When you're talking to left wing people about what "works" with regards to law enforcement, it's important to keep in mind that they have a different definition of "works" than most people. Most people think that a law enforcement policy "works" if it reduces the incidence of criminal events against innocent people. Left wing people, on the other hand, tend to think of the criminals themselves as victims--of "the system," or racism, or colonialism, or stigma--so a policy that is too harsh on criminals doesn't "work" for them. In their view, law enforcement should weigh heavily the victim status of criminals themselves.
Please don’t worry about the emdashes, worry about the broad and inaccurate generalizations being churned out by your flawed world model. I urge you to go to some actual criminal reformers in person.
Neither side of any political spectrum thinks that a law enforcement policy "works" if it reduces the incidence of criminal events against innocent people. Obviously if that was the goal, the easiest path is to remove laws and disband police. Instant crime rate drop.
But in fact both sides want to improve their societal outcomes and the policing/criminal policies that they support are by-and-large attempts to do that - improve society.
I'm neither left- nor right-wing in the US sense, but it is clear from examples around the world that high-trust societies emerge from the ground up and require strong family units, strong local communities, and strong engagement in larger politics.
While you do need police, you can't build communities by policing them. It's never worked anywhere.
For instance, you can look at two countries and if one country has a higher prison population, that country over polices because every country and its people should have the same criminality level because all cultures and people are identical.
I remember feeling great shame that the US had such a high imprisonment rate. This led to a big decrease in state prison population and things like cashless bail and letting people go to basically like the stats. We need to get back to basics and remove people that are destructive and stop overanalyzing things
So now you're asserting there is something uniquely, inherently bad about Americans that causes them to need to be locked in jail at 6 times the rate of every other country.
Do you know what that thing might be, and how to fix it?
As opposed to right-wing people, who think it works if it makes them feel warm and bubbly inside, which only happens when it's designed poorly and not working properly.
A question for people who, like the author of this article, are genuinely surprised by these results: do these results change the way you think about what social interventions are feasible? Do they change the way you think about human nature?
I think the parent comment is asking what process or algorithm is there that would result in an array that was sometimes but not always a heap, and you'd want to do something based on whether the array was in fact a heap or not? Like in your example, what process do you have in mind that might result in a heap and might not?
Id be interested to read about some "holistic" admissions success stories. There must be by this point tons of examples of students admitted "holistically" who are now doing great things because of the opportunity they were given.
Most, if not all, Canadian admissions are holistic. All the universities are pretty easy to get into as long as you have the grades, especially for undergrad. As a result, for undergrad at least, no one really cares what school you went to.
From outside looking in, the American system has a hilariously unequal system. Certain opportunities are hoarded by an insanely small set of schools, almost entirely based on "prestige" and financial dominance. And it's this crazy arms-race/pressure cooker to get in. But once you're in, grade inflation is everywhere and people aren't actually working super hard. No one freaks out about admissions to "mid-tier" schools. It's entirely about a select coterie of schools who people rightly perceive as gatekeeping to an incredible extent.
None of the schools actually emphasize being accessible and hard to graduate from. The incentives are all weird and cater to a small elite population. The name on the degree is more important than earning the degree.
I dunno about other colleges, but Caltech you earned the degree. Many students dropped out because of the workload. There were a couple that were able to coast through, but they had IQs easily over 160.
You should be extremely skeptical of people who claim to have tested IQs above 130 and also believe those tests are not inherently noisy at the top end. Many modern tests lump everyone with 130+ into the same category [1]. An IQ of "easily over 160" is not a clinically valid finding by any standard IQ test that I am aware of.
This is because standard IQ tests are generally designed to measure around the median of the distribution (70-130), and so there is a lot of variance in measurement at the top end. If you happen to have a bad testing day and you make a dumb mistake, your measured IQ might drop by a fairly large number of points -- or, conversely, if you got lucky and guessed right, your measured IQ could be much higher than reality.
For example, the original Raven's Progressive Matrices says [2; page 71]
> For reason's already given, Progressive Matrices (1938) does not differentiate, very clearly between young-children, or between adults of superior intellectual capacity.
where "superior intellectual capacity" is defined as an IQ of ~125 or higher, and (if I am interpreting it correctly), the table on page 79 of [2] says missing a single question could drop a 20-year old from scoring 95 percentile to scoring 90 percentile. That's 5 IQ points on a single question! If you had a bad day, or didn't get enough sleep, you could test significantly worse than your actual "IQ."
Anyone that actually has an IQ of 160 with even a modicum of self awareness should understand that the IQ test they took is inherently noisy at the top end of the scale because sometimes people have off days.
Consider that Hal Finney was next door to me in the dorm. I've never met a smarter fellow.
I agree that actually measuring his IQ would have been a dodgy idea, but there was no doubt he was a unicorn. He himself never made any claims about it. It was just something you realized about him after a while.
I agree with you that smart people exist, and I have met a few in college as well.
The main thing I want to add is that using IQ to quantify intelligence at the top end of the scale is scientifically bogus and in my opinion harmful because it validates depressed / insecure / chronically online people who use their "160 IQ" as a way to put down other people or to peddle pseudo-scientific nonsense. Those people often need genuine psychiatric help and (in my opinion) such validation only harms them.
I'm sure that Hal Finney was exceptionally smart, though. :)
Hal hid his intelligence. You'd never know it until you got to know him. He was well-liked, and even put up with the likes of me. (A lot of techers put up with me, and even generously helped me to not flunk out. I had a lot of growing up to do.)
I would have had a lot less trouble with Quantum Mechanics if I'd realized that nobody understands it, it's just that the math works. I thought it was just me that thought it was crazy.
I've heard MIT was similar. But their graduates have never had quite the prestige and easy in to influential circles as the boys (eventually girls, too) down the street.
It was easily the most work and effort I had to put into anything, tons of peoole dropping/failing out, and the average GPA for most students was not that hot. Definitely not close to the well-known Harvard-tier 3.65+
A classmate dropped out in his sophomore year, and 10 years later asked to come back and finish. Caltech said sure, and aced the courses and earned his degree.
I asked him, were you smarter after 10 years? He laughed and said nope, he was just willing to work this time!
(Another gem about Caltech - once you're admitted, they'll give you endless chances to come back and finish. Your credits did not expire.)
One of my friends finally graduated after 6 years there. He endured endless students mumbling "7 years, down the drain!" as they passed by. (The line was from Animal House.)
Almost all our Canadian hires have been at Waterloo at some point. Even when we do random resume pulls and interviews, Waterloo seems to have the most competent set of candidates when you’re talking about new grads.
> All the universities are pretty easy to get into as long as you have the grades, especially for undergrad.
The is partially true but leaves out an important difference between Canadian and American admissions. In Canada you are admitted to a particular major, not the university as a whole.
E.g. At the University of Waterloo, CS and some of the engineering majors can have < 5% admissions rate and are extremely merit based. At the same time, applying for the general Bachelor of Arts at UWaterloo is uncompetitive and very easy to get admitted.
I was #3 in highschool out of a 550 graduating class. I thought I was bright.
Went to Cal for mechanical engineering, and while I survived the engineering classes, the physics classes wore me out and the math classes were almost impossible for me. I barely made it out of there.
I honestly wish I went somewhere easier so that it wasn't a constant struggle to keep up and survive. I think I would have actually learned more.
I took a Math 1A class (intro to calc) at Cal where the prof turned his back on class at the start of the hour, then proceeded to mumble incoherently for 60 minutes while filling a chalkboard with equations. He’d turn back around at the end of the hour. Many students brought pillows. I learned literally nothing in lecture.
This professor wasn’t demanding, he was just making zero effort to actually teach.
Great researchers are not necessarily great teachers, especially for intro courses. Anecdotally, I think this is a common issue at “prestigious” schools.
I know that feelings but be assured, it’s better to be mediocre when you’re surrounded by amazing people than to be the best in a place where no one cares. I can guarantee you learnt more than other places even if you don’t feel like that at the moment.
I've had 20 years to think about this, and while it was always fun to get the positive vibes telling people I went to Cal, I still think UC Davis or SLO would have been better.
It's not like my only other option was to go to CSU East Bay, although I know people that built decent careers from there too to be honest.
I’ve heard people say this about difficult colleges or degrees before, so you’re not alone. The push to make something overly hard can simply leave some capable people behind by not matching their style or pace of learning. But also I think some of the less famous universities simply care about teaching while the top ones leave that to random grad students and instead brag about their research credentials. The thing is, professors doing research doesn’t help students learning.
I think all that matters is that most if not all professors care about teaching. And my experience at top universities has been that most still care about teaching and the grad students they need to rely on is because of the class size. There were definitely some that were basking in their own glory from the past, but those were few. Can’t tell about all universities, but I’d assume it’s the same everywhere. The reality is that given what it takes to become a tenured professor, you’re bound to have at least a few who generally suck at teaching.
It comes down to the notion that America is a classless society being farcical. There has always been an elite that jealously guards their power and influence. Entrance into it - or the ersatz version that is the bourgeoisie - has always (along with immigration) been modulated based on what was most likely to preserve the existence of that elite.
And it's not a conspiracy; it just shows how much power that elite has, that they're able to make these things happen when they need them to. A sudden turn away from nativism and condoning of proto-anarchy when the black population (first slave, then free) threatened to upend the social order. Socialism lite (and more immigration, but only from preferred European nations) to head off full-blown socialism after capitalism first drove to excess and then blew itself up. Truman getting the VP spot. Bank bailouts (so many bank bailouts). Even the begrudging "opening" of elite institutions to Jews, blacks, Asians (staring down the barrel of their own, rival, institutions).
Anything to prevent their power and influence decentralizing in an enduring manner.
Isn't the point that _all_ admissions from a range of institutions over a period of years (decades?) were "holistic" admissions, and thus basically all post-college success stories are holistic success stories? Further, _it's actively harmful_ as well as unfounded to post-hoc try to say that person X would _only_ have been admitted under a holistic framework.
In the same way, if up until last year, your company had any form of DEI, it's pretty toxic to point to any of your colleagues, claim that they were diversity hire and their success is a credit to DEI policies b/c that undermines them in a way that's impossible to provide evidence against.
The implication that "you were only <hired or admitted> because of a policy that gave you credit for <trait/circumstance>" can't have a factual basis unless you have all applications and notes from the admissions/hiring deliberation process, which the person in question almost certainly cannot.
This has actually been one of the ideas floated by regulators.
The idea is that merit based admissions is actually pretty complicated, so we can allow individual universities continue to experiment with their own implementations and approaches.
However, we can hold them accountable by grading them based on retrospective data.
> Also, I suspect success has to be quantified, which might be hard.
I wouldn't say hard. It's expensive, time consuming, and the people who can perform qual to quant conversions usefully need to have a foot firmly planted on each side of the subject matter fence.
More to the point, nobody's really interested in compiling this kind of data. Adding dimensions beyond income to your definition of "success" would result in e.g. revealing there isn't anyone from your school successfully practicing family law.
This may not count as “holistic”, but my grand-uncle went to City College of NY when it was both open admissions and free. He had the equivalent of an 8th grade education in his home country.
He ended up with a BS in Chemistry, went on further academically, and eventually was the general manager of a big factory (I think for GE, but not 100% sure) in the 80s before being killed in a car accident.
There’s a million stories like this. Most debates about who is more “qualified” for what in this context boil down to subjective vibes about whatever people think. At best, it’s pride in Ivy League education, at worst it’s some racist nonsense about the “others” taking status and jobs away.
I went to a random state school that some would eyeroll at. Life has been fine, and I’m glad I didn’t waste my time pursuing some bullshit admissions process.
UnitedHealth has 147 million customers, according to google. 20 billion / 147 million = $136
So they're making $136 dollars per customer in profit. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. 136 is much less than the crazy costs that people are complaining about.
Are people who like to quote these big numbers just not capable of critical thinking or is it just that they like the chance to rage at capitalism's supposed failings and they know their readers are too dumb to do division?
I don't think you're making contact with what the other commenter is saying. Explaining that a health insurer makes a little over $100 in profit per person over the course of a year is meant to disprove the argument that removing profit from the health insurance system is all it will take to make everything affordable. Philosophical arguments around the economic value of a life is separate from how to reduce costs of a healthcare system in a mixed market economy.
> Philosophical arguments around the economic value of a life is separate
No, you're missing the point that it's totally inappropriate to treat healthcare as a profit-center by arrogantly trivializing my response, gaslighting, and applying seriously sociopathic cognitive dissonance while avoiding the greater concern.
Under what conditions is exponential segment sizing preferable to fixed size segments? Are there any specific algorithms or situations where this is especially good? It seems like the likelihood of large amounts of wasted space is a major downside.
It's always better - the increase in indexing complexity is negligible, and it completely eliminates resizing of the top-level array. It also reduces the number of calls to `malloc` while keeping capacity proportional to active size.
What "mass" deportations in germany are you talking about? I can only find any news references to two flights, totaling ~100 people in the past year. Surely even a normal level of deportations, let alone "mass" deportations, would generate more deportations than this?
And you're really not sure this is less draconian than nazis?
The vast majority of these deportations are just shuffling people around the EU in what seems like a game of hot potato over who is supposed to be responsible for a given migrant. Deportations that actually get people out of the EU seem to be extremely rare afaict.
20k people were deported in 2024. That's not insignificant.
Anyway, let's assume germany deported 0 people. It's telling that you're focusing in typical liberal manner on a single issue and disregarding everything else (war, genocide, recession, submission to usa as a vassal state etc.)
(and this isn't AI I really do use emdashes)