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
The original source for the Medline p-values explicitly compared the distributions in the abstracts and full-texts.
They found that there was a kink such that positive results had excess lower-bounds above 1 and negative results had excess upper-bounds below 1.
They then explicitly compared the distributional kinkiness from Medline to the distributions from an earlier paper that was similar to a specification curve analysis.
That meant comparing Medline to a result that was definitely not subject to p-hacking or publication bias.
I got blocked for this meager bit of pushback on an obviously wrong idea lol.
Seriously:
Anyone claiming that von Neumann was tutored into being a genius is high on crack. He could recite the lines from any page of any book he ever read. That's not education!
'So, what's your theory on how von Neumann could tell you the exact weights and dimensions of objects without measuring tape or a scale?'
'Ah, it was the education that was provided to him, much like the education provided to his brothers and cousins.'
'How could his teachers have set him up to connect totally disparate fields in unique ways, especially given that every teacher who ever talked about him noted that he was much smarter than them and they found it hard to teach him?'
This study also provides more to differentiate viral myocarditis from vaccine """myocarditis""", which again, is mild, resolves quickly, etc., unlike real myocarditis.
To see what it is, first look at this plot, showing COVID infection risks by time since diagnosis:
Now look at risks since injection.
See the difference?
The risks related to infection hold up for a year or more. The risks related to injection, by contrast, are short-term.
This analysis falls flat when you look into these people or think about how so many other "vons" were not as brilliant.
Von Neumann's brilliance preceded formal education and any tutoring. His advanced math tutor noted that he was smarter than him from their first meeting!
First thing's first: Most studies agree that rent controlled units have lower rents, but also the supply of rentable units goes down and un-controlled units see their rents increase.
Uh-oh!
Rent control also means that fewer homes get built, and it means that housing quality drops.
After all, if you can't raise the rent, what incentive do you have to make everything sparkly and neat?
Rent control lowers residential mobility, meaning people stay put longer
That's not good because it causes misallocation
Consider an elderly family whose kids left the nest. They should move to a smaller place, but rent control keeps them in place, so new families can't move in
I have actually had people thank me for getting them on this stuff precisely because they had inflammation issues that these drugs *immediately* solved for them.
Here's an example I've posted before: this man's back pain was cured!