This was proven false a while back. We put a bunch of antelope in an airtight container and waited for Native Americans to spontaneously appear and hunt the antelope. They did not.
Killing two birds with one stone, after the antelope died (it being an airtight container and all), we reproduced the results of earlier spontaneous generation experiments when we failed to notice any maggots appearing on the antelope carcasses.
I think what you're describing is exactly the problem. It's clear that what they're saying has meaning, and something obvious comes to mind. But what comes to mind and what they *actually do* may be vastly different. Leaving the boring details out allows the investors and consumers to imagine that something being a whole lot greater than it actually is.
I live in Wisconsin. On the back roads, it's not uncommon to see deer attempt to cross traffic, and there are quite a few unlucky motorists who manage to hit one.
Now, if the impact doesn't kill the deer, I have an angry/terrified deer thrashing about on my hood.
If the impact *does* kill the deer, I'll need to have tags with me, since I'm now transporting a deer that I just killed.
Mr Vilfredo Pareto discovered this phenomena 120 years ago.
This was all the more impressive considering the limited 4G coverage at the time.
This is a remarkably thoughtful post. Thanks for the reading material on these scripts.
However...I still have to disagree with Oxford and will assert my right to resort to ad hominem attacks against them and their editors.
What I give them kudos for is that they considered a pronoun that we've had forever to be a notable word (instead of attempting to validate the dumb new made-up pronouns). I have mixed feelings about all of this crap. Our language is a living language, and as such is evolving. At the same time, get off my lawn and stop making up stupid words and abbreviating things that there is already a proper way to say. Get off my lawn!
You've just hit on an interesting scenario that will be to Volvo's advantage.
Volvo is driving. For any accident, they accept full responsibility. However, a holy-crap scenario arises where the computer has no viable options. Clearly, Volvo is still fully accepting responsibility.
Except, in that type of scenario, I'm going to grab the wheel and try to do something. Since I've done something in this worst case scenario, their lawyers will cite the computer data indicating that 1.4 seconds before the accident, the human driver took control. Suddenly I'm at fault.
Think of the children!! We can't just release male inmates all willy-nilly. One might commit a crime. We need to build more prisons and simply lock up more women.
Statistically, children in single parent households are more likely to commit crimes. Many of the men who are locked up have children. Therefore, those children are likely living in single parent households and are more likely to commit crimes.
We solve two problems at once by arresting the mothers - we bring the prisons into proper gender equality, and surely we reduce the likelihood that these children become criminals.
The article gives little indication on how the program is run, other than that it is "point based", and that tutorials and testing materials are available online for purchase.
This, unfortunately, biases the program towards those who have the resources available to spend on their child, regardless of race. There's mention of some sort of "selection criteria" prior to being tested, so some bias could definitely be introduced there, but in the end, the tests themselves (provided they're valid and administered properly) should provide valid results.
That being said, the kid in the story is 8 years old. At that age, kids will show up all over the place on testing depending on how things are going at home. It mentioned that his dad never gets to see him because he's always either working or finishing his degree. It's unfortunate, but it's a catch-22 - the father sounds for all intents and purposes like he's doing a great job improving things for his family, but this is bound to have an impact in the short term on the kid.
I realize I'm a horrible human being for saying so, but perhaps this isn't so much a sign that the Gifted and Talented program is biased, but rather that a program intended to nurture talented individuals will, by necessity, be biased towards those individuals who by virtue of their environment are allowed to develop more talents.
We have a separate program where we take kids who have the potential to have talents but haven't yet realized them and attempt to nurture them into actual skills...it's called school.
Insects aren't created from the ether.
Spontaneous generation says otherwise, though I appreciate that someone at least finally acknowledges the existence of the ether.
"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked." -- John Gall, _Systemantics_