If you're already struggling, don't worry, just keep plugging in your answers.
For questions 2 and 3 you'll have to do some addition and subtraction:
The test might seem too tough for you now, but just wait until you see question number 4:
Question 5 separates the men from the boys, or apparently, the men women from the women:
Now we're going to transition from the mathematics section to reading comprehension.
Before getting to the questions, read this paragraph. You'll need it for questions 6 through 10:
Now here are the stumpers in question:
Question 11 gets its own passage:
Giving up yet? Well hang in there.
Questions 12 and 13 rely on this material:
Now you have to answer the hard questions like 'Can you read a paragraph that contains the answer?'
The following questions ask you to identify spelling and grammatical errors and to insert the correct word where it fits:
Question 18 also asks you to identify a spelling error. This can be a hard one!
Now here's how you do the final section.
You have to fill out forms correctly, according to a style guide everyone is provided.
The questions are based on this.
You have to fill in which items were stolen, where the victim lived, the suspect's name and address, the suspect's clothing items, and the names of the officers assigned to the complaint.
Now, without sarcasm, if you fail this sort of test, something is wrong with you. This test is incredibly easy and you would have to be illiterate and innumerate to fail.
And yet, 9% of Whites and 29% of Blacks fail. Incidentally, with equal variances, that's a 0.79 d difference
That difference is what's expected based on the Black-White difference in the general population with a bit of selection into test-taking added. It matches up with what we know to be unbiased differences in other tests of police officers (e.g., on the WAIS).
Now what do the women fail? Well, 49% of them can't do 18 push-ups in a minute, 27 sit-ups in a minute, run 1.5 miles in 15m20s, and reach 1.5 inches past their toes while seated.
They're pathetically physically incapable, so that's the department's fault.
The Maryland Department of State Police would need to show that the thresholds used in the test have equal predictive power by sex, that they're relevant to the job, etc.
Everyone knows a physical test is fine, but justifying it is obviously hard.
You could argue that maybe the female officers won't be stepping into the line of duty, or that the test just doesn't work at all, but argue that.
Otherwise, we get yet another senseless attack on having even bottom of the barrel standards.
It's pathetic.
Now if you really couldn't figure out the POST question answers, here's a link to the answer sheet: mdsp.maryland.gov/Careers/Troope…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Trump says his secret weapon in the fight to reform institutions of higher learning (38 USC § 3452(f)) is accreditation
He would actually gain a lot by deploying another weapon. This weapon is no secret to Democrats, but Republicans have only rarely used it
The weapon is data🧵
SFFA v. Harvard was a landmark case by the U.S. Supreme Court, wherein it was found that Harvard had been engaging in racially discriminatory admissions in violation of the law.
Per the court's decision, universities do not have the right to consider race during admissions.
SFFA v. Harvard was first filed in 2013 and the case was ultimately decided in 2023.
It took ten full years to decide against Harvard, even though the evidence that they discriminated in favor of Black students was shockingly obvious and insurmountable.
The picture looks much the same as the one last year🧵
When you rescale these curves by the numbers who took the test, you get this:
If you subset to the states where basically all high school students take the test (the "Representative" sample), the picture looks highly similar to the national one:
I just got done listening to Rogan's interview of Vance
It was substantive, and it is nice to hear that Vance would bring a lot of reasonability to the Trump White House if elected
Due to how long the interview was, it also showed off Vance's unusual-for-a-Republican priorities
To be frank, Vance is a Christian Democrat from 2008.
His views are basically just rejecting recent, wacky things and wanting a state that stays out of the way of the healthy, while providing extensive services for the unhealthy.
Vance focuses a lot on mental health, drug addiction, and people who he believes might only be temporarily struggling.
This makes total sense if you know about how disturbingly bad his early life was, and how it was plagued by drug addiction and poverty problems.
I'm not going to rig an ongoing poll by linking directly to it, but I will say that >90% of respondents so far were wrong:
The answer is climate🧵
Anatomically modern humans first appeared around 200,000 years ago.
After a few false starts, the dawn of man took place with a series of dispersions out of Africa about 60,000 years ago.
By 40-50 thousand years ago, humans had made it most places, and by 10-20, to the Americas
Practically all of that time dispersing took place as hunter-gatherers.
Specifically, nomadic hunter-gatherers. The real advent that made agriculture possible wasn't changing the mode of subsistence per se, but changing to sedentism.
What does labor-saving technology do to workers? Does it make them poor? Does it take away their jobs?
Let's review!
First: Most papers do support the idea that technology takes people's jobs.
This needs qualified.
Most types of job-relevant technology do take jobs, but innovation is largely excepted, because, well, introducing a new innovation tends to, instead, give employers money they can use to hire people.
But if technology takes jobs, why do we still have jobs?
Simple: Because through stimulating production and demand, it also reinstates laborers!
This is supported by the overwhelming majority of studies:
I just read one of the most interesting climatic reconstructions I've ever seen.
This one gives us temperature records for the last 485 MILLION years.
The reconstruction is based on a lot of different methods, but the one that really stood out was the part where they leveraged the shell chemistry of single-celled organisms' fossils.
Wild that this is possible and someone thought of it!
With these little organisms' data in hand, it's possible to obtain a high-fidelity picture of the past in which we emerged on the global scene.
That picture is one that averages much, much colder than basically any other period in time.