Sisyphean Effort is actually a thing

omg Toad, you can't just ask people why they're purple!

The short answer is being admitted by the bar; we already trust them to certify humans.

If for some reason I were arbiter, I would say a convincing record of doing actual legal work, vetted by existing lawyers. The legal profession already has a well-defined model of how non-lawyers can contribute to the work, so there is no need for a quantum leap up to being a lawyer.

3. The bar exam is just one part of a larger set of qualifications
4. The bar exam is just a (closed-book) proxy for the actual skills and knowledge being tested. While a reasonable proxy for humans, it is a poor proxy for computers

It has a watermark explicitly saying it's a colorization. The embossed faux cursive is pretty hard to make out, but it is https://www.jecinci.com/

Is this p-hacking?

"Journal", "it's", and "because" are all mispelled in the original.

Nah, that's another cut up with very little of the interview

Here is the full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DaR2CVNNk

I hope anytime someone asked for the manager you said, "I'll go get the manager, Karen."

Referenced study, from 2013, requires journal access: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12359

If there was a government-mandated monopoly on coffee and it was sold in L/s, we probably would.

Surprised not to see any posts referencing the Arbitrary List of Popular Lights or !flashlight@lemmy.world.

One of the requirements to make it on the list is:

A user interface where a single click turns the light on in a reasonable mode, and another single click turns it off.

I absolutely understand the anger at the Democratic party. I mention several useful activities to work toward fixing its many failings. The Republican party is strictly worse. Giving equal support to both is counterproductive.

Yes, that is precisely what I was attempting to say. Thanks

The problem is there isn't anything "useful" for understanding humans [in evolutionary psychology]. Yes we can come up with plausible evolutionary justifications for behavior like cooperation, but they are basically untestable and useless for predictions.

Edited to clarify I mean specifically evolutionary psychology.

This is an incorrect framing of the situation. You aren't being asked for a Yes/No vote on Democrats. You are being asked if you prefer Democrats or Republicans. Or for this election, if you prefer Democracy or Fascism. If you vote "no preference", that does not communicate "I prefer the Democrats, but want them to move further left", either logically or politically.

There are lots of ways to communicate desired policy changes: letter-writing, primaries (including campaigning/funding for candidates), protests, marches, press, social-media, etc. Voting against your interest is not one of them.

https://getindie.wiki/ does

The notion that housing should take up a particular portion of your income is fundamentally flawed. It relies on a fixed relationship between prices of different classes of goods, when that relationship varies over place and time.

Which situation is better: making 50k take-home and paying 15k in housing costs (30%), or making 100k and paying 50k (50%)?

There are real problems in the housing market and overall affordability, but this statistic is like trying to measure national health by the percentage of people drinking 8 glasses a day of water.

It's a crude rule of thumb that was questionably useful when it was first promulgated, and now is entirely adrift from reality.