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

Showing 25 of 262 results for

domain:badcyber.com

It's viewed as a form of juking the stats by some people, since the point of standardized testing is typically to measure the performance of teachers, schools, school districts, etc. If there are differences in policy on grade promotion, that makes it harder to do a fair comparison.

Just as a really simplified example, let's say low-performing students in state A learn approximately 0.7 of a grade level each year, while in B they learn 0.6. State A has social promotion, while state B holds students back a year if they are doing poorly. So in grade 4 standardized testing, the low-performers in A would be working at a grade level of 2.8 (4x0.7) while in B they would be working at a grade level of 3.0 (5x0.6). Someone just looking at the aggregate stats would assume B has more effective teachers, when the opposite is true.

This probably has a pretty minimal impact since the number of students held back is in the low single digits, but it is a confounding variable.

The bigger problem in my opinion is that standardized testing really emphasizes getting the bottom 10-20% over the bare minimum bar, while ignoring the top 10-20%. These inter-state comparisons are really just measuring which states are better at handholding the remedial students enough to just barely feign competence.

I find those answers unreasonable.

Nice.

To minimize the harm they did to others through voting. Or the harm to blacks was less than the harm to others caused by blacks voting are two perfectly reasonable answers.

I recall you had a post a while ago where you said you’d dated both men and women. Did you develop a preference for men, or how did women fit into this?

I’ve always been attracted to masculinity, which obviously made it a bit harder. Plus it’s really hard to avoid gendered expectations when you’re male and dating a woman.

Well, I guess all I can say is, join the club. We don’t have fun prizes but there are occasional butterflies in the chest. And you get a stamp on your card when someone says, “you’re sweet but I don’t see this going anywhere.”

That’s a very relatable post. I think there’s many more men out there like you than it seems, but sex-forward, superficially attracted men feel like they’re the majority due to social pressure. How much of locker room talk is posturing to impress other men, as opposed to actual genuine feelings?

Interesting. I’d never considered that being played could actually be preferable to sex-forward behavior, but I can see it. I guess gay men just didn’t even make an effort? Just, “oh, no dick pic, seeya?”

There’s a number of other body parts that can keep them on the hook, but yeah it’s 100% visual.

I’m not saying that that being played is actually good of course, obviously I’d rather they make themselves known, but the fact that there is no real gay male equivalent of a straight man seducing and manipulating women into sex is telling.

Some of the gay guys I knew hadn’t even cuddled anyone once despite having high enough body counts to get multiple STDs. They called their hook-ups “fuck and go”: no kissing, no foreplay, just send pics, go to a guy’s place, leave 10 min later. To me that’s just soulless and depressing.

As I recall, Kulak had a flame out post where he basically said "if you guys are gonna be that way [I forget what his grievance was], then just ban me". I can't remember if he did get banned but he did get modded to some extent or other, and I haven't seen him back since.

I might very well be the only heterosexual person here, on a Saturday night.

Hey you got pretty lucky! From what I hear the average gay bar is mostly filled with straight cis women nowadays, and I’ve even seen middle aged women and their (perfectly straight looking) husbands at drag nights.

Pretty sure he is overpaying, but in general, the distance between a toy model and a production-quality system is gigantic, and crossing that distance is about 95% of what software developer (and managers, and project/product managers) does. The devil is always in details, and "pretty much" is not "exactly". So generally having an extremely well paid people to spend a lot of time on improving the product based on a widely known and relatively simple ideas is something that a lot of software companies do, and make a lot of money on it, and it's not stupid at all. Zuck maybe going a bit overboard with exactly how much well paid, but otherwise it's not weird at all.

There is a Dewey-esque impulse among many education reformers to use the schools to shape the next generation into something their parents would not approve of. Nineteenth-century opponents of Roman Catholic education were in that vein, as was Pedagogy of the Oppressed. I think that's what he was getting at.

My dad used to tell me that when he worked as a roofer, he was told "If you fall, you're fired before you hit the ground."

When I worked with him, it wasn't roofing, but we occasionally had to go up on high places, and the things he would do absolutely horrified my acrophobic ass. I'm talking ladder propped up on top of a ladder on top of a slanted second story roof. Zero safety precautions.

Trump now had the dubious honor of becoming (iirc) the second person to be represented by photographs of himself, after Saddam Hussein.

Numerous celebrities have been depicted this way, although I think it's been a while.

That would probably be useful.

I felt irritated about the assertion above, but didn't bother spending energy responding to it, because it's basically just boo outgroup. People being motivated by making money is a fully general complaint, and it was two of the three complaints. As for the third claim -- I provide childcare, you are an overeducated babysitter, she is separating children from their parents.

That would be weird, since his last alt was never banned.

I'd tend to think that any pleasure endlessly reiterated would become contemptible. There is something disconcerting or even pathetic about obsessive repetition. That's part of why we find the Skinner box so repulsive.

I would agree that it would be bad for a person to be incompetently trying to interfere with work done by a superior, though for me I don't find the superintelligence hypothetical particularly illuminating. The world is already full of examples of competent and incompetent people. It would be absurd for me to try to insert myself into, say, the cockpit of an aeroplane - I know nothing about piloting and the attempt would only embarrass me.

What would constitute a good life in a world where there is genuinely nothing that needs to be accomplished? I'm not particularly sure. I do not expect such a world to ever occur in this life - sorry, I'm pessimistic about artificial superintelligences - so for me that question seems most relevant as a question about heaven, and there I'm happy to admit to ignorance. Right now I'm not so much pushing for any particular answer as just saying that endless self-pleasure seems insufficient, as an answer, to me.

Concur with Nybbler in that it shouldn't be called "permaban", then. Call it indefinite ban and leave the door open.

The base 10 "new math" in that song isn't THAT new (that is, it wasn't introduced with the post-Sputnik "New Math") -- that sort of subtraction (which I believe remained standard up to common core) dates back to 1821 in the US. The "old math" (for people under 35 who went to public school) in that song is indeed considerably older, and incidentally works better on a computer because the borrow only propagates one way. I don't know about the under-35 or private school variant.

I don't know. There was a peak Darwin, too, and if he's back in a constructive way then that's worth celebrating, even if the ban evasion isn't.

I'd take that as another argument against permabans, although perhaps a mixed one given the reëstablishment of old beefs when his ban expired. But if he was already on an alt by then, maybe the productive discussion was continuing there and the main was just for fighting? I'm just a nerd on the Internet, probably not the best to analyze forum dynamics. But, for that reason, I'd like to welcome good folks back without needing plausible deniability or cloak-and-dagger nonsense.

(I know that sometimes even un-banned folks choose to rotate usernames. And while my life might be a bit nicer if they didn't, I acknowledge that there can be legitimate reasons for that.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#Table

Seemingly not as of 2021, though it depends whose measures you use, IMF or CIA. Perhaps it's the case today but even then Botswana would be poorer in a real sense than Ukraine. If the economy is diamond mines and a bunch of subsistence farmers it rather stretches the limits of what GDP PPP per capita is supposed to mean. Ukraine has minerals but also produces drones, guided missiles, tanks, jet engines, software, video games...

Botswana’s extreme poverty rate for 2023 (13.5%) is more than four times higher than comparators at similar GDP levels. Unemployment rate remains high at 23.6%.

That's real extreme poverty, about $3 a day, that basically does not exist in white countries. The GDP figure is high but much of the rest that one expects to come along with the GDP isn't there.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/botswana/overview

I don’t want to publicly accuse anyone (especially since I didn’t make the connection myself), but isn’t Darwin still with us under another alt?

My local schools are not as conservative as Mississippi, but they're in that ballpark. Their two main SEL initiatives are associating emotions with colors ("I'm in the red zone" instead of "I'm really angry and freaking out", or "we need to get in the green zone to be ready to learn"), and Character Strong words of the month (kindness, gratitude, courage, etc). I'm not completely sure what they're trying to accomplish with the color zone stuff, I've never heard the kids actually use it that I can recall. The Character Strong words seem fine. Pretty generic. My daughter's SEL teacher gave us a list of books she'll be reading with all the grade levels, I haven't gone through it yet.

I saw a viral tweet this week of white guys doing roofing work, and I couldn't get the glaring OSHA violations out of my mind.

Of course, the dirty little secret is that basically no roofing company is compliant, but these guys aren't even trying.

The guy who drafts big names from five years ago way too early, and acts like he can't believe they're still on the board

Zach Ertz is still good goddammit. Can't believe I picked him up for free last year.

what other low-hanging fruit were there from the administration?

Sam Brinton, Karine Jean-Pierre, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, Rachel Levine, and just general DEI out the ass. Vaccine Mandates paired with fear-mongering/demonizing White House statements directed at people refusing to vaccinate. Pressuring social media sites to toe the prescribed line. Phoning a convicted felon's family because he was black and shot by the police (while committing a felony). Having a literal crackhead of a son appear alongside the president in public settings while other crackheads sat in prison for the same crime. Expanding protections for asylum seekers that allowed millions of people to flow into the country and rush the border. Attempting to, and almost succeeding in imprisoning their primary political opponent. An entire media apparatus going to bat for nearly cause the Democratic party supported. There was so much of it going on that if they had done less it might have stood out more. But, because the ideological insanity was such a regular occurrence, it all just blended together into one cloudy nightmare of political correctness and "accountability" toward those who had dissenting views and opinions.

Maybe these things weren't low-hanging fruit to the average person, but they were to me.

There is a lot of material to work with when it comes to MAGA and the Trump admin, but that is the cost of taking necessary actions over "appropriate" ones. The optics are terrible when viewed through liberal eyeballs, I get that. But our country's fatigue with political correctness has gotten to the point where drastic action feels inevitable.

In the early Greek manuscripts of Luke

τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος / tou heliou eklipontos— “the sun was eclipsed.”

https://www.textkit.com/t/luke-23-45-eclipse-or-darkening/15248/4

Footnote A here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023%3A45-47&version=NET

Luke 23:45 tc The wording “the sun’s light failed” is a translation of τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος/ ἐκλείποντος (tou hēliou eklipontos/ ekleipontos), a reading found in the earliest and best witnesses (among them P75 א B C*vid L 070 579 2542) as well as several ancient versions. The majority of mss (A C3 [D] W Θ Ψ ƒ1,13 M lat sy) have the flatter, less dramatic term, “the sun was darkened” (ἐσκοτίσθη, eskotisthe), a reading that avoids the problem of implying an eclipse (see sn below). This alternative thus looks secondary because it is a more common word and less likely to be misunderstood as referring to a solar eclipse. That it appears in later witnesses rather than the earliest ones adds confirmatory testimony to its inauthentic character.sn This imagery has parallels to the Day of the Lord: Joel 2:10; Amos 8:9; Zeph 1:15. Some students of the NT see in Luke’s statement the sun’s light failed (eklipontos) an obvious blunder in his otherwise meticulous historical accuracy. The reason for claiming such an error on the author’s part is due to an understanding of the verb as indicating a solar eclipse when such would be an astronomical impossibility during a full moon. There are generally two ways to resolve this difficulty: (a) adopt a different reading (“the sun was darkened”) that smoothes over the problem (discussed in the tc problem above), or (b) understand the verb eklipontos in a general way (such as “the sun’s light failed”) rather than as a technical term, “the sun was eclipsed.” The problem with the first solution is that it is too convenient, for the Christian scribes who, over the centuries, copied Luke’s Gospel would have thought the same thing. That is, they too would have sensed a problem in the wording and felt that some earlier scribe had incorrectly written down what Luke penned. The fact that the reading “was darkened” shows up in the later and generally inferior witnesses does not bolster one’s confidence that this is the right solution. But second solution, if taken to its logical conclusion, proves too much for it would nullify the argument against the first solution: If the term did not refer to an eclipse, then why would scribes feel compelled to change it to a more general term? The solution to the problem is that ekleipo did in fact sometimes refer to an eclipse, but it did not always do so. (BDAG 306 s.v. ἐκλείπω notes that the verb is used in Hellenistic Greek “Of the sun cease to shine.” In MM it is argued that “it seems more than doubtful that in Lk 2345 any reference is intended to an eclipse. To find such a reference is to involve the Evangelist in a needless blunder, as an eclipse is impossible at full moon, and to run counter to his general usage of the verb = ‘fail’…” [p. 195]. They enlist Luke 16:9; 22:32; and Heb 1:12 for the general meaning “fail,” and further cite several contemporaneous examples from papyri of this meaning [195-96]) Thus, the very fact that the verb can refer to an eclipse would be a sufficient basis for later scribes altering the text out of pious motives; conversely, the very fact that the verb does not always refer to an eclipse and, in fact, does not normally do so, is enough of a basis to exonerate Luke of wholly uncharacteristic carelessness

But in the above, it seems to me copium to interpret that word as other than a real eclipse in the context. The natural reading is that it was an eclipse, which is why Origen went so far as to say enemies of the church inserted the word in to scandalize the church among the intelligent

All the "virtue-based" banners and signs in teachers' rooms when I was a schoolchild always struck me as very silly. Lots of transforming "R.E.S.P.E.C.T." into an acronym, lots of "At our school, home of the Bears, we are Based, Effective Altruist, Rationalist, Sapient" or "Everyone here C.A.R.E.S." standing of course for "Courteous, Achieving, Responsible, Excellence, at School on time"... I don't know that any of these did anything, but I'm sure there was some sort of state or federal grant money involved in "teaching ethical citizenship and public service" to children, for which these useless banners played a role.