Wikipedia is not a trusted source

for someone who started stating facts with zero sources at all, you're awfully pedantic about what other people do. Back in the real world, wilkipedia has references.

why quoting it in any journalistic, scientific, or educational setting will result in an instant fail.

Firstly we ain't in one of those. This is more like a conversation down the pub. And second, what do you think stating "well known facts" which aren't without any citation will get you in those rarefied institutions?

More generally there is more pressure on kids these days. They didn't used to have to take on 5 or 6 figures of debt to get an education that is basically mandatory to do even entry level clerical jobs these days.

When I was an undergrad most people I knew at my uni were there to learn stuff about a subject they cared about. You know for it own sake. There were a few proto finance bros doing engineering because it could lead to a good finance job, but other than them no one was thinking about jobs specifically. I mean sure some engineers had a passion for motorsports and chose the more mechanical options and probably went on to work with cars, but it was all interest driven not job driven. Learning for its own sake because the expectation was there would be job, you'd get a job, your own place to live and go out into the world.

Because jobs existed and housing wasn't a pipe dream.

Now undergrads are all laser focused on immediate future employment and there's less learning for is own sake. Obviously this isn't an unwise choice given what 2026 is like, but it's sad their prospects are so narrowed and that does affect them.

If it needs done , what is your thesis that they should stop after the first semester. Would you fly on a rocket designed and built by people who could not fail?

This is nonsense basically, given the topic.

My undergrad university graded prelims (first year exams) but did not use the results beyond that. Everything graded was in a huge blob known as finals at the end of year 3 (then also year 4 by the time I arrived).

There were a variety of reasons this was the case. Degrees were traditionally determined by finals, and the people in charge didn't exactly have what may be known now as a "change mindset". Modules were just starting to come into vogue, but they didn't like the idea that undergrads could go into the last exam having forgotten and discarded lots of what they'd learned already. Also modules were new fangled.

And finally, because prelims were kind of irrelevant given the finals results. Anything learned in year 1 you will have gone far beyond by year 3. The later stuff matters more and is dependent on the earlier stuff anyway, so anything from year 1 is implicitly tested in year 3.

It's a replacement for current turboprops, on their shorter routes. This is a picture of this plane:

https://www.heartaerospace.com...

This is the De Havilland Dash 8:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And the ATR 42:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Note some similarities?

You're need to get to work, get groceries, maybe go for an occasional Sunday drive. Do you buy a Porsche or a Honda?

SpaceX is. Grok/Twitter/xAI isn't. And SpaceX themselves advise that most of the growth potential, and thus most of the future value, is in the latter, not the former.

Software. Software companies often get P/E ratios of around 30 because they spend lots of money developing a product but after that they usually have very high profit margins and their incremental cost is pretty close to zero. That's why everyone, from Tesla to Uber, wants to be a "software company."

They're not though, and neither is Anthropic. They're a service provider whose ongoing costs are very high and there's no real reason to think they're going to be coming down much in the near future. Their incremental costs are also very high, having to pay for all the processing time. They're more like Tesla who has to actually build cars not just provide a download link. Except even Tesla doesn't have to spend billions every quarter to come out with a new product to keep up with their neck and neck competitors.

I assume by "flow rate" you mean power, which is indeed measured in Watts. The article seems to have its units straight. Perhaps your understanding isn't quite what you think it is?

You got letter grades in high school? So you could get something like 1 in 10 answers wrong and still get a perfect grade? Lol, what a joke.

Pass/fail, letter grades, four point scales, even percentages, all of these do the same thing. They group actual scores into categories. You can choose those categories based on what you think the uncertainty in the evaluation scheme is, or meaningful performance bands, or just chopping an unknown distribution into arbitrary equal-sized chunks ("any statistician would tell you").

Well, you fail the pass/fail graded course in knowing what a participation trophy is for.

Your grade in whatever-101 is unlikely to be a very important number unless maybe you're going to be teaching those courses. Neither grad school nor an employer is going to care much about your relative performance on answering questions about Newton's laws, balancing redox equations or single variable calculus. Any important problem there would be reflected in future grades.

Realistically all your precise undergrad grades are pretty irrelevant to both grad school and employers. They just use them as a convenient filter.

Right. So pass/fail works just fine.

I had honours calculus, an algorithms course and formal logic that were the weed out courses. Something like half the students dropped each of them before the no penalty drop date and of the rest about 50% passed. Then they scaled the grades so if you did pass you pretty much got a perfect score.

They're committed to the bit that Kalshi and company are futures exchanges. If New York decided to shut down one of the stock, foreign currency, or commodity exchanges headquartered there it would actually cause a market emergency. If you want to pretend that Kalshi is one of those then you've got to pretend it with feeling.

I was pointing out what I believe to be a well-known fact

This does not stop you being a hypocrite. First, it ain't a "well known fact". We're not in some sort of weird formalised debate so it's fine to state supposed facts without sources. It's just pure wankery to then complain when someone does the same but in disagreement with you.

FWIW wikipedia disagrees with your "well known fact".

Someone in this administration is making bank from Kalshi.

Donald Trump Jr. for one.

https://finance.yahoo.com/mark...