Also, middle-/upper-oriented people are more likely peer-pressured to placing in the "best" kindergartens, whereas lower-oriented people may skip it (much like skipping parental-school involvement). And, I suspect both nature and nurture aspects are self-amplifying: smarter/more competitive kids may make more money and attempt to seek similar mates to have improved offspring and try really hard to inculcate successful attitudes. Plus, having more money helps reinforce getting into selective kindergartens and making more childhood friends of future powerful people, leading to better social access to higher quality mates (better genes), more money and hopefully better lifestyle-choices.
Right, I'd really like to know about the "random" process that assigned students to classrooms. I know that when I was in elementary school the assignments were theoretically random, but if parents really wanted to influence them, they could. Since this study gets a lot of its results from clustering, they might just be finding that certain classes were perceived to be better (right or wrong) and so involved parents influenced the school to get their kids in it. Now it really is going to be "better" by the metric of those kids' later success.
Some people have to rationalize their stuck-in-the-1950's, environmentally-destructive, post-truth lifestyles with gusto somehow. How else to explain expanded fossil fuel consumption/exploitation, anthropogenic methane output (ie fossil fuel industry, flooded rice cultivation, animal agriculture/CAFOs), palm oil plantation rainforest burning, microplastic pollution/gyre garbage patches and other similar ecological-destructive behaviors? Oh but, let's bitch about not wasting as much water because a few cheap, low-flow toilets were purchased without evaluating better alternatives because it's all conservation's fault. (Sarcasm.) Yeah.
Interesting. Oddly enough, I used to have this massive custom sofa which was a real PITA to move... could only fit in storage unit if stood up on a roller dolly and so on. I bet there'll soon be an app using CV/ML to figure out if a sofa will fit/which way to move it. ;)
Alt-right gonna keep shoveling billionaire propaganda and/or InfoWars/Unabomber beliefs onto every and any memetic channel, because shouting lies loud/often enough is sadly rewarded by changing sentiment in low-fact environments. (Doesn't really work so well on HN because of pervasive motivation for fact-challenging and argumentativeness.)
Enough people believe "where there's smoke, there's fire", that if you keep pumping smoke over and over, some of them will eventually assume that there's a fire.
I remember changing the channel on a color HeathKit TV at my grandparents by shaking house keys because the ultrasonic remote sensor circuit interpreted it as channel down. (It had a diagnostic and circuit diagram on a fold-down panel IIRC.)
Also my father and grandfather both made multiple technology generations of oscilloscopes from kits. And, my father opened an electrical automotive shop in Santa Clara, thanks in part to learning from HeathKit and other study-at-home electronics courses.
There's a happier, less-dramatic sane-area leaving out overt misogyny and social-justice warrior cry-bully behavior. Also, in hiring there needs to be process removal of as many cognitive biases (ie blinding resume names/personal details) as possible to foster as fair of a messy ordeal as humanly possible.
Another issue is the promulgation and veneration of taboo, protected groups as being automatically special proportional to an university-proscribed, identity/attribute(s) neoliberal caste system. Bollocks.
I think such lists come from a positive intention for there to be less arbitrary discrimination and to motive likely-targeted/underrepresented individuals to succeed. I'm not sure how a special list helps motivate people with fundamental confidence, but instead may temporarily confer false confidence based on non-skill attribute(s) except by an inkling of almost getting on a generic list.
Note: the word "neoliberal" has nothing to do with social justice or even modern left wing movements and activism. It describes an economic policy that discourages regulation and government oversight.
Who has the time to audit the source code of all the code they'd like to run on their computer? If you find them, I'd pay them to audit it for me, build it, and sign it so that I don't have to.
Apple's codesign ensures end-to-end chain-of-custody integrity with nonrepudiation, tied to a specific, named signer and likely also a credit-card.
GPG signing and releasing fingerprints of all released artifacts on an https://-served release notice would accomplish nearly the same thing, but requires more steps and causes a confusing `“HandBrake” can’t be opened because it is from an unidentified developer.` dialog.
It is a best-practice to both GPG sign all release artifacts and use vendor-specific code-signing / app stores, otherwise conversion will suffer with each additional hoop multiplied by the N of the entire user-base resulting in much more time-wasting.
End-to-end integrity also prevents entire classes of attacks such as hacked CDNs, hacked networks and so on.
The "end-to-end chain-of-custody" is actually the problem, because it does two bad things.
First it encourages people to give it more faith than is due. Having an ironclad guarantee that something is approved by a specific untrustworthy person can do more harm than good when people see the guarantee and not the guarantor.
Second, when the process has barriers (e.g. for poor students or foreign nationals), you get a lot of legitimate software that isn't signed, which means you're harmfully desensitizing users to security warnings. Or locking out legitimate software.
Suppose you replace that with automatic GPG signatures, where the software has to be signed by the author but the author doesn't have to be signed by anybody else. You still have something useful -- you can verify that two pieces of software are from the same author. And that updates are from the same author as the original. And the author can publish their public key to their website, allowing security-conscious users to link the software to the trusted website.
Meanwhile signing becomes only a checkbox with no gatekeeper deciding who can and can't sign, no one is excluded, so everything can be signed there are no spurious security warnings for legitimate software.
