I've taken tests before and "known" every answer. The score didn't always turn out as I expected because I made silly mistakes by rushing. I'll bet the graders (there are generally 2 for every free response question though there can be 3 if there is argument as to the merit of a score, and it is scored in a blind fashion to what other graders see) knew the material better than you, and frankly you got the answers not right enough.

that you screwed up that day doesn't make the test invalid. It really just means you screwed up that day and didn't (I don't know you so this may not be true) perform at the top of your ability level.

actually, my first thought when I saw the stats was "isn't that about a 30% pass rate for the "new" students"? It turns out it's about a 35% pass rate. Though I don't know what the variability is in pass rates from year to year so it's a pretty meaningless calculation.

The real win is we are getting more people to TRY. Not everyone has to succeed, but it's sad that everyone gets a chance to play basketball in school and we feel that is somehow a relevant experience but we cringe at throwing a little money at giving more kids a chance to experience computer programming. I mean, how do you even know you have an interest if you are never exposed?

I think the biggest difference is your wife was with you. There is, culturally, a huge difference between separating a 6 year old from the only parent and separating a wife and husband, and reasonably so. I almost never fly southwest, so I didn't realize they don't have a "Young children first" rule like every other airline I've been on.

so what you are saying is millions and millions of years of evolution have conditioned us to be a male dominated society, and in fact evolutionary forces have probably perfected the social structure that best secures our species' future, and women's rights is basically unnatural.

got it. at least now I can reply the reason I'm against equal rights is it is unnatural and has no basis on a fundamental level....

the wage gap is almost completely gone, and most economics research puts it around 95 cents on the dollar for women today. Sure, we need to close those last 5 cents, but there are bigger gaps that are far more important to deal with right now (especially when it comes to minorities). I"m not saying you ignore women's rights, but in the realm of pay, it is far far less meaningful than it was 20 years ago.

Walking safely at night is not a women's rights issue.

unfenced front yards are not public spaces the way all the other ones are. you don't have a right to expect privacy (telescopic lenses, etc) but people can't come on your yard freely in many places. There is no implied invitation to the public to my front yard just because I don't have a fence on it (at least in the states I grew up in).

Really? Florida and Texas have quite low minimum wages across the US and very large illegal populations. Is there any evidence for this?

Anyone who has studied the labor market knows there are tons of studies showing that minimum wage increases in the amounts being considered are basically irrelevant to job growth or economic growth.

But a non-rigorous thought experiment is this : go look up how many jobs are minimum wage and then go look up the total wages earned at that level. The first is small, the second is miniscule relative to total income in the US. Slightly altering the second will not markedly modify overall income distributions (ie how much less will a rich person earn in real terms vs total earnings). Now go look at work hours reported at higher income groups after taxes went up a small amount. You'll find a change ~0. If that had no effect, there is no reason a much smaller change will someone have a larger effect.

Now you can at least say you have thought a bit about the issue as compared to offloading the thinking to your favorite talking head.

There are also rigorous studies done by many academics that agree the effect if existant, is tiny. If I was still in college with lexis Nexis I'd just post those.

Can you define a living wage? we would all do good to know what hurdle we are trying to surmount.

For example, given tax policy, a single adult on minimum wage at 40 hours a week earns about 1200 a month. Assuming medical for 100 a month(8% is a trigger under the ACA I think but I don't live in the US right now), is 1100 survivable with a small pot saved for emergencies?

The answer if it is just a single person is yes. My last year in college house sharing I paid 300 in rent, running costs of 300 in food, 100 in utilities, and 40 for a phone. That is well within those bounds. Its not a great life, but I had enough to go for a beer or a movie from time to time.

But this was suburban NC, not NYC. Should the federal minimum wage guarantee my ability to live in any city in the US? Then it needs to be 20 bucks an hour (Manhattan).

We need to decide if this is actually a federal minimum that caters to the 20th percentile or a number that must function for every American.

But this study is not adding anything new. It is long been studied and proven raises in the minimum wage are basically irrelevant to job growth or economic growth. I'm just asking if the number should support a single adult, a family of 4, and in what way.

absolutely untrue. his only signature achievement to go to the supreme court was upheld, and he had 2 years of an foolproof majority in congress. His policies not working is a complete measure of how poorly he constructed (or more realistically, allowed congress to construct with no input or leadership) them, not an inability to get them passed. The last president to pass this much legislation, especially major, economy impacting legislation, was FDR. His policies have had far reaching consequences in many areas, but he continues to complain that the lack of results is the "other side's fault". It's pitiful.

and just to be precise, I voted for him the first time around. His first 4 years were such a travesty I sat out the second one.

I'd bet you dollars to dimes if it wasn't so much cheaper to the employee and employer to have employer provided health insurance, it wouldn't happen. For me, the cost of employer provided health insurance is about 60-70% cheaper than getting it privately (at least when I was working for a large employer). Why? My marginal tax rate was right around 50% and they got insurance at a better rate than I could secure. So while it may have been a cost of about 8k to my employer, it was worth a solid 25k in pretax income to me.

Guess what, an f'ed up tax regime creates weird incentives. I'm not even getting into their incentives of giving you health insurance vs income (less severe, but still another added savings).

don't try to argue with a humanities major. all they have is the belief they can pull rank in some theoretical world. Leave them that, it's all they will ever have while scientists are actually out there contributing to the body of human knowledge.

where are the mod points when you need them....

I never cared much about the Turing test, but this explanation makes me want to go read his original papers on it.

but trying to play the slow kid isn't exactly working. He finished a PhD at 23! that, if nothing else, tells you just how fast he is. He may not be able to do long division in his head quicker than some, but in his areas of competence, he is an intellectual giant who ALSO happens to work harder than you.

Golf swing analysis. Good players would love this to check ball impact angles if the resolution was high enough.