This is true, but the means of achieving this comparability requires us to equate the tests -- what this means is that each completed test contains some items which are not necessarily counted towards the current score, but were instead used upon a previous exam. Then, the current test performance is linked to the set of anchor item performance (simplest form of which could be linear regression), and then a similar linear function maps the scores of the typical anchor item responses on the previous exams to the total test performance. Then, we can declare the test scores to be equated (subject to certain necessary mathematical assumptions), as a person who obtains the current test score is reported on the same scale as the previous test takers. This is why the percentiles themselves are comparable, as both are reported from the same equated z-score distribution (of which an affine-linear rescaling transforms said scores/percentiles onto the distribution of SAT scores).

The reason behind this complexity lies in the fact that said anchor items need to change over time (lest they leak, and people memorise the short test set to obtain better predicted equivalent scores than would be expected given a 1:1 percentile equivalence of the test score distributions themselves). This is also due to, in part, issues like non-exact test questions: we construct tests from items with certain difficulties (think of it like an intercept in linear regression, where the z-score 0 becomes the average score), which asses the probability of the average test-taker getting an item correct at baseline (lower intercepts denote harder questions) and how quickly/sensitive said difficulty shifts the likelihood of answering correctly (first order taylor series expansion about the intercept, hence the slope). Since questions with a given set of characteristics need to be trialled and combined into the final tests, the chances of exactly the same test item performance year over year is different. So we use test-equating to better address the shifts in test quality and report the expected performance on a test for anyone who (theoretically) has ever taken the test.

Measurement invariance/equivalence across different groups can be measured using the same basic procedure (baseline probability of guessing the right answer for each group upon each question, said question difficulty, and the question discrimination/sensitivity parameter -- total of three item characteristics are commonly used to examine and score items) and compared for differences. Any questions which presumably fail to demonstrate equivalence in item characteristics between groups gets removed, and we can then demonstrate that each test item was demonstrated to work equivalently across the relevant groups which were examined, thus allowing only scoring rule to be used to weight each individual question response (as either right or wrong). The mathematical model from which this theory derives is actually nearly identical to the procedure used to estimate the LD50 (lethal dose with 50% probability) which is reported for most medications, with the number of parameters and interpretation obviously being slightly different.

Ah, but now we search to do it a second time. Imagine a wallaby roaming Mars that does not have to eat --- for adequate definitions of roam.

You know the Bishop of Bath and Wells too!?

I would imagine that the parent was referring to authors of a period of writing, and thus Herbert's work (Banks of course has universal charm, Reynolds was more miss than hit if I remember my opinions correctly) is simply too late to be considered part of the "Golden Age of Science Fiction."

Apple, Amazon, Facebook, John Deere, Microsoft, Verizon and Uber
I am somewhat terrified that John Deere recommends maintenance on operating machinery.
source: TechNet report

Is the max ipad plus. Obviously that needs to come next year, but we can dream, because the ipad plus max just sounds terrible.

Also, just to ask: how do we pluralise the iphone Maxs? As the MaxSS? I suppose that we can be thankful that the Lightning connector is being removed, since they would have to do something clever, like denote the SS with lightning bolts...

I think the correct response is to have nuclear power kill more people. Then everything will be normalized.

I, very strongly, recommend consulting Abstruse Goose. Be sure to check the hover text:

42?

Shouldn't they have seen it coming if they were any good at their jobs?

As one of those grad students once upon a time: 95% of the social scientists have absolutely no clue about the tools they use. They do things because they are traditional checkboxes, and those are the marks reviewers look for. They don't care about the logic of the tools they use, and as a result, shit gets dumped out without comprehension by either reviewers or authors.