So I've seen this a couple of times and to me it make sense, but it also seems such a perfect indictment of organizational culture that I could see it being fabricated for laughs. Can anyone vouch for the authenticity of this?
No but I am a single individual. If I was a company that produced widgets I would use FedEx or UPS rather than maintaining my own fleet of trucks, drivers, maintenance staff, etc.
Under that system a young German scientist who wrote about the photovoltaic effect would be ignored and classified as non-reputable. Just saying being part of the institutions doesn't make on right it makes one prominent.
Looks like I am too late to edit my comment but I will acknowledge I was wrong about that those indicators seem to be reasonable and I could see myself possibly being in support of something like that not in the SAT itself but as a factor in admissions.
I disagree with the experts part, after all under meritocracy Einstein is the greatest scientific mind of the 20th century however he wasn't even able to get a job in academia until after he produced ground breaking results.
Ah yes the. We are going to modify your score based on the color of your skin. I think that is a good way of doing it. I am sure no one would lie about that just to get a few extra points on the SAT, besides treating people different based on their race is totally a good idea an never results in unintended consequences. I like the idea basically we are making sure each side is equal but slightly separate from each other.
The alternative is to make it completely subjective and based on the whims of the committee. I can't see that going wrong at all, like because there are no committee members who might be racist or sexist or have a bias against religious people or anything like that. No the college acceptance committee stands as paragons of virtues moral giants in this land of ethical pygmys they alone are incorruptible unswayable and perfectly and completely fair in all things.
So standardized merit based metrics serve only as a barrier to their ineffable judgement and pure deductions let it be them alone and their powerful "algorithm" that is too pure and holy for mortal eyes to sully with their gaze be the new standard by which we determine if a student can go to Harvard, for clearly this is the one true way forward and will never be manipulated by self serving or short sighted beauracrats to manipulate and politic in.
I think this is a big one, there comes a certain point where the bureaucracy simply squeezes the ambition and desire out of you. I hit that at some points, I just didn't want to work anymore excelling at my job made no difference to me or anyone else because even if I stood out and did excellently it wouldn't matter because I had to go to other teams or get other approvals to actually acomplish something.
I found myself spending time on leetcode, or learning emacs because I could justify those as improving my abilities. To quote Office Space "I have 4 different bosses, my only motivation is to not get hassled, that and fear of losing my job. But you know what Bob, that gets someone to work just hard enough to not get fired."
When it gets to questions like these I feel that we transcend discussions of technology and end up on questions of philosiphy which aren't going to be going anywhere anytime quick.
I also feel that AI should be used to augment not replace human decision making, it seems that where AI shines is problems that are well defined with well defined solutions, and because the AI doesn't get tired, hungry or distracted it can do that really well, but it fails in novel situations[0]. As such it seems to me our best bet is to have the AI provide suggestions rather than have complete control.
0. What is meant by that is a read an article, can't find it now, about using AI to diagnose breast cancer, what they found is that about 90% of the time the AI could accurately check for breast cancer, but the other 10% of the time was an unusual mammogram or something relatively rare, and in those situations the AI would often misdiagnoise.
Took me several moments and a visit to the article to realize that this was not talking about a font that was somehow more efficient to be routed around network paths but was instead about a router tool and the bit on a router that makes impressions in wood.
Well I got COVID before the vaccine came out and am not in a high risk group, so I'm not really that worried about me.
But you say it is being a decent human being, but I am confused if we both agree the vaccine doesn't reduce infectivity then why would me getting it change anything for anyone else, since we know it doesn't protect others?
I've heard that but then why do people say we need to get vaccinated to protect the most vulnerable members of society if the vaccine isn't actually slowing the spread and doesn't prevent infection?
EDIT:
To be clear I already had COVID and didn't have any serious symptoms so the argument about a hospital bed doesn't necessarily apply to me. Beyond that I actually got vaccinated, my question centers around the disparity of treatment we are giving individuals who are vaxxed and those who are not if both are capable of spreading. Further it brings in the question of vaccine mandates if they are much less effective then we were led to believe.
If the choice is between that and permanent "emergency powers" for all levels of government to continue to panic and scare monger and implement things like vaccine passports, required immunizations as a condition of employment, the destruction of SMB and the demonization and hostility towards anyone that doesn't trust The Science (while shutting all discussion down about The Science because the plebs aren't smart enough to understand The Science)