You don't completely understand my argument. The problem is not just that the odds might be a lie, but WHEN they might be a lie
Charity rarely cheats the people they give things to. But sales men try to do it often.
So when faced with a "Gain" situation, your natural, rational instinct to be suspicious is LESS than when faced with a loss situation. Of course, the really good con men try to take advantage of that by pretending to offer you 'something for nothing'.
It is not just that the coin is crooked, but that the con men switch coins - they show you the good coin when they offer the freebe bet and let you win the quarter. Then they take out a second, crooked coin and try to get you to bet far more than the minimal bet used the first time.
Anonymous post, appears with the value I have come to expect from an anonymous post. (i.e. null)
Try again, this time understanding what I said. The video in question spends about 15 minutes (about 10 at the beginnin and another 5 at the end) making value judgements, saying how both monkey and human, makes 'irrational' decisions. I contest these conclusions and do so without any other agenda. I am stating a simple fact that they failed to take into account - neither the monkeys nor human test subjects can possibly make the single assumption that they are basing their entire study: the odds are stated corectly. My contention is simple - that even monkeys realize that just because someone claims the odds are X does not make them true, and that the so called irrationality of their decisions is actually a rather logical, rational attempt to deal with what experience has taught us all are the true odds. Humans and monkeys ALWAYS account for greater risk than stated, particularly when someone may be making a profit, but less so when someone is engaged in an act of charity.
You have accurately described what the the claims are. Note, the judgement values are in fact fairly arbitrary.
You can instead write:
Monkeys, like humans, care more about themselves, than about society, and so will steal.
Monkeys, like humans, understand that despite the claims of absolute security, there is ALWAYS more risk than stated, so saving has some additional costs and is LESS valuable than the economicist think (i.e. among other things, there is always the chance you will die before your savings are used).
Monkeys, like Humans are GREAT calculators of risk/reward, as they take into account the man, many unspoken risks that are not offered by the salesman, thus affecting our calculcations in ways the idiot economicists fail to understand (such as taking into consideration the chance that we, or the bank may fail to live up to it's contract so the 5% interested paid today is worth more than the 10% interested paid next year, while the 10% cost to us now is worth less than the 5% cost paid next year.
They take a brilliant, evolved decision making process and call it "irrational".
No. The decisions you think are "irrational" are often in fact VERY rational - based on a 'wider' world.
For example, the gambling thing does not consider TRUSTWORTHYNESS.
Taking the gamble that the odds say is good, assumes the odds are accurate. Once you understand that the gamble may be a con and the gamble may be fake, then YES, you should treat the 50/50 chance to gain as less interesting than the 50/50 chance to lose.
This means the the 'absolute" bias, and Loss Aversion are NOT stupid irrationalities, but in fact a logical decision due to the knowledge that people are liars and cheats.
and even if we didn't have something to hide - our friends, children, room-mates, lovers, parents, might. Often when we give up our own right to privacy, we give up theirs as well. (Case in point the new practice of doing familia DNA searches - where they use your DNA to prove that your relative did the crime.)
This kind of stuff is exactly why we need to care about privacy even "if you have nothing to hide".
The law is not perfect. We need to build in safeguards to prevent it being abused, not just to catch the criminals.
The whole point of these tests is to prove you are human by solving a dificult imaging (or audio) identification problem.
There is ZERO reason to use worthless tests like these as opposed to using real identification. That is instead of using computer generated difficult test, use actual pictures of actual 'difficult text' that an OCR agent failed to identify. Each person is given one alread tested sample and one unknown sample. If you get the already tested sample, then your answer is accepted as 'probable' correct for the unknown sample. Three matching probable correct = confirmed as correct, and move the unknown sample to the "already tested" section
There is more than enough written and audio samples that the world would love to see OCR'ed. We don't have to generate fake ones.
1. The most important thing for a Kindle is BATTERY LIFE. For the foreseeable future, tablets will be power hogs and book readers will be power misers that care more about battery life than features. This prevents what you can add to the e-reader, stopping them from becoming tablets (and prevents tablet netbooks from becoming effective e-readers.
2. Money. I would rather have a $10, disposable e-reader than the $35 computer India is offering. Cheap computers will never be viable because we always upgrade the stuff we want to do on them, while e-readers don't need to do that.
3. Upgrades and Viruses It is fairly easy to create a safe, simple OS for an ereader simply by limiting what you can do with it. Upgrading them really is unnecessary. A tablet OS on the other need much more variability and upgradeability. As such, tablets will be MUCH more susceptible to viruses, while the tablets can be locked down a lot more, preventing viruses.
Net results = tablets should be cheaper, longer battery life, more stable, and last longer (less upgrades).
Is there any information on Facebook that a reasonable person would Really consider to be 'private'?
It's sort of like telling the town gossip something and adding "of course, this is in the strictest confidence".
When I teach kids to use the internet, the first thing I tell them is that every web site lies a little bit about their privacy. If they say nothing worse than Y will be done, assume Yx2. Face book is a prime reason for this rule
Your grasp of statistics is poor.
Consider the effect if there were only a SINGLE pink car in a study. Then when you say 0 pink cars were stolen, your study is no better than me saying my car has never been stolen. Now imagine what would have happened if the single guy with a pink car happened to have his car towed for illegally parking and didn't realized what had happened till after the article was published. Now you have 100% of pink cars being stolen.
Sample size is ALWAYS important, regardless of the percentage.
You sometimes discover tht the thing you despise only exists because someone else actually likes it. So your attempt at Parody become a enjoyed by those that like the thing you despise.
Another great example of this effect is Sherlock Holmes. Conan Doyle definitely grew to dislike Holmes (hence the attempt to kill him off) and some claim Doyle originally intended Holmes as a parody of detectives.
Me, I don't think 'failing to realize something is a parody' is an insult to the intelligence of people. Instead, I feel it is a failure of the creators. It indicates they have simply have not gone too far.
For a better parody of simplified online games, look at SMBC Theater
Forget about commenting. Any idiot that saw this and thought it was true without checking up on the named Senator/Congressman (they gave a false name and false state) should be declared too stupid to be allowed to live outside an assisted living facility. At the very least, they need a legally appointed guardian to prevent them from giving their entire life savings away to the first con man that talks to them.
I don't mind elaborate rules, I do mind that some say things like "You must have a non-letter/number character" while others say "you can't have".
It makes my systematic "rules" based approach to creating a password that is easy to remember much harder. (I.e. I can have a rule that says "Password is 1st letter of website name + last letter before the.com/.net/.org plus the combination "!4a" if one idiot says you need something like an ! and another moron says you can't have something like an !
----------
Also, I absolutely HATE the moron that decided every website needs/wants a password. There are certain movie theaters that I refuse to go to because their web based ticket purchasing system requires an invasive profile with password. Look, you don't need that info and trying to get it is incredibally obnoxious when all I want is to buy a ticket on line. You aren't even giving me a discount - instead you charge more. You want that precious information, give me a 10% discount.
The real power problem has always been storage and movement of the power. Nuclear power plants are dangerous mainly because we have to build them near a population center. If we moved them to the Nevada Atomic Weapons testing ground, it wouldn't really matter if they melted down but, the power would be too far away to be usefull.
This article displays the similar problem with wind and hydro power - excess and underages depending on time combined with the location being pre-determined by existing geography.
What we really need is a super-battery. Something relatively cheap to build that stores energy at very high efficiencies. Relative size is also important - as if they were small enough it would solve 90% of the electric car problems. But we don't need incremental advances, we need revolutionary sized ones.
Laptops and cellphones have been pushing the technolotgy forward at the incremental level, but it is not enough.
If they treat me like the purchaser as opposed to their seed grain.
That means:
1. NO ADVERTISING. If you advertise, particularly the annoying, video and sound (with those extra annoying pop-up - or worse pop-out crap), your customers are the advertisers and my attention is what you are selling. Why should I have to pay you so that you can IRRITATE and ANNOY me by selling MY attention? NO. Adverising is a great, perfectly fine way to pay for FREE content. It is NOT an acceptable way to make some extra money on top of what you charge me.
2. NO TRACKING ME. Again, if I am paying you for a service, that means I don't want you to invade myprivacy. You don't track what I read or when. No record keeping of anything I do. You are allowed to count how many people click on a story, but not whether the same person clicks on story X as also clicks on story Y.
3. Video and sound should all be accompanied by printed summaries. Deaf people (and blind people using text-to speech converter programs) are important customers too and some of us don't like the video - it takes too much time, is lazy, and if I wanted that I would turn on the TV.
4. Better, in depth writing that does not accept stupid statements. Don't just accept statements, VERIFY them. (i.e. treat each of the people you quote the way Politifact.org does and when they give numbers make sure they are telling the truth.) When someone says something really stupid like "this snow storm in the heart of winter disproves global warming", call them on it YOURSELF, don't simply get an opposing point of view.
The Internet did not kill newspaper, a combination of poor writing and advertisers did (the advertisers would rather spend 5 cents to talk sell diapers to pregnant women than 10 cents to sell diapers to everyone). Those same forces rule the internet news market - as long as you let them. If you want to recreate the pay-news market, you need to avoid the problems that killed the newspaper.
Thats where they take back a percent of the costs to account for breakage of the medium. Of course, ever since we switched from vinyl records to plastic cd's, the actual breakage is about... nil.
1. We need to upgrade our personal information security rules. The standard right now is too low, in part because of the way we assign financial responsibility. By outsourcing it to credit card companies, who truly don't care because of the huge profits they make and relatively small cost of fraud, we have in effect allowed and encouraged ID theft. This needs to change.
2. If the financial fraud was all that mattered, then this wouldn't really be a big deal. But the huge problems certain people have when their credit is destroyed are not being properly dealt with by the courts. We need to modernize our credit laws to negate the personal problems created when fraud destroys someone credit history. Among other things, changing the rules for social security number re-issuing (right now this is very hard to do, even if fraud is proven).
3. This combination of lax credit companies encouraging fraud, then ignoring the huge personal problems because the financial cost is low needs to be dealt with. For example, we could pass a simple law that solves the problem in a two step manner: a) allow a second social security numbers to be issued to anyone willing to have their fingerprints, retina patterns, and photo attached to the new number, at a cost of $1000. b) Allow the consumer to force their credit card company to pay that $1000 if the company did not properly and ACTIVELY investigate any potential fraud. "We did nothing wrong" should not be enough, they need to do things right.
In other words, they are normal human beings. I always laugh at people that do this kind of argument. It's cynical, rather short sighted, totally lacking in understanding of morality and rules. Ethics are not there just to be there, they are there because they make business sense. Yes - it does in fact make business sense to respect privacy, that is one of the reasons why we value it.
Look, everyone wants money. That is NOT a bad thing. The fact that they had to do the math and realizing X is bad as opposed to blindly accepting the fact that X is bad with evidence does NOT mean they are evil or bone headed or stupid. Instead it means.
1. The management of a for-profit company is not composed of moral philosophers that care more about their beliefs than about making money.
2. The management of a for-profit company is smart enough to consider solutions to things that annoy their customers.
3. The management was not smart enough to realize their propoosed solution was worse all by themselves.
4. The management WAS smart enough to learn from their mistake before they actually enacted it.
You seem to be surpirsed, nay SHOCKED I say, SHOCKED to learn these first three obvious facts and are totally discounting #4.
Me, maybe I'm cynical, but in my experience, the first three are common and the only surprusing thing is #4, which you seem to think is a horrible thing. I am gladdened to discover that Blizzard appears to be FAR more ethical and intelligent than many other companies, such as Facebook.
I would trust Blizzard far more than I would trust some one that thinks profit is a dirty word.
I think that China decided that the removal of Google would hurt their economy and reputation too much. They just used the "new approach" of the redirect page as an excuse.
It turned out that the scientists whose names were on the petition disagreed with the petition. (It was against global warming.)
Voting has the identity verified, that how they get away with anonymity. As petitions do not and can not be verified by a trusted source, they need to be public.
If we have to go to a 5 day delivery, then we should make it MT-TFS-
Making the two days we don't deliver in a row is RIDICULOUS. Yes, it simplifies the postal carriers time off, but they already have ways of dealing with that. Wednesday/Sunday off gives a MUCH better service than Saturday/Sunday. SS off means that a one day delivery sometimes take 3 days, triple the time, as opposed to a WS off schedule which only turns 1 dya into 2 days. This is a real difference.
Or at the very least make it TWTFS.
Saturday delivery lets people that work go to the post office on their day off. This can be very very important if you work.
I am a big fan of privacy, but if you are a government employee using a governmen provided device to communicate then the government has the right to examine that communication, if only to discover whether or not it is is official business (which they pay for) or personal (which you pay for). In fact that was exactly how they discovered the data.
The rocket equation tremdously limits maximum speed. Even with an anti-matter powered rocket, the maximum theorectical speed would be 0.1 C (1/10th the speed of light).
In a gravity well, this explains why we need so much fuel to get out. But that assumes that inertial mass acts like gravitional mass. If we change that, then suddenly we use HIGH inertial mass but low gravitational mass as rocket exhaust, tremendously reducing the mass of the rocket's fuel, which has exponential gains in increasing the potential payload.
Particularly the fact that the failure of american high schools is entirely racial. "White Americans on average substantially outscored Europeans in math and science and came in second to the Japanese, but American black and Hispanic students on average significantly trailed all other groups."
It suggests that instead of merely throwing money at the entire system, we need to reform specific schools in poor neighborhoods.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't completely understand my argument. The problem is not just that the odds might be a lie, but WHEN they might be a lie Charity rarely cheats the people they give things to. But sales men try to do it often. So when faced with a "Gain" situation, your natural, rational instinct to be suspicious is LESS than when faced with a loss situation. Of course, the really good con men try to take advantage of that by pretending to offer you 'something for nothing'. It is not just that the coin is crooked, but that the con men switch coins - they show you the good coin when they offer the freebe bet and let you win the quarter. Then they take out a second, crooked coin and try to get you to bet far more than the minimal bet used the first time.
Try again, this time understanding what I said. The video in question spends about 15 minutes (about 10 at the beginnin and another 5 at the end) making value judgements, saying how both monkey and human, makes 'irrational' decisions. I contest these conclusions and do so without any other agenda. I am stating a simple fact that they failed to take into account - neither the monkeys nor human test subjects can possibly make the single assumption that they are basing their entire study: the odds are stated corectly. My contention is simple - that even monkeys realize that just because someone claims the odds are X does not make them true, and that the so called irrationality of their decisions is actually a rather logical, rational attempt to deal with what experience has taught us all are the true odds. Humans and monkeys ALWAYS account for greater risk than stated, particularly when someone may be making a profit, but less so when someone is engaged in an act of charity.
You can instead write:
Monkeys, like humans, care more about themselves, than about society, and so will steal.
Monkeys, like humans, understand that despite the claims of absolute security, there is ALWAYS more risk than stated, so saving has some additional costs and is LESS valuable than the economicist think (i.e. among other things, there is always the chance you will die before your savings are used).
Monkeys, like Humans are GREAT calculators of risk/reward, as they take into account the man, many unspoken risks that are not offered by the salesman, thus affecting our calculcations in ways the idiot economicists fail to understand (such as taking into consideration the chance that we, or the bank may fail to live up to it's contract so the 5% interested paid today is worth more than the 10% interested paid next year, while the 10% cost to us now is worth less than the 5% cost paid next year.
No. The decisions you think are "irrational" are often in fact VERY rational - based on a 'wider' world.
For example, the gambling thing does not consider TRUSTWORTHYNESS.
Taking the gamble that the odds say is good, assumes the odds are accurate. Once you understand that the gamble may be a con and the gamble may be fake, then YES, you should treat the 50/50 chance to gain as less interesting than the 50/50 chance to lose.
This means the the 'absolute" bias, and Loss Aversion are NOT stupid irrationalities, but in fact a logical decision due to the knowledge that people are liars and cheats.
and even if we didn't have something to hide - our friends, children, room-mates, lovers, parents, might. Often when we give up our own right to privacy, we give up theirs as well. (Case in point the new practice of doing familia DNA searches - where they use your DNA to prove that your relative did the crime.)
This kind of stuff is exactly why we need to care about privacy even "if you have nothing to hide". The law is not perfect. We need to build in safeguards to prevent it being abused, not just to catch the criminals.
There is ZERO reason to use worthless tests like these as opposed to using real identification. That is instead of using computer generated difficult test, use actual pictures of actual 'difficult text' that an OCR agent failed to identify. Each person is given one alread tested sample and one unknown sample. If you get the already tested sample, then your answer is accepted as 'probable' correct for the unknown sample. Three matching probable correct = confirmed as correct, and move the unknown sample to the "already tested" section
There is more than enough written and audio samples that the world would love to see OCR'ed. We don't have to generate fake ones.
2. Money. I would rather have a $10, disposable e-reader than the $35 computer India is offering. Cheap computers will never be viable because we always upgrade the stuff we want to do on them, while e-readers don't need to do that.
3. Upgrades and Viruses It is fairly easy to create a safe, simple OS for an ereader simply by limiting what you can do with it. Upgrading them really is unnecessary. A tablet OS on the other need much more variability and upgradeability. As such, tablets will be MUCH more susceptible to viruses, while the tablets can be locked down a lot more, preventing viruses.
Net results = tablets should be cheaper, longer battery life, more stable, and last longer (less upgrades).
Is there any information on Facebook that a reasonable person would Really consider to be 'private'? It's sort of like telling the town gossip something and adding "of course, this is in the strictest confidence". When I teach kids to use the internet, the first thing I tell them is that every web site lies a little bit about their privacy. If they say nothing worse than Y will be done, assume Yx2. Face book is a prime reason for this rule
Your grasp of statistics is poor. Consider the effect if there were only a SINGLE pink car in a study. Then when you say 0 pink cars were stolen, your study is no better than me saying my car has never been stolen. Now imagine what would have happened if the single guy with a pink car happened to have his car towed for illegally parking and didn't realized what had happened till after the article was published. Now you have 100% of pink cars being stolen. Sample size is ALWAYS important, regardless of the percentage.
Another great example of this effect is Sherlock Holmes. Conan Doyle definitely grew to dislike Holmes (hence the attempt to kill him off) and some claim Doyle originally intended Holmes as a parody of detectives.
Me, I don't think 'failing to realize something is a parody' is an insult to the intelligence of people. Instead, I feel it is a failure of the creators. It indicates they have simply have not gone too far.
For a better parody of simplified online games, look at SMBC Theater
Forget about commenting. Any idiot that saw this and thought it was true without checking up on the named Senator/Congressman (they gave a false name and false state) should be declared too stupid to be allowed to live outside an assisted living facility. At the very least, they need a legally appointed guardian to prevent them from giving their entire life savings away to the first con man that talks to them.
I don't mind elaborate rules, I do mind that some say things like "You must have a non-letter/number character" while others say "you can't have". It makes my systematic "rules" based approach to creating a password that is easy to remember much harder. (I.e. I can have a rule that says "Password is 1st letter of website name + last letter before the .com/.net/.org plus the combination "!4a" if one idiot says you need something like an ! and another moron says you can't have something like an !
----------
Also, I absolutely HATE the moron that decided every website needs/wants a password. There are certain movie theaters that I refuse to go to because their web based ticket purchasing system requires an invasive profile with password. Look, you don't need that info and trying to get it is incredibally obnoxious when all I want is to buy a ticket on line. You aren't even giving me a discount - instead you charge more. You want that precious information, give me a 10% discount.
The real power problem has always been storage and movement of the power. Nuclear power plants are dangerous mainly because we have to build them near a population center. If we moved them to the Nevada Atomic Weapons testing ground, it wouldn't really matter if they melted down but, the power would be too far away to be usefull. This article displays the similar problem with wind and hydro power - excess and underages depending on time combined with the location being pre-determined by existing geography. What we really need is a super-battery. Something relatively cheap to build that stores energy at very high efficiencies. Relative size is also important - as if they were small enough it would solve 90% of the electric car problems. But we don't need incremental advances, we need revolutionary sized ones. Laptops and cellphones have been pushing the technolotgy forward at the incremental level, but it is not enough.
That means:
1. NO ADVERTISING. If you advertise, particularly the annoying, video and sound (with those extra annoying pop-up - or worse pop-out crap), your customers are the advertisers and my attention is what you are selling. Why should I have to pay you so that you can IRRITATE and ANNOY me by selling MY attention? NO. Adverising is a great, perfectly fine way to pay for FREE content. It is NOT an acceptable way to make some extra money on top of what you charge me.
2. NO TRACKING ME. Again, if I am paying you for a service, that means I don't want you to invade myprivacy. You don't track what I read or when. No record keeping of anything I do. You are allowed to count how many people click on a story, but not whether the same person clicks on story X as also clicks on story Y.
3. Video and sound should all be accompanied by printed summaries. Deaf people (and blind people using text-to speech converter programs) are important customers too and some of us don't like the video - it takes too much time, is lazy, and if I wanted that I would turn on the TV.
4. Better, in depth writing that does not accept stupid statements. Don't just accept statements, VERIFY them. (i.e. treat each of the people you quote the way Politifact.org does and when they give numbers make sure they are telling the truth.) When someone says something really stupid like "this snow storm in the heart of winter disproves global warming", call them on it YOURSELF, don't simply get an opposing point of view.
The Internet did not kill newspaper, a combination of poor writing and advertisers did (the advertisers would rather spend 5 cents to talk sell diapers to pregnant women than 10 cents to sell diapers to everyone). Those same forces rule the internet news market - as long as you let them. If you want to recreate the pay-news market, you need to avoid the problems that killed the newspaper.
Thats where they take back a percent of the costs to account for breakage of the medium. Of course, ever since we switched from vinyl records to plastic cd's, the actual breakage is about ... nil.
2. If the financial fraud was all that mattered, then this wouldn't really be a big deal. But the huge problems certain people have when their credit is destroyed are not being properly dealt with by the courts. We need to modernize our credit laws to negate the personal problems created when fraud destroys someone credit history. Among other things, changing the rules for social security number re-issuing (right now this is very hard to do, even if fraud is proven).
3. This combination of lax credit companies encouraging fraud, then ignoring the huge personal problems because the financial cost is low needs to be dealt with. For example, we could pass a simple law that solves the problem in a two step manner: a) allow a second social security numbers to be issued to anyone willing to have their fingerprints, retina patterns, and photo attached to the new number, at a cost of $1000. b) Allow the consumer to force their credit card company to pay that $1000 if the company did not properly and ACTIVELY investigate any potential fraud. "We did nothing wrong" should not be enough, they need to do things right.
Look, everyone wants money. That is NOT a bad thing. The fact that they had to do the math and realizing X is bad as opposed to blindly accepting the fact that X is bad with evidence does NOT mean they are evil or bone headed or stupid. Instead it means.
1. The management of a for-profit company is not composed of moral philosophers that care more about their beliefs than about making money.
2. The management of a for-profit company is smart enough to consider solutions to things that annoy their customers.
3. The management was not smart enough to realize their propoosed solution was worse all by themselves.
4. The management WAS smart enough to learn from their mistake before they actually enacted it.
You seem to be surpirsed, nay SHOCKED I say, SHOCKED to learn these first three obvious facts and are totally discounting #4.
Me, maybe I'm cynical, but in my experience, the first three are common and the only surprusing thing is #4, which you seem to think is a horrible thing. I am gladdened to discover that Blizzard appears to be FAR more ethical and intelligent than many other companies, such as Facebook.
I would trust Blizzard far more than I would trust some one that thinks profit is a dirty word.
I think that China decided that the removal of Google would hurt their economy and reputation too much. They just used the "new approach" of the redirect page as an excuse.
But WORLD OF WARCRAFT?
A game that is entirely based on people pretending to be something they are NOT?
I could easily see this being done for Match.com, Linked In, or even Facebook. But WOW?????
How about someone get their head out of their rectum and tell us what makes their game so important that this is neccessary?
What, someone got upset about a little name calling?
Voting has the identity verified, that how they get away with anonymity. As petitions do not and can not be verified by a trusted source, they need to be public.
Making the two days we don't deliver in a row is RIDICULOUS. Yes, it simplifies the postal carriers time off, but they already have ways of dealing with that. Wednesday/Sunday off gives a MUCH better service than Saturday/Sunday. SS off means that a one day delivery sometimes take 3 days, triple the time, as opposed to a WS off schedule which only turns 1 dya into 2 days. This is a real difference.
Or at the very least make it TWTFS.
Saturday delivery lets people that work go to the post office on their day off. This can be very very important if you work.
I am a big fan of privacy, but if you are a government employee using a governmen provided device to communicate then the government has the right to examine that communication, if only to discover whether or not it is is official business (which they pay for) or personal (which you pay for). In fact that was exactly how they discovered the data.
In a gravity well, this explains why we need so much fuel to get out. But that assumes that inertial mass acts like gravitional mass. If we change that, then suddenly we use HIGH inertial mass but low gravitational mass as rocket exhaust, tremendously reducing the mass of the rocket's fuel, which has exponential gains in increasing the potential payload.
Particularly the fact that the failure of american high schools is entirely racial. "White Americans on average substantially outscored Europeans in math and science and came in second to the Japanese, but American black and Hispanic students on average significantly trailed all other groups." It suggests that instead of merely throwing money at the entire system, we need to reform specific schools in poor neighborhoods.