> And why the researchers didn't tried to reduce stress levels?
The student is under stress due to their struggle with the passage, which the author isn't taking creative liberties to describe as that's how most people will react.
The time constraint wouldn't be an issue if they were comfortable with the passage. You can give them unlimited time and they might provide a sufficient response, or just quit and move along in the study, which also stated in the reading.
And, with all due respect, I think you're probably giving yourself more credit for your ability to perform better than these students than what might be the actual result, but that's not atypical for me online community, whose denizens are a cut above the rest...
This was also noted in the study:
* [...] However, these same subjects (defined in the study as problematic readers) also believed they would have no problem reading the rest of the 900-page novel.
Keep in mind that the students were English majors, so understanding complex classical works might be expected at some point.
> The student is under stress due to their struggle with the passage, which the author isn't taking creative liberties to describe as that's how most people will react.
It doesn't look for me as a satisfactory explanation. Were they stressed because they were forced to think hard, or were they stressed because they were afraid to show their incompetence to a professor? Or maybe some other reason?
If the process of thought makes students stressed, then I don't know what can be done. But if they were afraid of a professor, then this stress factor could be and should be removed. For example, I can imagine how they chose to guess instead of thinking things through because they felt that a long thinking can look bad in professor's eyes. If so then students didn't even tried to read carefully, they were guessing, and the question arise: what the study had measured in this case?
> And, with all due respect, I think you're probably giving yourself more credit for your ability to perform better than these students than what might be the actual result
Why do you think so? I have read the text, I really spent some time on it, because it was hard for me (I mentioned specifically that I was confused for a minute by "but newly" stuffed inside of "had retired"). Then I read samples of students interpretations of the text. I believe that this is enough by itself to believe that I was better. For example, I understood that there was no megalosaurus despite being confused by "but newly". Still I had looked into the original article and had found the interpretation of a "single proficient reader", to compare it with what I've got from the text. The most interesting finding: they completely ignored megalosaurus like I did.
The only catch is I've read just one paragraph, while students were reading more of them, but I don't think it will change the results significantly. I can become bored or overconfident and students can get hang of Dickens' language after a couple of paragraphs so they will show better performance than me, but I don't believe it.
> Optical devices called diffraction gratings stretch it out in time so that when the pump lasers dump power into the pulse, it doesn’t get so intense that it starts tearing the air apart.
Oh,my.
> "The crystal that we’re going to get in the summer will get us to 3 petawatts, and it took four and a half years to manufacture"
This entire thing is beyond cool. I hope the rest of the process goes smoothly for the teams involved!
I was hoping I could hear it make noise but it operates for millionths of nanoseconds. Human ears have trouble with anything less than 30 ms so when it runs a trillion times longer we’ll be able to hear it make a sound.
Big powerful lasers can actually be quite noisy. Once I was talking on the phone with a friend who was working on one of the big lasers (don't remember which one, but it was in the bay area) and he said,"What? What? I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of my laser!". When he could hear me, I told him that was one of the coolest things I'd ever heard anyone say.
Is anyone stopping him, et al, from just paying more? There's an option for that on US tax forms (though I'm guessing tax returns for billionaires are a little more complex than what a Form 1040 can handle).
People suggest this often whenever a rich person says they should pay more taxes but unless I can specifically say I want my extra taxes to go to a specific government agency or office, I have no idea why I would do this. Just so Boeing can get a larger contract with my extra taxes? At that point I would just donate directly to causes that support what I want instead of dealing with the middle man.
You can give to state and local governments and get a federal tax deduction [1], per 26 U.S. Code § 170 (c) (1)
> (1) A State, a possession of the United States, or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or the United States or the District of Columbia, but only if the contribution or gift is made for exclusively public purposes.
But not if you make a gift to federal agency (unless that's listed somewhere else)
>Though I'm guessing tax returns for billionaires are a little more complex than what a Form 1040 can handle
When it comes to wealth, the world is divided into two basic groups:
1. Those with sufficient wealth that they and their family members will never need to hold a job in order to earn an income to survive.
2. Everyone else who must earn an income to survive.
It is important to understand that, in the United States, Group One people only pay taxes because they invest their money. They have enough money right now (100 million or more) that they could simply put the money in a bank vault and rely upon those funds for the rest of their lives without the need to even file tax returns.
They don't do that because they want more wealth. They want to invest their wealth such that it doubles every 10 years or so. And so they incur taxes to the extent their investments produce dividends or if they sell some stock for the purpose of investing the proceeds into a different investment. Of course, they only do this because they are convinced the new investment will return a much higher rate then the investment they are moving out of - after taxes. Otherwise, they wouldn't change investments.
Group Two has no choice in the matter. They do not have sufficient wealth to not work. So they work and earn wages which is always taxed.
Group One hold power and they essentially hold a veto over laws they are absolutely opposed to. Why do you think the US Government obtains its funds via a tax on income? Group One does not have income and thus contributes nothing to the cost of running the government - unless, as I've already addressed, they DECIDE for themselves that it is worthwhile to invest their money - and even then they only get taxed when they switch investments (or dividends). But they are not being taxed because they must work.
That is why it is laughable for Trump and the Republicans to be "debating" whether or not to tax the rich. But do not believe for one second that taxing the rich is the same thing as taxing the wealthy. The rich are Group Two people who earn very high wages. But the taxes being discussed are of no real interest or concern to Group One people.
Driving 10 mph above the speed limit on a highway at every opportunity will only lead to a very limited reduction in travel time, because you spend a lot of time breaking (i.e. to avoid crashing into law-abiding drivers, reacting to speed controls, etc.).
At the same time it drastically increases both the risk of accidents, as well as the severity of accidents when they happen. You also endanger not only yourself but also everyone else on the road with you.
Sensible road design takes this into account and constructs roads in a way that disincentivizes speeding and is safer for everyone. One example would be "lazily" meandering highways instead of perfectly straight ones. The broken sightline is a great incentive to keep your foot off the gas, most people do it instinctively.
"Ongoing driver training" on the other hand is burdensome and expensive for the individual drivers and will probably lead to little noticeable effect, as speeding is not related to "not knowing better", but to "feeling entitled to break the rules" (for whatever reason).
Failure to drive 70 mph on a highway posted at 60 will (very often, road depending) result in far more cars overpassing you. Each instance of passing carries a small but definite amount of risk; it is safer to match the speed of the other cars on the road than to obstinately stick to the limit and get passed hundreds of times in a single trip.
(As for ripping up roads and relaying them so drivers intuitively find the safe speed to match the posted speed limit, it would be much cheaper to simply adjust the speed limit than establishing entirely new right of ways through existing neighborhoods, farms and industrial zones. That would be bonkers.)
It's a rare stretch of American interstate highway where the majority are sticking to the speed limit. On different roads the ratio of speeders to "speed limit doers" varies, but interstates have fairly consistent driving conditions and the safe speed for those conditions is consistently higher than the posted limit.
Usually traffic on American interstates is staying at the speed limit if: there is a fair amount of congestion, everybody is stuck behind somebody doing the limit, or there is rain/fog/snow/etc.
>and the safe speed for those conditions is consistently higher than the posted limit.
A cursory look at traffic safety statistics would seem to dispute this statement. The US consistently ranks quite high in traffic fatalities, which seems to indicate that you couldn't safely drive faster than the current speed limit in most circumstances. Of course you'd have to control for a lot of other factors for a definite conclusion, but conversely, I'd like to see an actual source for your theory.
Enforcing a speed limit is actually not that hard if you want to. You can of course put stationary or mobile speed cameras in place. But even better may be systems I've seen in some places in southern Europe: Cameras at the beginning and end of a stretch of highway that compare time stamps of your passing and calculate the average speed of your car in that stretch. If you've passed the stretch quicker than should be possible according to the speed limit you'll be fined. It's quite low tech, cameras are prevalent on the highway systems of many countries, anyway, and it solves the problem of people adhering only to the speed limit if they know they are being observed by law enforcement.
There are a number of interstates (and interstate like US highways) near me that have posted speed limits of 70MPH but any normal day you'll find traffic going 55mph or even less.
When everyone is driving beyond the speed limit, the ones actually obeying the speed limit are the dangerous drivers. It is unfortunate that speed limits in the US have not corresponded to how people actually drive since 1973.
How does this make sense? If I'm driving the speed limit and someone else is crashing into me from behind while speeding, they are the dangerous driver. No matter how many other people also ignore the speed limit.
Also, increasing the speed limit does nothing to make traffic safer. That doesn't make any sense at all, as increased speed is correlated very well with increased accident rates and severity of traffic-related injuries:
It should be obvious that driving substantially slower than everyone else would make you a danger to others. Try driving at the speed limit on a high way in southern NY, especially in the left lane. You will have many near accidents and the reality is that you would be the dangerous driver for not keeping pace with everyone else.
Increasing the speed limit to the 85th percentile so that you do not have the few people who actually obey it posing a hazard to others does make things safer.
Getting cars off the road sooner by reducing travel time, decreases the number of cars on the road. This increases the distance between cars and accidents only when the distance betweeen a vehicle and something else reaches 0. Forcing people to drive slower therefore causes collisions by bringing cars closer to one another.
The severity is a separate matter from whether there is a collision. As for severity, people drive much faster in Germany where there is no high way speed limit for much of the autobahn yet their autobahn network has half the fatalities that U.S. highways have. The safety data from 2012 shows this:
As for your link, it talks about pedestrian safety. As per the data there, pedestrians are unsafe on highways no matter what the speed limits are. There are also no pedestrians on highways. There is no point to setting highway speed limits based on studies showing the danger to non-existent pedestrians.
Did you post the first link that seemed to agree with your position as part of some fallacious appeal to authority because logic failed to agree with your preconceived notions that you were never equipped to defend? I suspect that is exactly what you just did.
>Increasing the speed limit to the 85th percentile so that you do not have the few people who actually obey it posing a hazard to others does make things safer.
[citation needed]
Seriously. That is a pretty bold claim that you should be able support with actual studies, if true. You have several things working against your hypothesis:
- While it may be true that driving at the legal speed limit might slightly increase the risk of accidents when many other drivers drive faster than the speed limit, a general increase of the speed limit might severly increase risk for everyone.
- Many people do not drive above the speed limit, because they have a "higher normal", but because they feel entitled to "drive faster". I.e. they claim that they are "better drivers", they have a superior need to arrive faster, etc. Those people will just adapt their behavior to the new, higher speed limit and again drive above that, making the entire exercise pointless and dangerous.
- A potential and less risky alternative would be improved enforcement of the current speed limit.
There are probably plenty of other arguments that actual experts in this field would bring up.
>Getting cars off the road sooner by reducing travel time, decreases the number of cars on the road. This increases the distance between cars and accidents only when the distance betweeen a vehicle and something else reaches 0.
That makes no sense at all. It has been proven in both theoretical and practical tests that driving "all out" does not decrease travel time drastically in almost all circumstances. But it substantially increase the risk of accidents. So any minuscule decrease in car density will be far outweighed by increased accident risk per kilometer driven.
>Forcing people to drive slower therefore causes collisions by bringing cars closer to one another.
It's actually the other way around: Forcing people to drive slower drastically reduced the risk of collisions because people are slower and have more time to react. It also reduces the incidence of traffic jams (because sharp braking prevalent with speeding drivers is a main contributor to traffic jams), which are in turn a major factor in collisions.
>As for severity, people drive much faster in Germany where there is no high way speed limit for much of the autobahn yet their autobahn network has half the fatalities that U.S. highways have.
You'll have to control for other factors, of course. Cars in the US are much larger and heavier than in Germany, for example. In statistics, you want to compare apples to apples, so you control for vehicle weight when trying to make observations about the impact of speed on accident severity.
>As for your link, it talks about pedestrian safety.
True. But the same holds true for vehicle collisions. It's really basic physics. All other things being equal, faster cars have more energy. More energy = more severe accident outcomes.
>Did you post the first link that seemed to agree with your position as part of some fallacious appeal to authority because logic failed to agree with your preconceived notions that you were never equipped to defend?
No. There are plenty of other sources that support my views, i.e.
> Seriously. That is a pretty bold claim that you should be able support with actual studies, if true
The 85th percentile rule/principle has been understood for decades. Just search for information on it. You will find tons of results. Calling it a bold claim is like claiming asymptotic complexity is a bold claim. It is something that is well known, just not to you.
> It has been proven in both theoretical and practical tests that driving "all out" does not decrease travel time drastically in almost all circumstances.
Those tests do not seem relevant to highways, where it is easy to measure differences in travel time between driving at the speed of traffic and driving at the speed limit. When traffic is at 70mph and the speed limit is 55mph, keeping pace with traffic results in a 21% reduction in highway travel time. How things go when someone is ‘driving "all out"’ is not relevant here.
> Forcing people to drive slower drastically reduced the risk of collisions because people are slower and have more time to react.
A highway is not a regular road where it is stop and go based on lights. The purpose of a highway is to have a free flow of traffic such that you do not need to be continuously reacting to others. You do need to maintain a certain distance between you and the car to react in emergencies, but these are supposed to be exceptional and plenty of collisions occur when changing lanes, which would be lessened with fewer cars on the road. Cases where everyone needs to stop would also be lessened.
> You'll have to control for other factors, of course. Cars in the US are much larger and heavier than in Germany, for example. In statistics, you want to compare apples to apples, so you control for vehicle weight when trying to make observations about the impact of speed on accident severity.
Those same vehicles are legal to drive in Germany as far as I know. There is a possibility that they are popular in the U.S. because of the speed limits such that they would be less popular if the highways did not have speed limits. After all, their acceleration, braking and fuel economy are terrible. They would only be worse at autobahn speeds. The knowledge that it is legal to drive at higher speeds tends to encourage people purchasing vehicles to purchase ones that can handle higher speeds well. We could see vehicles more similar to those driven in Germany become popular if there were no speed limits and then things would naturally become apples to apples.
> True. But the same holds true for vehicle collisions. It's really basic physics. All other things being equal, faster cars have more energy. More energy = more severe accident outcomes.
There is no law of physics that dictates that such things cannot be done with greater safety than we currently have. Germany is a fantastic example of this. Germany permits speeds that would be considered hazardous by the thinking behind motor vehicle rules in the US, yet is substantially safer.
> No. There are plenty of other sources that support my views, i.e.
If I tell you what is wrong with your sources one last time, I hope you will stop posting links under the misguided hope that some random thing superficially agrees with your claims sticks. Your first link involved studies in a country where speed limits should obey the 85th percentile. The findings are not relevant to the U.S. where the 85th percentile is ignored. Even without knowing about the 85th percentile, it is obvious the applicability to other countries would depend on how similar the process for establishing the speed limit is. Your second link is behind a paywall and cannot be scrutinized, but the German autobahn likely contradicts it. Problems only occur when the distance between a vehicle and another object reaches 0. If that is avoided, the speed does not matter.
That said, it is impossible to prevent future Darwin Award recipients from earning their awards. If you insist on trying to stop them from earning rewards from motor vehicles, you might as well push for a complete ban on motor vehicles. That is the only thing that would eliminate motor vehicle fatalities.
I didn't realize that you spoke for everyone. Maybe you were taught that info by your instructor, but that doesn't mean everyone followed a similar format.
They can be a dev and not want to have to clone and explore the code. There's tons of little bits of friction that're not addressed by the "face" of the repo. E.g. The readme doesn't seem to imply how to connect to this database (the answer is you write to its stdin, it's not socket based).
We're not at work here. Low effort posts are allowed though not encouraged. Implying that making a low effort post somehow makes you not a developer ("you're a 'dev' but don't seem out tests?") is it's own low effort post, while also being hurtful.
Please, let's keep things kind, focused, and clear.
I don't know assembly, but my advice would be to take the rote route by rewriting stuff in assembly.
Just like anything else, there's no quick path to the finish line (unless you're exceptionally gifted), so putting in time is always the best action to take.
> ...if it needs to remember you, it should do so with tokens and one-time links, not user accounts or forgotten-password flows...
Not for me, thanks. I've skipped submitting job apps because of the Oracle HRM platform and having to visit my email an enter a six-digit code EACH time I wanted to submit an app, which required re-uploading a resume and re-correcting any parsing errors.
I will 100% skip your website if you rely upon cookies/OTP and don't let users create accounts (if they need one).
I don't trust Google reviews anymore, Maps or otherwise.
Look at how many reviews will just be five-star ones, but no text. Or, one or two words quips, like, "great food!"
Negative reviews might also be emotionally driven, some by one-time events, like a to-go order taking too long because of a large office order that preceded it.
When I was apartment shopping, I saw so many "sketchy" reviews on Google and reporting them does nothing. Many would be from people who only toured the place and NEVER actually lived there, or from people who just moved in. Both are useless, but does Google care? No! Hence, my disdain for Google reviews.
It is quite time-consuming to go through the reviews due to this exact reason - 100s of low effort reviews and also fake reviews to hide negative reviews.
https://www.top-rated.online/ re-sorts the reviews (on individual place page) based on reactions and number of reviews user made. It makes it easier to see the full picture and avoid fake reviews.
How do you make money without skewing the results?
And can LLMs be subtle enough?
Last time I picked a restaurant via reading between the lines, it was a negative review that made me decide to go there. The person leaving it was either used to fast food like service or was in a real hurry, but between the lines the food was great, they just took a while to serve it. I was in no particular hurry so I was happy with the place.
Can a LLM figure that out? And what about the day when I am in a hurry and I am looking for fast food like service?
The student is under stress due to their struggle with the passage, which the author isn't taking creative liberties to describe as that's how most people will react.
The time constraint wouldn't be an issue if they were comfortable with the passage. You can give them unlimited time and they might provide a sufficient response, or just quit and move along in the study, which also stated in the reading.
And, with all due respect, I think you're probably giving yourself more credit for your ability to perform better than these students than what might be the actual result, but that's not atypical for me online community, whose denizens are a cut above the rest...
This was also noted in the study:
* [...] However, these same subjects (defined in the study as problematic readers) also believed they would have no problem reading the rest of the 900-page novel.
Keep in mind that the students were English majors, so understanding complex classical works might be expected at some point.