what you meant is stay hungry, stay foolish...
"lousy with left-wing sycophants" - This gives away your position on the spectrum of politics and insolence, rather than saying something about the people you refer to.
"inflated salaries are supported by government interference in the student loan market" - Nearly every academic I know takes at least a 25% salary cut by not being in the industry but being in academia. Good academic hires in the industry are prized and usually lofted to high positions. Academic positions prerequisite a PhD, for which in the US the drop out rate is 50% on an average.
The issue here - and this is something we've verified experimentally as a dev studio - is that 90%+ of the people downloading apps don't read the text about it. They do look at the screenshots. Especially the first two, I guess the disclaimer could go there, but even then it's not guaranteed.
I don't know how you do tests in America, but here the idea of most tests is that the majority of the test-takers (even Americans) won't ace it. If everyone aces the test, that means it wasn't planned well enough (as it usually means you gained much less useful data than you could've). Ideally, the test results should fit in a normal curve (that is, very few people score terribly badly, very few incredibly well, relative to their peers).
But yeah, it was quite insensitive of the researchers to publish the results, they should've told everyone that they aced the test and are a genius in everything.
By 'Americans acing the test' I meant the average of the sample being high, relative to the average of the rest of the world. I don't understand why you would see that as implying that every single person gets a high score, but I do see the incentive of misinterpreting statements for cheap laughs.
You are right - ideally (naively) a test's outcome should roughly look like a Gaussian distribution that's not too narrow and not too wide. But that pertains to the design of a single test. I was referring to the universe of tests you could construct to evaluate the varied skills and abilities that people in a society have, with the contention that in the US a majority of them would have the nice bell-shaped gaussian that you talked about, because of the uniform distribution of people's backgrounds across the worldwide range of such backgrounds, and the conditioning and abilities that ensued from those backgrounds. In countries in which people's conditioning falls into a narrower spectrum, the results are likely to be more lopsided - a large subset of sets with very narrow clustering around the mean - and a large subset with very wide distributions.
As expected, the US average is close to the average for the rest of the world. It's because American society has representation from all around the world, unlike Finland or Sweden which have a very narrow spectrum of ethnic histories.
Before you interpret that statement as (perversely) trying to correlate basic aptitude with ancestry... read on...
I wish people would stop evaluating each other as if they were commodities on a 'human stock exchange.' Taking tests should be a guideline for matching people to problems and to jobs, not to quantify their worth. There exists a test for every person out there that that person would excel at and be better off than everybody else. There are people who are conditioned to be deeply analytical, and those who are conditioned to passionately address audiences and captivate them. Just because you are in one group and lack in skills that characterize people in another does not mean you are worth less - as these tests try to portray.
Because America is an amalgam of societies from around the world, we have the benefit of a large and diverse set of these groups - the Nobel-winning physicists, the carefree musicians, the shrewd small business owners, you name it... It is *very* hard to construct a test that an average sample of Americans would ace - because of the certainty of finding people who suck at the test in that sample. But on the flip side - it is also very hard to construct a test that such a sample would faire miserably at - because of the certainty of finding a handful of people who are among the best in the world.
Link to Original Source
If Bill has his focus sharply fixed on the foundation, and that is where he directs all of his energy, then isn't it fair that he not have strong influence on day to day activity in the company.
"Bill, we need to make a call on Skype. 16 Billion dollar's at stake"
"Not now, I'm on a bullock cart touring an Indian Village."
"But Bill, you're the chairman."
"Ah, yes. Let me think about it. Well, I've thought about it. Buy Skype, but then make sure you follow up by buying Nokia."
"Got it Bill. You're the boss."
It's not cool, but sort of expected. In order to get enough information that can be pieced together conclusively, the members of the panel probably need the highest levels of security clearance. There probably aren't that many people who qualify for that job.
Do you foresee such courses to be conducted primarily in English? In the long run, how do you see them being made accessible to speakers of other languages?
One possibility is to get them dubbed by translators, but then there is the inevitable loss in translation. Can one imagine setting up a network around the world and get the best professors record lectures in their native language.
So what happens when a nuclear plant runs into financial difficulty? You cut your reactor monitoring staff? Drop to the cheap disaster management plan? Postpone the upgrade of the creaky boilers?
Go Martha go-bble, yum, sorry, can't speak with my mouth full. Mouth watering. Delicious. Wow!
Thank you, that's an interesting perspective.
Recently, I was on a long flight with my two toddlers. The journey started out very well. The kids were happy to have their own seats, and spent their time watching videos and playing on the flight entertainment system. In the middle of the flight, though, they woke up, and frightened by the unfamiliar surrounding, started crying. One of our co-passengers, a middle-aged man, got upset about having been woken up and started to complain very vocally. Later, when the kids cried again, the man lo
Pornographic images seem easy to recognize not because they can be defined unambiguously, but that they are a visual pattern matching problem, which humans are good at. Conversely, identifying pirated files seems hard because the process cannot be mapped to such an intuitive task, but using the same logic detecting spam seemed hard many years ago, and after the Machine Learning community dealt with it formally, it is a solved problem.
If one were to use a large data set (e.g. Google Search) to curate features that collectively act as markers of pirated content, like with spam, through data sets such as Gmail, then it is not unrealistic to expect that it would lead to the development of a good classifier for pirated files.