adfgadfgaery

There are so many investors who want to build apartments that most cities have laws to keep them out.

I don't see how what you are saying makes any sense at all.

>1. Bad tenants will have no incentive not to harm the property and the neighborhood.

Of course they will: they may lose the security deposit, may be evicted, may be sued, and may even be arrested.

>2. Landlords will be forced to pay for insurance to cover all the bad things that tenants are now free to do.

They already pay for insurance.

>3. Rents will rise to cover the costs of the insurance. Conscientious tenants will be penalized.

Building more housing will make housing more expensive?

>4. Even otherwise conscientious tenants will start to cut corners since they are having to pay for the insurance anyway and it’s clearly unfair.

No, for the same reasons I gave before they still have an incentive to behave well.

Obviously they've made some progress. It would be hard for them to have accomplished nothing at all after all they've invested. It's still nowhere near safe for public roads and there's no reason to think it ever will be.

Even their driver assistance features work worse than the competition.

>it follows that social mobility is pretty much dead. It is a bleak vision.

I have always found the idea of social mobility depressing. It assumes that we will always have a hierarchy, with some people who are powerful and prestigious and others who are poor and always feel inadequate. It assumes that we will always have an underclass but at least people can leave it.

The SAT has been demonstrated to be effective at predicting success in university. We have almost no evidence about the computer industry's hiring practices. It is completely unscientific. Interviews operate on folklore, not statistics.

The debate is about the quality and predictive value of the tests. Opponents claimed that the tests had a cultural bias so students from some backgrounds would do better than others, that students who had a good education before university would be better prepared, and that studying for tests or taking tests repeatedly has been shown to improve scores but is only accessible to people who can afford it. These are all claims that the tests are not good at predicting aptitude.

The arguments against these tests are, of course, awful. Objective tests are the best way we know of to remove human bias. Aptitude tests (basically IQ tests) are the best way we know of to measure someone's natural ability (determined in early childhood) with little influence from their experience. Since their arguments make so little sense, it is reasonable to wonder about the psychology of opponents of standardized testing. But their arguments are, at least on the surface, about predictive value.

>What's surprising though, is that APs and similar exams are not enough.

That isn't what they said. They said that access to those tests is not universal. Students from high schools that don't offer AP classes would have a hard time taking AP exams. This would exclude people from rural or impoverished areas.

This is why the SAT and ACT are useful: they are meant to be aptitude tests. They are IQ tests in disguise. If properly designed, they will measure intelligence with minimal influence from education or cultural background. Theoretically something like these tests could be administered to elementary school students and still be useful for predicting success in college a decade later.

They continue to work on this project despite knowing it is fraudulent, which makes them complicit.

Besides, I don't see that they're doing solid work. It would be solid work if they ditched pure vision and moved to a system that works. Instead they are putting in heroic efforts on a dead-end technology. That is impressive in the same way that getting Doom running on a TI-84 would be impressive.

First off, because everything they said about the law is bullshit. The vice president has no authority to throw out votes. This is a complete fabrication. Either the writer legitimately believe this is legal, in which case they are clueless, or they know it is illegal, in which case they are lying. Either is bad.

Second, because of this:

>If they are (as more than 70% of Republicans believe) certificates from non-electors appointed via voter fraud, why should he open & count them?"

"Many people are saying": the classic weasel words. They can endorse this with an appeal to the authority of common knowledge and discuss it as if it's a reasonable hypothetical, all the while maintaining plausible deniability that they're just repeating what "everyone knows". Well, I don't find it plausible.

Read the replies to the tweets. The fascist types definitely interpreted it as Rasmussen agreeing with their position,. The non-fascist types interpreted it the same way. People do not communicate with formal logic. The meaning of speech is the meaning people take from it, not the meaning you would get from dissecting it on a whiteboard.

Is this your first day on this website?

There are occasionally interesting discussions, but the hero worship has got to go. Especially since people 'round here have awful taste in heroes.

>Have you reported this to the SEC yet?

No, nor have I reported Deepak Chopra or Amway or Gwyneth Paltrow. There are blatant scams all around us. A lack of interest from the feds doesn't mean much.

Besides, the SEC has enough on their plate when it comes to Tesla.

>So it does say what he thinks it says.

Doctor Oz is, by all accounts, a brilliant surgeon. Would you follow the medical advice on his show?