callingbull

Not a gamer, but it seems "highly rated" is a matter of attention and status, and the number would increase with the population not with the overall number of games.

There is still the reputational risk of using selection methods with widely known disparate outcomes. Other methods also have disparate outcomes, but most of the criticism is directed at IQ tests. I've heard "IQ tests are culturally biased" but never "work sample tests are culturally biased", and I'll guess that's the experience of most hiring managers too.

There are real risks for companies without deep pockets (for settlements or public relations). People I know, responsible for hiring, have told me they won't use IQ tests because of how it would come across, so the concern at least exists but how widespread is the question.

Possibly legal and reputational risks, considering some groups do badly on IQ tests.

Schmidt et al., 2016 The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 100 Years of Research Findings

Nothing works well but IQ tests predict job performance better than anything else.

The actual answer is that congress has already authorized the president to set tariffs by executive order.

Trying the proof with a < b, with the b square from the bottom-right as in the diagram, I get a region to the top and left, and moving a piece (differently to the diagram) I get (a + b)(b - a) as a positive area for that region, and then flip the sign because it's negative.

> just swap the names

Then you've just skipped the case when a^2 - b^2 is negative. The diagram does not prove that case and swapping the names still doesn't prove it.

I've seen the same suggested of Sergey Karjakin, and he made it to the top (and I've seen it suggested that it helped him get to the top, that being a GM sooner got him more access to top trainers sooner).

They could have CC0 licensed the code or they could have said they would not enforce their copyright. They did neither. SQLite is closed source. The "dedication" (which has no legal effect, what does it even mean?) encourages widespread adoption and big players are spooked into paying for a license (or "warranty of title"). That's quite a strategy.

> Those two branches do live among Americans.

If you were not referring to extinct branches I don't know why you thought "they would likely represent two clusters" if they did not already in the clustering given.

> Afro-American people have the biggest genetic diversity in America and their genetic subgroups are so distinctive that they require separate testing in clinical studies.

Yes, and?

> I bet you won’t be able to tell the difference between them from their appearance though.

Maybe, and?

> Now good luck redefining the concept of race with this knowledge.

Good luck trying to deny biological race when you've just listed more evidence for it.

> We already know by now, that before going out of Africa at least two major genetic branches developed in addition to early Eurasians.

Nice of you to acknowledge genetics.

> At K=4 and clustering by genetic distance, they would likely represent two clusters while the rest of Africa would fall into one of remaining two.

I suppose they would.

> Not even close to what average American would understand.

The average American would understand if those two branches lived among us today. The value of science is to inform us of what is occurring now and to predict what will occur next, including the impact of immigration on test scores.

> The tragedy of American slavery is that it erased any links of slaves to Africa, so modern black Americans have barely any relationship to Africa, still carrying the pain but losing any cultural or ancestral connections.

I don't know why you deny genetics.