One important thing is whether the tutoring is making better students, or just gaming the test.

And after graduation they can grind leetcode, and after that they can practice social cues to get in the management class. It's gamed tests all the way down.

For people who choose that career path. Still, somewhere somebody is doing some work.

The uggos I guess

Are those independent?

That's tricky. I think it depends on what kind of gaming and what kind of test.

IB may become important for US college admissions over time, but that's more aspirational so far.

True, I only listed it because, at least where I live, high schools often do one program or the other. If it's an IB school, you end up taking the APs on your own (ie, there isn't a class focused on that content, though the IB curriculum should, in theory, end up covering the same stuff, at least for the major subjects).

That kind of thinking pops up very prominently in the article.

"Why can't faster typing help us understand the problem faster?"

Because typing is not the same as understanding.

The typing referred to here is not "the typing part of coding" (fingers touching the keyboard), it's the whole coding (LLM is not a typing aid, it's a coding aid).

And coding faster CAN help us understand the problem faster. Coding faster means iterating, refactoring, trying different designs - and seeing what does and doesn't work, faster.

I think they explain "why" very clearly. They say the problem is people who don't understand their own contributions.

Assume I want to believe exactly what you're saying. What is that, though?

a. "Has already won"

b. "Might be a year or two, or five, or ten"

You’re playing chess. You see that you have a forced mate in several moves. You’ve already won, but it will happen in 2, or 5, or 10 moves.

(This isn't how chess mate-finding works.)

Yes it is.

Yeah, exactly. One example of a low-trust society was the US in the decade after 1929.

One of the "innovations" in the bank runs of 1929 was that a farmer or business owner would lose all their savings in the bank, because of the bank run.

However, the loans they owed to that bank were still good, and would get bought by an "investor" for pennies on the dollar. They no longer had their bank account to make their normal loan payments from, yet the full repayments were still due, despite the original bank that made the loan going under and closing its doors.

So many farmers ended up having to sell or foreclose on their farms and then attempt to rent them back from the new owners.

I'm sure that happened at least once, but most of the time it didn't. This is where the concept of the penny auction came from. Those were far more common. Basically locals prevented outsiders from bidding in foreclosure auctions by either tricking or physically preventing them from getting to the farm (where the actual auction was held). Then the original owner bought the farm back for a few pennies as there were no other bidders.

So possibly the warranty may say "replace or refund at supplier's option." In that case, it's clear. But if we don't know what the "fine print" says, then I don't see how we can figure out who was wrong or right.

Sure, it should say PE not VC. But it was pretty accurate. The PE firm won't be on the hook for much of the debt. The nano-debate over the word "push" is probably obscuring more than it's revealing.

It sort of accurately described something, with the wrong terminology, that is orthogonal to the headline issue.

Agreed, but that entire thread after your comment was more or less orthogonal to the headline.

I think Americans tend to say "orient." I think English people tend to say "orientate."

I vote for "eastify".

Orient means "rising", so it can be used as an abbreviation when referring to the direction of the rising Sun.

Occident means "falling", so it can be used as an abbreviation when referring to the direction of the falling Sun.

"Orientate" is more correct etymologically to be used as a verb than "orient" ("rising"), and it comes from an expression that described how something is raised towards a certain direction.

I think that the reason why the verb "orient" has come to be preferred by some was that "orientated" seemed like a mouthful, so it was abbreviated to "oriented", whence a verb "orient" has been back-formed.

The guilty for "orientated" being so long is the habit of English of making verbs from Latin passive participles, instead of using just the verb stems, which leads to long verbal words and to clumsy English past participles derived from them. Latin also derived new verbal stems from passive participles, but those had a different meaning than the base verbal stem, being either frequentative or causative, so the extra length of such words was justified.