Have you performed all of the builds and verified that all age verification is anonymous, and always will be? A mere 81 repos.

As astronaut Frank Borman put it, "a superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations which would require the use of his superior piloting skill".

The programmer's version of that would be "a superior programmer uses his superior judgement to avoid creating the bugs that would require the use of his superior debugging skill".

The risk in this scenario is that after a few iterations of people applying AI-generated "black box" modifications, users start reporting that the ancient app is crashing on them now and then, and nobody has the first clue why, or how to fix it... and since the crash isn't readily reproducible, you can't even do a "git bisect" to figure out which commit introduced the regression. Now you're left with two unappetizing choices: either live with the instability forever, or roll back all of the "blind" commits to the last known-stable version and never touch the codebase again.

I just looked at your number - yes, you have been here for quite a while.

Be that as it may, My original thesis that the poor are not kept away from art, and you aer working your best to turn it into something that sounds suspiciously like the poor dying en masse in the streets. And the wealthy laughing at them. Sorry, mon ami, that isn't my argument, you'll have to take that up when you revolt and eat the wealthy. Then the poor will establish a new country of fairness for all, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Do you want to talk about the relative access to art by income, or do you want to spout other stuff.

If so, reply with something other than trying to turn me into some sort of MAGA mouthpiece.

I'm looking - out of curiosity, is the EU going to only use Android?

I think it's probably safe to say that there is pressure to inflate grades, and that such pressure comes from people who think that way.

And I know you know all this, but for the rest of the folks reading, realistically, most of them got into Harvard for one of three reasons:

• They could afford to go to Harvard, and therefore applied.
• They thought they were the best of the best, and therefore applied.
• Their parents went to Harvard and convinced them to apply.

Note that all three of those include the word "apply" in one form or another. The ones who got in are presumably some of the best of the people who applied, with the caveat that there is a large pool of people who were equally good, but did not get in, because there is a limit to how many students they can take, and there is a much, much larger pool of people who were equally good, but did not apply, because they:

• didn't have the money to afford it,
• didn't perceive themselves to be good enough (impostor syndrome),
• didn't want to live in the Boston area (B is for Boston, B is for brr),
• didn't want to go to school with what they assumed would be a bunch of spoiled rich kids,
• wanted to save their money for a good grad school, preferred to stay closer to home, or
• were majoring in an area where Harvard is only middle-of-the-pack.

For example, in CS undergrad education, Harvard is tied with UC Santa Cruz down at #37. And UCSC is a short (though moderately painful) drive from Silicon Valley, which makes it more desirable for part-time employment. Harvard is a few minutes on the red line from MIT (#5), which at best makes it an easy trip to another school's recruiting fairs.

It's not a terrible thought. I'm not sure you'd see a meaningful difference in outcomes if you randomly picked from the top 20% of students nationwide and assigned them to Harvard versus carefully selecting with the level of rigor that they do. What would be really great would be if one of these schools randomly chose 2% of their incoming freshmen from the pool of all applicants, rather than going through the full process, and then compared outcomes.

Of course it's possible. It is exceedingly unlikely once the class size gets sufficiently large, but it is absolutely possible in small classes.

Consider an honors general psychology class where everyone is in the honors program and chooses to take that class rather than taking their A in the non-honors version of the course. If they do well enough to get an A in the non-honors course, there's no good reason to give them a B in the honors version of the course, because that just penalizes their GPA for taking a version of the course that covers the subject in more depth and breadth. Now assume that this class has ten students, all of whom would probably have gotten an A in the standard general psych course. Consider that the policy proposed would cap it at 6 As.

And even if you reject the idea that the honors classes should be graded similarly to the non-honors classes and want folks to wear an A in an honors class as some sort of badge of honor (why?), a small elective class still has a real risk of having a section some quarter/semester where everyone is really good or really bad. And just as you wouldn't want to assign As if nobody deserves one, you wouldn't want to deny As if everyone does.

Policies like this only make sense if you cancel any section that has a small number of students or exclude them from the policy. The smaller the sample size, the larger the standard deviation becomes. This is basic statistics (which I mostly picked up in Dr. Zachry's honors general psych). Any policy that doesn't take that into account is fundamentally flawed. Ideally, the grades for each class need to be evaluated with a t-test or similar against all of the previous sections of that class, taking into account the class size as though they were both samples of a larger population. And if that says there's too much difference between the mean/variance of one class and another, that *might* be a hint that the other class was graded unfairly, or it might mean that they're just smarter/better students. To find out which, you then need to compare the group of students' overall per-semester/quarter GPAs against that same metric for the other historical sections of the class.

Simplifying it to some fixed number makes it easy to write the policy, but it doesn't make it a *good* policy.

In a given class, though, there will be variation. If your grade depends not just on how well you did, but on how well the other people in your class did, it's a fundamentally useless metric, because you can have one person who just happens to get into a couple of classes where half the people were valedictorian, and ends up with a B, while another person in the same year who takes classes in a different semester or ends up in a different section of the same class with different cohorts, turns in exactly the same quality of work, and gets an A.

Any sort of stack ranking makes grading completely and totally worthless, even when evaluating people who were at the same school at the same time. It literally tells you nothing more than that a particular student was better than the people in that specific section of that specific class.

This sort of stack ranking also creates a strong disincentive for smart people to take classes with a smaller numbers of students, because the variability in quality of students will be higher.

I would say that any sort of limits like this should be applied over a five-year rolling window, and including all sections taught by a specific professor. That way, a professor who is approaching the threshold can adjust the grading slightly overall to stay within the limits without excessively penalizing students in a section that has all really smart people.

Alternatively, you could provide an escape hatch where a professor can justify exceeding the policy on a one-off basis, but where it has to be independently reviewed, and if it keeps happening, it becomes a problem for the professor.

If you don't do one of those two things, then what you're doing is causing artificial grade *deflation*, which results in an unfairly/randomly biased ranking signal. And I'm of the opinion that doing so makes grades even less useful than their current questionable level of utility.

Or we could just acknowledge that grades are a poor measurement of students' ability in the real world and abandon them entirely, replacing them with pass/fail signals, where each subject area within a course must provide a pass signal for the class as a whole to be passing. Better yet, make it tristate: P, NMP, F, where P means it should count across the board, NMP means it is good enough to pass if it isn't a course in your major area, and F means it isn't good enough to get credit.

Let companies actually spend the time and money to interview more candidates to find out whether they are worth hiring instead of relying on noisy numeric signals as a crude filter.

Yes. If I'm wrong, I will be pleasantly surprised. I'm not certain teh EU or any nation is worthy of trust.

I get modded troll all the time. So I hear ya! Seems like a troll mod is another version of someone disagreeing with me in here.

But yes, all you wrote is correct. All that said, if we actually rid meat products of nitrates, we'll trade assumed cancer for botulism, and not the type that helps with migraine or freezes the faces of the vain.

Almost like humans will die at some point. 8^)

Amazon I.T. .... your ridiculous middle management and their obsession over metrics make stories like these pathetic, yet not unexpected at all.

I.T. is going down a spiral where management treats you like a "digital janitor". I'm old enough to remember this being a fairly respected career path. People in most offices had a combination of fear and awe of the "I.T. guys" because ultimately, there was a realization the entire business relied on the technology to survive. If the server or network went down, everything ground to a halt. You simply didn't treat the team poorly who held the keys to the kingdom.

It's a very different atmosphere today. Now, everyone's worried about how to cut costs and achieve the maximum return. I.T. may be critically important to a business's success, but nobody cares. There's the constant suggestion that AI is about to replace half of them anyway, and the trick is to wring every bit of productivity out of the existing staff until they quit. Then you just replace them and repeat.

If you're reading this and thinking, "It's not like that at all where I work!", congratulations! You're part of a diminishing bit of sanity out there. The last place I worked like that, though? The owner passed away and the company was sold, and it's no longer an exception to the rule.

The idea someone needs to micro manage their "knowledge workers" to the extent they keep tabs on how many feet their mouse has rolled each day? Well, that's plain insulting they'd even think it's sensible!

Vomiting from the smell of smoke is not a normal reaction, Do all forms of smoke get this response? All smoke is at some level carcinogenic, and it is really difficult to avoid.

Is the code open source and inspectable? If not, you are trusting the people who developed the code.