As a slight point of contention one of the big differences between German data centers in the US vs in the rebellious state of west Taiwan, is that Germany is part of NATO so at the end of the day when all of the project management reports hit the fan German land and citizens are guaranteed protection by US guns, in the China case they are a foreign directly hostile power. So although many Euro countries might not love they way the US is data harvesting, and with good reason, and the US does have some human rights abuses ultimately US military might stands as a protection against other foreign powers. An apt analogy is, "you aren't allowed to pick on my little brother that's my job." type situation.
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?
> 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.
The similarity to actually observed behavior isn't a coincidence.
You can walk out to the factory floor with a sledgehammer and start smashing things right there in front of everyone. You might even cause quite a bit of damage before someone stops you. But then you're getting arrested.
You can cause just as much damage by wasting everybody's time with organizational politics and "safety first" hand wringing, but then what are they going to say? You're too diligent? So then you get to stay and do it all again tomorrow.
Imagine a manager firing someone for being too concerned about safety.
> You can cause just as much damage by wasting everybody's time with organizational politics and "safety first" hand wringing, but then what are they going to say?
I don't know the etymology of the use of the word dope but used in this document it either makes a strong case for its authenticity (or esoteric familiarity with language of the era by the hoaxer) or is a red flag.
> (7) Spread disturbing rumors that sound like inside dope.
The Church Committee hearings (particularly some of the "family jewels" stuff) and Iran-Contra hearings pertaining to Nicaragua and Contras establishes to some extent which sabotage manuals are real and who wrote them.
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.
Would you be willing to to sell all of your vehicles and sign a time-charter contract with Uber to manage all of your ground transportation for the foreseeable future?
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.
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.
I think that was the implication -- that experts are often wrong. One could go the No True Scotsman route and say that a true expert would occasionally select randomly following a Bayesian Bandit approach for optimal decision-making.
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.
here are the criteria they used in the adversity score:
Crime rate, Poverty rate, Housing values, Vacancy rate, Family environment, Median income, Single parent, Adversity score, Education level, ESL, High school environment, Undermatching, Curricular rigor, Free lunch rate, AP opportunity
Oxford does something a bit like this, but AFAICT only for getting interviewed; you still have to get the same exam results as anyone else, and you aren't given any advantage in the interviews:
The former head of Green Templeton College, Oxford, did an analysis of the final results achieved by people from different backgrounds who had got into Oxford, and the conclusion was that those who came from fancier backgrounds did less well in their degrees than their poorer colleagues with similar entry scores. The hypothesis was that the private schools were very good at hothousing borderline students, but that this obviously stopped happening once they were admitted and got the same environment as everyone else.
This is one of the reasons that Oxford is beginning to seriously concern itself with background - it turns out that if you're already expecting top entry grades it's a good way of getting better students.
That, and its long-standing gross overrepresentation of children from posh schools is getting embarrassing.
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.
