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
So, at least in this propensity score- or age-matched data, there's no reason to chalk the benefit up to the weight loss effects.
This is a hint though, not definitive. Another hint is that benefits were observed in short trials, meaning likely before significant weight loss.
We can be doubly certain about that last hint because diabetics tend to lose less weight than non-diabetics, and all of the observed benefit has so far been observed in diabetic cohorts, not non-diabetic ones (though those directionally show benefits).
The reason why should teach us something about commitment
The government there has previously attempted crackdowns twice in the form of mano dura—hard hand—, but they failed because they didn't hit criminals hard enough
Then Bukele really did
In fact, previous attempts backfired compared to periods in which the government made truces with the gangs.
The government cracking down a little bit actually appeared to make gangs angrier!
You'd have been in your right to conclude 'tough on crime fails', but you'd be wrong.
You have to *actually* enforce the law or policy won't work. Same story with three-strike laws, or any other measure
Incidentally, when did the gang problems begin for El Salvador? When the U.S. exported gang members to it
Diets that restrict carbohydrate consumption lead to improved blood sugar and insulin levels, as well as reduced insulin resistance.
Additionally, they're good or neutral for the liver and kidneys, and they don't affect the metabolic rate.
Carbohydrate isn't the only thing that affects glycemic parameters.
So does fat!
So, for example, if you replace 5% of dietary calories from saturated fat with PUFA, that somewhat improves fasting glucose levels (shown), and directionally improves fasting insulin:
Dietary composition may not be useful for improving the rate of weight loss ceteris paribus, but it can definitely make it easier given what else it changes.
Those non-metabolism details may be why so many people find low-carb diets so easy!
There's a popular belief that family wealth is gone in three generations.
The first earns it, the second stewards it, and the third spends it away: from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations!
But how true is this belief?
Gregory Clark has new evidence🧵
The first thing to note is that family wealth is correlated across many generations. For example, in medieval England, this is how wealth at death correlates across six generations.
It correlates substantially enough to persist for twelve generations at observed rates of decay:
But why?
The dominant theory among laypeople is social: that the wealth is directly transmitted.
This is testable, and the Malthusian era provides us with lots of data for testing.
The Catholic Church helped to modernize the West due to its ban on cousin marriage and its disdain for adoption, but also by way of its opposition to polygyny.
The origin of this disdain arguably lies with Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian🧵
Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho argues with a Jew that Christians are the ones living in continuity with God's true intentions.
Justin sees Genesis 2 ("the two shall become one flesh") as normative.
In his apologetic world, Christians are supposed to transcend lust.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, is attacking Gnostics (Basilides, Carpocrates), whose sexual practices he finds scandalous.
To him, "temperance dwells, self-restraint is practiced, monogamy is observed"—polygyny is a doctrinal and moral deviation from creation affirmation.