While I agree with 2, I'm not convinced by 1--where can you get data that is unbiased without FORCING random sets of people to participate in a study in the way you want them to? Even FDA-mandated experiments are biased by the fact that it requires volunteers.
Low-fragmentation heap puts object of similar size together, so once object is freed, this memory can be reused for other object of similar size without fragmentation. Because of this is has more "slack" - unused memory at the end of the objects that are smaller than their buckets. On other hand, application in steady state is not going slowly increase it's memory use over time.
Also it puts consequently allocated objects (of different size) far away (and thus reduces cache locality), which, in turn may reduce performance for some "allocate a lot of stuff at the beginning and then serve it", etc scenarios, but this is pretty esoteric problem.
Benefits outweigh the concerns, so most apps benefit from the low-fragmentation heaps.
Wait, I'm confused... Are you saying that it can be illegal to have hiring practices that are suboptimal? For example, you mention that brain-teaser tests might have disparate impact on some applicants--and they're also not that effective anyway.
Diaparate impact means disparate racial impact (or disparate against another protected class, but usually racial).
So if you hire a smaller fraction of any racial category of applicants than there were in the pool of applicants or in the workforce of your region, then your hiring method has disparate impact. If you use an objective test that contributes to that disparate impact, you have to be able to prove by thorough studies that it was the best method to pick staff for the specific job you are hiring for. Such studies start around seven figures and won't work for positions with multiple responsibilities or difficult to measure outputs.
>So if you hire a smaller fraction of any racial category of applicants than there were in the pool of applicants or in the workforce of your region, then your hiring method has disparate impact.
Is it necessarily because of the hiring method, though? Couldn't it be possible that there is something about the company as a whole that causes people in a protected class to avoid applying to the company? (For example, if the company has racist ads.)
I believe you're parsing it wrong. Read "Note that a brain-teaser-type test used in a hiring process might be illegal if it can be shown to have disparate impact on some job applicants and is not supported by a validation study demonstrating that the test is related to successful performance on the job" as
"Note that a brain-teaser-type test used in a hiring process (might be illegal if [both] it can be shown to have disparate impact on some job applicants and [if it] is not supported by a validation study demonstrating that the test is related to successful performance on the job)",
not "Note that a brain-teaser-type test used in a hiring process (might be illegal if it can be shown to have disparate impact on some job applicants) and ([furthermore] is not supported by a validation study demonstrating that the test is related to successful performance on the job.)"
As I read the sentence, a general brain-teaser is supported (by all the research showing that tests of general mental ability are predictive), but it is not legal unless you've done a study specifically for that brain-teaser.
That's a great question. Take the US as an example, since it has plenty of sunshine.
Nowadays investment in renewable energies is politically risky after the Solyndra failure, after the DOE gave Solyndra over half a billion dollars of loan guarantees.
After the dramatic failure of its own renewable energy initiative, it began attacking other countries' initiatives to expand solar use. For example: "The U.S. yesterday imposed tariffs of as much as 250 percent on Chinese-made solar cells to aid domestic manufacturers beset by foreign competition, though critics said the decision may end up raising prices and hurting the U.S. renewable energy industry." [1]
It's a sad state when the US government--presiding over one of the sunniest and advanced nations in the world--will not only refuse to sponsor domestic initiatives to bolster renewable energy development, but also punish countries that do.
I honestly don't think tariffs on Chinese solar panels is a bad thing. China devalues it's dollar, it's people & it's environment already. Plus they've stolen some US "green tech"[1]. I don't think they are playing on a level field.
That depends on whose perspective you're looking from. From the US solar manufacturer's perspective, of course it's not a bad thing, since it stifles competition.
But from the perspective of people in the US who want solar panels, or Chinese producers of solar panels, it definitely is a bad thing.
Also, the link you supplied doesn't mention a word about solar--so punishing solar companies in order to "get back at" wind companies just doesn't make sense. Moreover, it isn't the case anymore that the Yuan is unambiguously undervalued. Many things are more expensive in China (in exchange-weighted nominal terms) than in the US, such as cars, electronics, etc. Also, in terms of the current account surplus, it is considered "normal" now [1].
Not everyone wants the cheapest thing possible without caring who made it or how it was made.
Tariffs are not to punish China because they stole wind tech, that is something that should be properly resolved in Chinese courts, but somehow I doubt that the US company is going to find proper restitution there. It's just an illustration of how unfriendly China can be to US competition. Copy tech & then go home & hide behind a convoluted & foreigner unfriendly court system.
The central Chinese government will do what it thinks is best for itself. This may involve squashing human rights, lax worker safety, destroying their environment, manipulating markets with currency(regardless of where the Yuan is right now) or raw materials. China is not above doing what it takes to benefit it's own manufacturers. I don't see why the US should not investigate benefiting it's own manufacturers as well. You could say that people will suffer because they won't get super cheap solar panels made under questionable circumstances, but honestly more people need to look beyond the price tag & at the "true costs".
One problem with the general lower standards argument is that it is so open ended. Based on that, the world could quickly slip into outright protectionism hurting everyone along the way. Sweden could slap massive tariffs on US goods based on low social and environmental standards or even currency manipulation for instance. Measured by purchasing power, the US dollar is about as undervalued relative to the Swedish Krona (and many other currencies) as the Yuan is relative to the US dollar.
Also, we have been importing commodities from brutal dictatorships for decades or even centuries in order to fuel our economies without ever complaining about low standards. Now that these countries start competing with us we're suddenly up in arms.
But ethical issues aside, such tariffs just make very little practical sense. Helping US and German panel manufacturers and at the same time hurting installers, equipment makers and consumers isn't going to help. Surely, the Chinese will retaliate.
Effectively, the Chinese and the Germans are subsidising everyone elses cheap clean energy. Let's just use it!
I don't disagree that the US government should and tries to do what's best for itself (to the extent possible within the constructs of the political system...).
I'm just saying that I believe it's not in its interests ultimately to levy such a heavy tariff on solar panels, regardless of where they're from. You may disagree on this, as many will disagree with China's policies.
I'd love to get cheap, subsidized solar panels--better if it's not subsidized by my own taxes. I just think levying a punitive tariff goes against even the spirit of self interest.
That made me think of an interesting idea. No problem is not solvable with some level of indirection!
A review aggregator website where the value of reviews from various sources is weighted by how reliable they are. For example, if there is Yelp, Facebook and Google, it can weight a restaurant 0.7 Yelp, 0.2 Facebook and 0.1 Google.
I am pretty sure dumping is only considered for international trade where an item is exported at a lower cost than it is sold domestically. Another example of selling below costs, is in the console industry where Sony and I am sure other companies as well have sold consoles well below their cost and make up for it with game sales.
It's true that the average clearly moved, but the author was trying to make a generalized inference from the average, that there was a structural break in the "true average" insofar as the measured average is just a sample/noisy measurement of the "true average". Therefore, error bars/confidence bars would indicate how likely the structural break in measured outcomes is to reflect a structural break in the underlying "true average."
The volatility/variance comes from the fact that 1. not everyone rates their experience, 2. there's variability in the experience, 3. different people have different expectations or likelihood to rate high/low, etc.
I hope that clarified what I believe was the parent's meaning.
Basically, these wealth were expectations.