes.
Other inputs:
> The schools provide free medical, dental and mental-health services (students are screened upon entry and receive regular check-ups through a partnership with the Children’s Health Fund), student incentives for achievement, nutritious cafeteria meals, support for parents in the form of food baskets, meals, bus fare, and so forth, and less tangible benefits such as the support of a committed staff. The schools also make a concerted effort to change the culture of achievement, emphasizing the importance of hard work in achieving success.
These inputs are claimed as characteristics of a "high quality school" in the abstract:
> We conclude with evidence that suggests high-quality schools are enough to significantly increase academic achievement among the poor.
"High quality schools" (high quality meaning high test scores) generally do not fund many of these services for their students. What the study demonstrates are characteristics of schools that can help underprivileged children with less than adequate familial support.
This is an argument in favor of segregation. These services can only scale and be cost effective if a large portion of the students will use the services. This would not be cost effective if the majority of the school was not underprivileged.
If the test is based on the standard middle/high school curriculum (if there is one), then it can be a fairly good predictor.
Otherwise, even if it is an arbitrary test, it takes study skills and discipline to be able to master it. I imagine that both of those traits correlate with performance at school.
Does it? I think American payment systems are winning outside of China/USA. Of course it won the Chinese market because China makes it extremely difficult for foreign tech companies to compete.
1 page or 1,000 pages, most people are not in a position to accurately interpret it and understand what does or does not comply.
And that's just the engineering work. The website owner cannot know whether or not the engineering work and website meets the requirements of GDPR by himself. He does not have the ability to interpret the GDPR policies. The website owner would need to consult with a compliance lawyer or expert to assess the website for compliance. I would guess it would take a lawyer 10 hours at minimum (assuming the lawyer is a GDPR expert and already knows GDPR in and out) to assess a website for GDPR compliance, billed at a low $250/hr is $2500.
This applies to all companies, everywhere. The problem is that the EU don't close their loopholes.
The best course of action is to treat this bias like normal bias with non-politicized, inanimate objects. How would data scientists that encountered similar bias while running machine learning models of the motion of waves act?
1. Progressively lower pensions. Skim off the top earners.
2. Create projects for the community and declare that the saved money will be used for those projects for better optics.
This won't lower trust in government pensions by that much because this is just correcting what is seen as "unfairly high" pensions.
To add to this, the quote paints complying with the legislation as a simple redesign. It would require much more than a redesign. The technical, administrative and legal costs of implementing the new system from scratch would be magnitudes higher than implementing the current system from scratch. And add on changing requirements as the legislation is in its infancy.
Tracking makes markets more efficient.
1. Advertisers can tune their ads/targeting to get higher conversions and sales. They pay higher PPMs and PPCs.
2. Publishers get higher PPMs and PPCs. This motivates them to invest more in their content and website because each new user will yield more money with higher PPMs.
3. Users get more relevant and safer ads. Remember the shady banner ads of the late 90's and 2000's? That's the type of low conversion rate / click through rate ads that will run when advertisers can't target their audience efficiently and PPMs are very low. Relevant ads also save users (the segment that buys stuff from ads) time from researching for products and services.
4. Users get personalized content from publishers. This has a few negatives but I would argue that it greatly improves user experience.
The technical and administrative complexity required for the legislation effectively shuts off tracking for all websites that aren't owned by a megacorp. Small and medium sized publishers now have less motivation to get good content out and improve their websites from the lower PPMs.
Everything except for topical/consumable items and items with an expiration date can be conmingled.
The only disadvantaged population (overachieving children of poor immigrants, mainly European and Asian) is discriminated against through affirmative action in the admissions process and apparently also for scholarships.