Comment Re:This article is bait (Score 2) 97
Make Lynx Great Again!!!!!
You kids and your graphical browsers... bah!
And while you're at it, get off my lawn!
Make Lynx Great Again!!!!!
You kids and your graphical browsers... bah!
And while you're at it, get off my lawn!
I am not deeply versed in the topic, but doesn't all that just mean that "schools that get to pick and choose the best behaving students perform better than schools that are required to accept all types of students"? If all of the "best" [not necessarily in terms of grades, but in terms of not having behavioral/psychological/physical/economic problems that hinder their (and their peers') learning] students were siphoned off to private schools, I would expect exactly those results. The public schools will be left with the worst cases (the ones that 'cost' 2x, 3x, 10x more to educate) with correspondingly worse funding. I don't know if it's the best choice as a society to handicap the most disadvantaged people even further. I'm not OK with "let them rot in the streets". Society will pay the price sooner or later.
The folks who can afford private schools are welcome to it, but we shouldn't cripple our ability to take care of everyone else to help them. The first step to making vouchers fairer would be to tie the amount to how much it would cost to educate THAT student. "Average" cost per kid in the district - $200. Affluent kid with plenty of resources, tutors, and supportive parents - $50 voucher. A single-parent household needing help with books, food, and extra instruction time - $500 voucher. (numbers pulled out of the air). Of course, I have no idea how to make that workable.
You mention "70 percent", but the numbers can't be related that way from that statement. It does NOT say "70 of the wombs successfully produced babies, and 30 of the wombs had complications."
There's no way to derive a percent number from "number of operations" and "number of babies", so perhaps avoid trying to draw any conclusions in that direction until other/more numbers are available.
1) one womb can have multiple pregnancies.
2) Each pregnancy may or may not result in a healthy baby.
2a) because of the issues with the transplanted womb
2b) because of issues unrelated to the transplanted womb (e.g. genetics of the mother/father, environmental conditions, etc.)
3) as stated, some wombs may never experience a pregnancy
3a) because there is something wrong with the transplant and it's incapable of doing so
3b) the owner of the womb hasn't had an opportunity to (for whatever reason)
Because of that, it could be that only a handful of the 100 wombs are fully functional (and they are pumping out tons of babies) or nearly all of them are fully functional (but haven't gotten around to be used yet.) Or, or it's a mixed bag where the good transplants can carry 100% of pregnancies to term, while some of the bad transplant only can carry 10% of pregnancies to term, and everything in between.
tl;dr #babies =/= #good wombs.
Eeeeew. Something hit a nerve for sure! How dare anyone insult MiKr0zopht's AI?
I started lurking in 4K enthusiast groups to see if they were all cracked up to be. The arguments about relative quality of various BD/4K releases isn't even the most interesting part.
It turns out that there are a lot of issues with set top boxes playing particular disks. The disks themselves also seem terribly fussy.
The problem here is that developers can take responsibility for the action while AI can not. Humans do make mistakes and that's ok; best practice is not to just can employees for messing up. Once is a mistake. Twice is an HR event. When someone does something dumb we forgive but we also insist that meaningful steps are taken to prevent that problem in the future. AI can't really take those steps because AI can't be accountable for "don't do it again." Taking down production because you dropped a table once is forgivable. Taking it down twice for the same reason is a different matter.
The developer can be accountable. And if HR fails to hold them to account for it, HR is accountable. And if HR isn't held accountable, leadership is. And if leadership isn't held accountable, the board is. And if the board isn't held accountable, the stockholders have some hard decisions to make. And if they choose not to make them than it wasn't really that big a deal, was it?
But with an AI the option is "we stop using AI" or "we live with the result."
If you don't have time to do it right, where are you going to find the time to do it over?