site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 8355 results for

domain:aerosociety.com

While I dont doubt this is true, I doubt it is the driving force behind universities stressing graded coursework over exams. Instead I think that is a student-driven phenomenon, particularly female students who are now the vast majority at 4 year universities. Students are the customers for these courses, and this is a demographic that largely loathes high stakes exams. They vastly prefer being able to submit some homework 20 times over a semester and receive 20 grades rather than risk it all on a 90 minute final. In addition, no one grading homework gives out failing grades for completed assignments, so these students also perceive that this method ensures they get a good grade in their courses.

Don't these mechanisms already exist? Internships are just an extended practical test for potential hires, graduate schools use GRE and other tests, law grads still need to take the bar, medicine grads still need to take their boards, etc.

(Also, I really don't expect to see decent neuralink tech by 2030. It's just too damn hard.)

AI researchers and if US becomes progressive about getting value out of the dregs of society, there's like 50,000 heavily tattooed but basically healthy people fit for human testing down at CECOT.

Well, based on what I know of the Canadian indigenous peoples (who the current PC treadmill calls the "First Nations"), there's a lot of crime, misery, and unrest as a result. But hey, people addicted to videogames are less destructive than people addicted to alcohol, so we'll see.

(Also, I really don't expect to see decent neuralink tech by 2030. It's just too damn hard.)

Definitely an important point. I agree that there is a real possibility of societal breakdown under those kinds of conditions. Hopefully, even if UBI efforts never go anywhere, people will still somehow scrounge up enough to eat and immerse themselves in videogames. (We're kind of halfway there today, to be honest, judging from most of my friends.) Somehow society and the economy survived the insane COVID shutdowns (surprising me). I have hope they'll be resilient enough to survive this too. But there's no historical precedent we can point to...

I'm not actually American but in Australia for humanities/law/essay-writing exams, you're effectively rewarded for how many points you can make as well as their quality and I'm pretty confident it's the same there. Maybe you do maths or something where there's only a single answer and simplicity is rewarded, idk...

Two pages seems quite short to me for an essay.

None of them give you all that much more in the face of the tyranny of the rocket equation.

I'm pretty sure antimatter gives you a lot more power than chemical rockets, by any reasonable definition. You can get a decent fraction of c with antimatter.

Also, there's a huge difference between 'bird', 'propeller plane', 'rocket' and 'atomic rocket' in any realistic sense, with regards to what we're dealing with now. Is superintelligence capable of rewriting the fundamental laws of the universe like a real deity? No. Is that necessary to make vast changes to our lifestyle and existence? Absolutely not, just like you don't need intergalactic travel to totally transform our spaceflight scene.

Hear hear!

I've tried to refrain from commenting on this myself but I found the middle of the WoT books to be tedious as often as not. I'm one of the ones that bogged down hard for the first time right around the bloody menagerie in TFoH. Nor did I particularly care for the style of rapid-fire exposition endings that were then revisited in excruciating detail in a subsequent book that evolved around that time, either, but Brandon Sanderson finished out the series so strongly that I liked it enough overall to go back for a re-read.

Which was a mistake that I was making because once again, I bogged down at the bloody menagerie and realized that regardless of how much I liked the series as a whole, life was too short for me to force myself to slog through those middle books all over again. I still think that the first four and last three books are tightly plotted and well written despite their length and I can only wonder at what might have been if Jordan had never gotten deathly ill with amyloidosis.

The risk for the student is that they put off college for six months (hell they could apply for the following year). But having this fellowship would probably be a pretty big leg up on admissions. Is it that big of a risk for a student?

China is not stronger than the (hypothetical at this point) US-aligned alliance of democracies,

I have doubts about this. Much of that 'alliance of democracies' is EU and EU is an utterly hopeless project which would require a STEM-pilled / bureaucracy hating Stalin purging tens of thousands of people with extreme prejudice.

Chinese don't seem to be mired in bureaucracy and can 'just build things'.

Eugyppius recently noted a bridge that crashed in Dresden is not expected to be replaced until 2035! One fucking bridge over a shallow river, the kind that an engineering unit would build in 2 days! 2035! So when half or third of your 'strength' is in this kind of state, you have problems.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with US infrastructure issues, but it's not pretty either with e.g. Golden Gate bridge, where the new 'suicide nets' installed (400 million) cost a substantial fraction of the inflation adjusted cost of the entire bridge (supposedly 700 million $).

Well, let me add a third — administrators don’t have equity in the school. Right now, schools are eating their seed corn (turning out shitty products but coasting on reputation). Since people still get jobs out of college people are still willing to go to college. But if that stops, then your second point no longer applies.

And hence my third point—management isn’t aligned with the long term incentive of the college.

Why would it get dark? Look at Australian Aboriginals. 90% of the pure blooded ones are economically irrelevant and yet they cope.

Sure their coping methods involve gasoline, glue and drinking but I like to think 130+ IQ Anglos are instead going to do something less self-destructive. And you'll probably be able to get some good mileage out of AI usesticking a lot of neuralink into your brain and directly interfacing with the AI through thoughts.

Also AIs are pretty easy to align so lot of people will likely just keep being economically and competitive useful by purchasing their own AGI and using it as an extension of their self.

Humanity as a whole wants good AI, but the attempts are split several ways and don’t individually have the ability to capture profit to sustain high burn rates when cheaper or free alternatives exist.

Guess what, governments exist to solve coordination failures. Even if yankees cannot solve the problem of 'how develop AI if it's going to cost billions and capturing the profit is hard', you can bet the Chinese Communist Party is going to bite the bullet, commission another few nuclear power plants and let the Huawei Ascends that they can't export bc US banned it be used for this purpose by the most promising companies.

Because they need AI. US needs it to and they'd probably also be able to

The rest of your comment is basically irrelevant fluff.

If we knew how good AI will be, the conversation would be a lot clearer. If AI plateaus at 2x human intelligence, then I doubt most people would claim it could trivially solve everything.

How do you even 'define' intelligence. If we go by IQ estimates, 2x human intelligence is von Neumanns by the server rack. And you can experiment on such much more easily to figure out how to organise them.

I'd say that would solve a lot of problems, if not majority of them, and create a few new ones.

Say a devops AI that auto-pushes code assumes humans will follow best-practices, but they don’t, and this results in a bug in a critical piece of infrastructure that causes a power outage for 12 hours.

With AI you can do an arbitrary amount of testing pretty easily so no, that won't happen.

All in all, I am not convinced at all.

Is it? You’d be asking people to take a risk but (1) graduate a year sooner (so earnings start a year sooner) and (2) university is getting really expensive. When you NPV the benefits compared to the cost I’m not sure how large the payment would need to be.

They do not have such a hotline. This is a hypothetical. There are on-call states attorneys in big jurisdictions, but their job is boring stuff like reviewing charges, making sure witness statements are consistent, approving search warrants, etc

To me the answer is the way we structured the payment for college more than anything. There were two things that set student loans up to be a giant mess. First, because the government guarantees the loans, everyone gets one. There’s no reason not to admit anyone who applies because they can always pay the bills. The second was that students cannot discharge tge loans in bankruptcy. Which now removes any concern that the student needs any sort of real job afterwards, so the quality of the program doesn’t matter. Add this up, and essentially the school doesn’t lose money if they don’t demand students learn anything. In fact, since more students enter behind where they should be, it’s actually a negative to expect too much. If the students are washing out, you lose money.

At the least, all of the "em dashes"

are a pretty solid tell.

But yeah it's definitely trying too hard.

But that's an issue of trust - idk how old you are, but there were conversations like this in the early oughts about search engines dumbing everyone down and removing the need to think for themselves, then a few years after that it was Wikipedia. Each time the same objections were made - it reduces the need to think for yourself, it reduces your ability to find information for yourself and it leads to people stating inaccurate and frankly idiotic statements as fact.

But eventually people realised they couldn't trust google or Wikipedia entirely and we developed epistemic hygiene around them. The same will happen with ai, and I know it will, because my mum - who is by no means tech savvy or even especially research savvy - gushes about ai, but her gushes are 'I love how it gives me all the opinions up front and doesn't hide the ones the establishment doesn't like' (paraphrased) and 'it's no doctor, but it's a God send when I need a sanity check.' (paraphrased) If my mum has developed epistemic hygiene around ai, so can students, and they will.

I'm trying to imagine an independent organization which tests graduates of various schools after graduation to see what they actually know, and rates the schools accordingly.

$100 for postal packages.

It was, at least pre-COVID.

Don’t be a tool.

How?

British customs laws were rarely particular in their enforcement. Judges could issue “writs of assistance” compelling bystanders to help with searches. This was an obvious moral hazard, and Americans remained bitter about it for decades. Here’s an article talking about it as part of an argument over probable cause jurisprudence, and here’s explaining how it got into the Bill of Rights.

The pockets rule removes particularity, pitting it directly against the Founding Fathers’ intent. It makes it easier for petty tyrants to impose an inconvenience on anyone they don’t like. That’s a poor choice.

Well, it'll be more costly, but it'll be possible.

HONG KONG/SHANGHAI/LOS ANGELES, May 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. will cut the "de minimis" tariff for low-value shipments from China to as low as 30%, according to a White House executive order and industry experts, further de-escalating a potentially damaging trade war between the world's two largest economies.

Things move quickly. I think fentanyl stuff will also get resolved.

There is something to the French case, but modern fertility collapse is uncharted territory in that it happens globally, for new reasons, in conditions of rapidly rising productivity via technological progress. I do not believe that “this country has higher TFR”, alone, is now predictive of much of anything, except the population age structure itself.

And yet it is unable to employ all of those workers

Fair enough, and yes, this goes to show that they're not on the verge of economic decline through labor shortages.