What I always wonder about that stuff is: OK, it's designed to disenfranchise voters. But, who wrote it? On whose orders? What did that meeting look like?

It's not *in* the sentence, it's *of* the sentence. My guess is the phrasing is because the author didn't know if the questions would be numbered or lettered.

Probably written by committee; everyone bring back some favored incoherent/trick questions (Paris in the the spring, even).

Yeah, OK. I figured they'd say "of this question" or something. The reason I'm splitting semantic hairs here is that later in the test there are questions that try to trip you up on semantic distinctions like that.

I'd also like to take back my previous comment last month about the non-trump posts in the Trump thread not bothering me enough to make an issue out of it. It's currently unreadable.

Non-political poastings for the forum sci-fi nerdz (I think that's like 93% of you).

Neill Blomkamp has a short film project going that's pretty good imo:





1. Sigourney Weaver looks amazing for her age

2. If Blomkamp's Alien movies don't get made it will be the greatest tragedy in history.

I am obviously guilty here as I just initiated a 15 post hijack about professional wrestling but OTOH it's a 40k post thread with little cohesion anyway. It's a slightly themed glorified low-content thread to repost Trump tweets, let einbert agitate for a violent socialist revolution, and a few meaningful posts with content related to Trump news. I don't think that's going to change. The solution you're looking for is a split between a Trump thread and a Trump low-content thread, but we already have some other Trumpian threads so it's hard to see where to draw the line.

A degree of unreadability is an essential component of a thread dedicated to his Presidency.

A high content Trump/Republican policy thread is 100% to get hijacked by Trump tweets and Einbert spam. No sense in even trying imo.

Masked gun attack on French mosque.

I read the hard copy, so no link, but the May edition of The Atlantic had a really interesting article about online pricing, how it's set, experiments that are being done, personlizing prices, etc.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...us-all/521448/

Ravenclaw and -4.35 ec, -4.13 soc on Political Compass.

I got slytherin

35% slytherin 34%gryffindor so close to being a great person.

Don't feel bad. The sorting hat wanted to put harry in slytherin, and

I feel bad about everything all the time except when i dont.
I dont remember that part of harry potter its been a long time since i read the books. I wish i couldve gone to that school though.

The spoiler part was in the play The Cursed Child.

.

Christie needs to learn a lesson from Trump and declare it Fake News, photoshop himself doing the Banzai Drop ala Yokozuna onto NJ Advance Media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...ushpmg00000009

Christie's a buffoon, but I enjoyed a couple of his responses:

Perhaps you'd read an article lately on how the Seattle minimum wage hike was bringing on full doom-and-gloom economic apocalypse for the poors?

About that...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ing-just-fine/

Turns out the study was pretty flawed. Shame on University of Washington!

LK,
You are completely out of your depth, and that opinion piece you linked is quite weak. Here's the study:

http://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/fi...ng%20Paper.pdf

(I know you won't read it, but maybe someone else will.)

Here's a 2-page summary:
https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/f...20overview.pdf

About the study: It was commissioned by the city of Seattle to evaluate the minimum wage increase they enacted. It has better data than prior studies because Washington is apparently one of only four states where the employment division collects not only individual wages, but hours too.

The Post story that you linked to is leaning heavily on the fact that the conclusions in this paper are different from conclusions in prior research. But here's the thing - the authors of this paper are able to show in Section 6.5 that it's likely the quality of their data, rather than bad analysis, that leads to different results than in some prior research. That is, when they follow the prior literature's cruder empirical approach, they get the same inferences (very little effect) as in prior research.