romaaeterna

You remain confused.

That's real. Asians show a massive (compared to anything else that moved) NAEP score increase over the 25-year period, which is presumably tied to changing English-language competency as a group. It matters less for the overall average score as their population share is much smaller.

If you want more data on something or other, you should state the hypothesis that you are trying to test. Mine is pretty simple and was easy to test like I did in the first post: in a world of mostly static in-group NAEP 8th-grade reading scores (like the one we live in) large shifts in population shares (like we see) dominate the overall average.

Pew Research Center says that over this period, 2000 to 2024, 78% (2000) to 68% (2024) of Hispanics spoke Spanish at home. To me, that sounds more than sufficient to explain a 20pt NAEP 8th-grade reading gap.

I learned my statistics in university, not Youtube. You are confusing yourself about residuals.

To make my point in the original post, I held the group scores fixed and extrapolated combined scores based on changing population sizes. This is straightforward. Simple even.

\(\widehat S=\sum_g p_gS_g,\)

Why did I call this "linear"? (Not a "linear model", your term, because it is not). The model function actually tracks the population function. Over the 25-year period, however, this trend is in fact linear because the White-to-Hispanic population trend is linear on that timescale. Over a longer timescale it would not be.

If you graph actual NAEP since 1998 versus a 1998 group-fixed score, you'll see increases (1998-2002, 2005-2013, 2015-2017) and multiple declines twice taking the line back down to the 1998 linear trend prediction (2002-2005, 2017-2024).

It is wrong to get overly exact here though. We are talking about a overall score variance of just 10pts in the face of an achievement gap of nearly 30pts, with an absolutely massive 20% decline in white population share over the 26 year period.

There is a particular set of political views associated with people who read classical languages? I fail to see what you are calling "rational" here.

Where did you come up with "Mexicans" or "intelligence"?

Doesn't it strike you that poor Hispanic reading performance might actually be largely related to Spanish vs. English-language proficiency?

I don't assume that. See the first table, even better in shagie's nicely reformatted version.

You are the person in this discussion invoking race genetics. Why does your mind go there?

Coincidence? Of course not.

1998? I wanted a quarter century of Grade 8 and that gives me 1998 to 2024 with NAEP. 2000 reading assessment was Grade 4 only. You can do it with any pair of years.

If you take the 1998 NAEP 8th grade reading scores by race, re-weight them by the new 2024 demographic makeup of American 8th graders, you will find a predicted point decline of 4.6, rather close to the actual 4 point fall over the period.

Over the same period, reading scores actually improved somewhat for each of the 1998 poorly scoring groups (and quite a bit for Asians), but the poorly scoring groups simply make up so much more of the population now that it drags everything else down.

| Group | 1998 NAEP | 2024 NAEP | Change |

|---|---:|---:|---:|

| White | *268* | *266* | −2 |

| Black | *242* | *243* | +1 |

| Hispanic | *241* | *245* | +4 |

| Asian/Pacific Islander | *261* | *280* | +19 |

| All public-school students | *261* | *257* | −4 |

| Race/ethnicity | 1999 Grade 8 | 2023 Grade 8 | Change |

|---|---:|---:|---:|

| White | *64.5%* | *44.0%* | −20.5 pp |

| Black | 16.1% | 14.9% | −1.2 pp |

| Hispanic | *14.3%* | *29.4%* | +15.1 pp |

| Asian/Pacific Islander* | 3.9% | 5.9% | +2.0 pp |

| American Indian/Alaska Native | 1.2% | 0.9% | −0.3 pp |

| Two or more races | not separately reported | 4.8% | — |

In September the Russians accused the Ukrainians of having repairing downed Geran drone airframes at the Lviv LORTA plant, transferring them to Yavoriv, and launching them unarmed into Poland. They presented various evidence like serial numbers, photographs of silver-tape repairs, claims that a Ukrainian SIM-card was used, lack of impact destruction, etc.

What's true though? I don't believe that I have a way to find out.

There's no real solution other than long-term tariffs. However the President doesn't have the power to do it and Congress doesn't have the willpower. 6-month flash-in-the-pan efforts can only cause chaos.

I don't like the title. The article actually describes the process of proving that dqlite does not have the same bug as SQLite, using a TLA+ specification. The SQLite bug fix was entirely separate from what is described here.

Part of this is an argument for size limits on PRs.

Another part is "how do we communicate project goals and ideals and standards?" The answer to that, I'd argue, is not simple, and will inherently run into scale issues. It's something that needs to be tackled as you move from a bespoke craft project to an industrial project.

Now, maybe you never move. It's okay and good for hobby projects to exist. But let's be clear about the choice there.

Are they gatekeeping to protect against AI "slop" or are they gatekeeping to protect an inefficient and non-scalable review process against velocity?

I've seen policies like this in various places and they do not generally seem to be based quantitative measures of code functionality, security, and efficiency.

There are other approaches to take to deal with large numbers of incoming PRs: improved CI, AI-readable standards for AI code, better static testing, AI first-pass review, etc.

It's fine to enshrine hobbyism into your code review policy to keep things fun and human-scale. On the other hand, where projects actually matter, it is necessary to think about code review as part of an industrial process with inputs and outputs, one where this sort of thing has no place.

So what has actually shipped? I'm already using much many more AI-coded projects in my daily life than I was a few months ago.

Advocating for small inching change to a rate is different from advocating from small inching change. Easy example: if you are in a car with an accelerator pedal depressed.

On the contrary, asking for well-thought out political thought is the most reasonable demand in the world. If you have an idea about health care, national defense, or trade policy, I expect thought and numbers, not vague platitudes.

For example, you want small inching movement. From what starting point? Inching movement from the near-zero flows of the mid-20th century? Inching movement from the mass flows of the 21st century? Both ideas would have major consequences, and if you are going to advocate for mass social change, you should think it out and advocate with care and thoughtfulness.

Your statement has no basis whatsoever in reality. The US, for example, had a four-decade moratorium on immigration beginning in 1924. Mass immigration flows appeared at various times and places in the past (often accompanied by bloodshed and suffering), but it's highly incorrect to imagine that 21st-century 1st world demographic shifts are some sort of historical norm.

You may be interested to learn that American immigration flows were higher or lower at various times (nearly zero for long periods). As you allude to with Native Americans, the effects of the different flows were not uniform on all people, and instead caused various negative and positive effects. The period of Americans great post-WWII economic and military rise came during its longest period of immigration moratorium, during which its population was fairly homogeneous. In recent decades, America has begun to decline economically and militarily relative to China, a country not subject to these "strengthening flows". Odd case.

Okay. Let's choose a small random country as a basis for your immigration ideas. Ie., Rwanda (pop 14.8m) or Israel (pop 10.24m). What is the quantity of immigration flow that you want, who and from where and on what basis of admission over what time period. What are your intended demographic, social, and political shifts that you say are going to be "not palatable" for the people living there now? In fact, please expand on exactly how "not palatable" you expect your plans to be for them.

> A Mystery Trader Made $400,000 Betting on Maduro’s Downfall

> Prediction market trader 'Magamyman' made $553,000 on death of Iran's supreme leader

That will always be true for some individuals. But the sector isn't going away. Everyone is retooling right now and it's hard to tell what this generation of AI is even going to do to jobs. I strongly suspect that the companies that manage the retooling most successfully will be hiring more people not less.

I'd be interested in more details about the 17mph collision as well. Was it a dead-center collision with a pole after hard braking? Was it a mirror clip or a curb clip or something similar? There seem to be a wide range of possibilities.

I saw this on X last week and assumed that it was a question from a Tesla user trying out smart summon.

The people most susceptible to consensus mirage are, by the very nature of the beast, the ones least aware of it happening to themselves. Any opinion that you find yourself praised for by any of the groups in your social circle is infinitely suspect.

Clippy is almost certainly the most hated computer avatar in all of human history. Jar Jar Binks or Wesley Crusher come to mind as equivalent foci of psychic negativity. Using him for any movement is self-sabotage, not to mention all the organizations you will scare off because using a copyrighted/trademarked character invites legal risk.

Running the first question as a test against mradermacher's GGUF of the 20b heretic fails when running llama.cpp as Q4_K_M, but successfully generates the tutorial with larger better quality Q8_0

I have a Tesla and a drive FSD back and forth to work every day. It's great

Edit in response to your edit:

Would I risk myself standing in front of a FSD Tesla versus in front of an Uber or an average human-controlled car with the standard percentage chance of the human texting or being otherwise distracted or drunk or tired? I would take FSD. And I think that a mathematical rather than emotional evaluation of the odds would make risk-minded people do the same.

That first crash sure doesn't sound like Autopilot/FSD, given that the car kept going after the crash.