5 years is too short for a loan meant for a 3-4 year degree before the hopefully good job comes. 10 years at 2.3% was the entire point that that means 2-3% is not less than the cost of borrowing considering there are paperwork costs and defaults to cover.
If student loans are to fully repaid by the borrower between 90 days and 2 years that would be the rate the compare with. I doubt that's the case though.
> There is a very high correlation between going to an "Ivy League" institution and significantly better future outcomes.
Better than what?
Than people of the same socio-economic backgrounds who go to a different school? Than everyone else regardless of socio-economic background? Than everyone else regardless of socio-economic background but attending the same pre-college schools with the same results?
The federal funds rate is the rate at which banks loan to each other overnight to meet reserve requirements. It is not the rate at which the Federal government borrows money - that's what treasury bonds define.
Perception matters more than reality when the question is "what do most X think about Y".
Since the media loves conflict (since that attracts the eyeballs that attract the advertisers) and especially political conflict they are going to show the political conflict at colleges - and that is mostly liberals ranting about the evil white racist sexists who apparently run the world explicitly to propagate their racism and sexism. Naturally, republicans will be turned off by that.
They don't show the masses of students who aren't studying gender politics and who are instead learning science or economics or medicine and keeping to themselves about politics.
Thus it appears that colleges are seething hives of leftist hatred, rather than places of education. Unsurprisingly Republicans think seething hives of leftist hatred are bad for the country.
The 60% of robberies are committed by solo individuals then 40% are committed by at least two. We have the issue that you are referring robberies while what you are replying to is referring to robbers and one robber could perform multiple robberies and thus double count - let's just pretend we can mix and match the numbers....
Treating "at least two" as "exactly two" then in our universe of thieves those 60% of solo robberies give use 60 solo robbers per 100 robberies while our 40% of team robberies give us 80 team robbers per 100 robberies. 80 is greater than 60, so most work as teams is not contradicted by your data.
None of that is relevant in the slightest, you may note I didn't claim that mistakes need to be removed.
If the doctor gives an 80% chance to 500 people and the computer gives a 65% chance to 500 people, and 30% of those people live then yes the computer is wrong. So is the doctor of course, and there's no need to assume the doctor is perfectly correct. You don't need to compare the doctor with the computer, you can compare the predictions with the actual outcomes. And of course if 65% of the people lived then the computer would be right, even though not one single person had 65% of a life.
You have two sets of populations. Say, hypothetically, the exact same percentage of each set carries contraband around, Members of one set are stopped and frisked with no probable cause more often than the other. That set will have a higher rate of arrest for that contraband not because they are more likely to have it, but because they are more likely to be searched.
Obviously, the term "mistake" means when the algorithm's prediction doesn't actually match reality. You know the normal "got it wrong" definition that mistake usually means.
If it was an algorithm to predict sporting outcomes then it would be a mistake when the team is predicted to win actually lost.
Whether it is terrible or not is irrelevant, current US law requires all aliens to be assumed to be immigrants until they establish they are not - and that is a factor that would be considered when determining if they should be granted a non-immigrant visa.
It's almost like 15-20 might mean 15 in some colleges and 20 in others. And of course there'll be exceptions, I'm sure there are colleges that didn't drink the kool-aid.
You don't know that. And there almost certainly isn't.
Of course the times when a driver removed their hands from the wheel while autopilot was engaged for 5+ minutes and there was no crash aren't going to make the news.
What evidence are you basing your judgment that there will be fewer deaths and injuries caused by the car stopping than by it continuing? There are risks to both after all.
Slowing down does seem like a reasonable thing to do to me - though I'm not a designer/developer of the system of course. That seems safer than outright stopping while also likely encouraging the idiot to at least put his damn hands on the steering wheel to convince the car to speed up again. Not slamming on the brakes just halving whatever speed it is set to and gently slowing to that speed. At least the inevitable crash is at a lower speed.
I'm not complaining about anything in fact. I'm just refuting your ridiculous argument that recommending products that will be cheaper to repair must somehow be motivated by a desire to protect third party businesses rather than out of a desire for personal convenience. , The ease of access to the brewer unit was a significant factor in my selection of coffee machine, if I was making a recommendation to someone else that would likely be a factor in that too. The ease of access to the motor of my table saw was similarly a factor in my selection of table saw and recommendations of them.
It is truly amazing you that think the only possible motivation for that could be a desire to protect unrelated businesses.
this also affects professional 3rd party repair shops
So don't recommend a product to a customer because of some other unrelated business who is quite likely never to get business from the customer in the first place? Seriously what next, don't buy cars because the farriers will go out of business?
No it would be like not buying a car that has the engine compartment welded shut so that you have to send it back to the manufacturer to replace a broken fan belt. You don't do that because you care about the mechanics going out of business, but because you want the option to use them instead of the manufacturer.
Manages the entire US nuclear weapons stockpile. Which doesn't seem like something you just want to get rid of on a whim without bothering to check first.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you manage to not read far enough to reach " there was no evidence that the Soviets had got to the production stage for the weapons".
"country X has declared and demonstrated it has Y" is significantly different from "country Z thinks country X might have Y, but probably doesn't".
They mean the extra cost it will be now to fire another shot as opposed to not firing a shot. You know like it would in normal english.
Explicitly not, since the word was "chance", in other words it's not designed to blind nor is that a combat function.
5 years is too short for a loan meant for a 3-4 year degree before the hopefully good job comes. 10 years at 2.3% was the entire point that that means 2-3% is not less than the cost of borrowing considering there are paperwork costs and defaults to cover.
If student loans are to fully repaid by the borrower between 90 days and 2 years that would be the rate the compare with. I doubt that's the case though.
> There is a very high correlation between going to an "Ivy League" institution and significantly better future outcomes.
Better than what?
Than people of the same socio-economic backgrounds who go to a different school? Than everyone else regardless of socio-economic background? Than everyone else regardless of socio-economic background but attending the same pre-college schools with the same results?
The federal funds rate is the rate at which banks loan to each other overnight to meet reserve requirements. It is not the rate at which the Federal government borrows money - that's what treasury bonds define.
Perception matters more than reality when the question is "what do most X think about Y".
Since the media loves conflict (since that attracts the eyeballs that attract the advertisers) and especially political conflict they are going to show the political conflict at colleges - and that is mostly liberals ranting about the evil white racist sexists who apparently run the world explicitly to propagate their racism and sexism. Naturally, republicans will be turned off by that.
They don't show the masses of students who aren't studying gender politics and who are instead learning science or economics or medicine and keeping to themselves about politics.
Thus it appears that colleges are seething hives of leftist hatred, rather than places of education. Unsurprisingly Republicans think seething hives of leftist hatred are bad for the country.
Or they could, you know, collect some data.
Do they think the data on traditional television viewership numbers just pops into existence by magic or something?
https://consumerist.com/2012/0...
http://reason.com/blog/2016/05...
http://www.wnd.com/2005/04/297...
The 60% of robberies are committed by solo individuals then 40% are committed by at least two. We have the issue that you are referring robberies while what you are replying to is referring to robbers and one robber could perform multiple robberies and thus double count - let's just pretend we can mix and match the numbers....
Treating "at least two" as "exactly two" then in our universe of thieves those 60% of solo robberies give use 60 solo robbers per 100 robberies while our 40% of team robberies give us 80 team robbers per 100 robberies. 80 is greater than 60, so most work as teams is not contradicted by your data.
None of that is relevant in the slightest, you may note I didn't claim that mistakes need to be removed.
If the doctor gives an 80% chance to 500 people and the computer gives a 65% chance to 500 people, and 30% of those people live then yes the computer is wrong. So is the doctor of course, and there's no need to assume the doctor is perfectly correct. You don't need to compare the doctor with the computer, you can compare the predictions with the actual outcomes. And of course if 65% of the people lived then the computer would be right, even though not one single person had 65% of a life.
No he's making a very simple argument.
You have two sets of populations. Say, hypothetically, the exact same percentage of each set carries contraband around, Members of one set are stopped and frisked with no probable cause more often than the other. That set will have a higher rate of arrest for that contraband not because they are more likely to have it, but because they are more likely to be searched.
Obviously, the term "mistake" means when the algorithm's prediction doesn't actually match reality. You know the normal "got it wrong" definition that mistake usually means.
If it was an algorithm to predict sporting outcomes then it would be a mistake when the team is predicted to win actually lost.
Is that really too hard for you to comprehend?
Whether it is terrible or not is irrelevant, current US law requires all aliens to be assumed to be immigrants until they establish they are not - and that is a factor that would be considered when determining if they should be granted a non-immigrant visa.
It's almost like 15-20 might mean 15 in some colleges and 20 in others. And of course there'll be exceptions, I'm sure there are colleges that didn't drink the kool-aid.
They're on all the labels in my local lowes and home depot.
They are in fact advertised as 2 inches by 4 inches. Here's some shitty 2x4 from home depot: http://www.homedepot.com/p/2-i...
Notice it is called "2 in. by 4 in.", though also note it is clearly marked as "Actual dimension: 1.5 in. x 3.5 in. x 10 ft.".
I'm really not sure how they managed to miss it.The actual dimensions are clearly marked both on the website and in store.
You don't know that. And there almost certainly isn't.
Of course the times when a driver removed their hands from the wheel while autopilot was engaged for 5+ minutes and there was no crash aren't going to make the news.
What evidence are you basing your judgment that there will be fewer deaths and injuries caused by the car stopping than by it continuing? There are risks to both after all.
Slowing down does seem like a reasonable thing to do to me - though I'm not a designer/developer of the system of course. That seems safer than outright stopping while also likely encouraging the idiot to at least put his damn hands on the steering wheel to convince the car to speed up again. Not slamming on the brakes just halving whatever speed it is set to and gently slowing to that speed. At least the inevitable crash is at a lower speed.
I'm not complaining about anything in fact. I'm just refuting your ridiculous argument that recommending products that will be cheaper to repair must somehow be motivated by a desire to protect third party businesses rather than out of a desire for personal convenience.
,
The ease of access to the brewer unit was a significant factor in my selection of coffee machine, if I was making a recommendation to someone else that would likely be a factor in that too. The ease of access to the motor of my table saw was similarly a factor in my selection of table saw and recommendations of them.
It is truly amazing you that think the only possible motivation for that could be a desire to protect unrelated businesses.
No it would be like not buying a car that has the engine compartment welded shut so that you have to send it back to the manufacturer to replace a broken fan belt. You don't do that because you care about the mechanics going out of business, but because you want the option to use them instead of the manufacturer.
You thought wrong, I'm guessing you are used to that though.
So it changes from getting rid of the DoE to moving the things the DoE does to other government departments. Achieving nothing.
Being selective about what to keep requires knowing what the department actually does, the lack of which is the entire point.
Manages the entire US nuclear weapons stockpile. Which doesn't seem like something you just want to get rid of on a whim without bothering to check first.