They can, because I’m broadcasting on guard.

I’ve just had the worst train ride…

Here’s the theme cover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trp99eHyDyY

Like a spider dangled over the fire by a thread.

No I wasn’t emotionally scarred by high school American Lit, why do you ask?

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.

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.

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.

https://getindie.wiki/ does

Four minutes for a cup of coffee? Yesterday it was three!

No, but for a different reason.

Conversations have extremely short life spans. After a day, conversations dwindle down to individual threads with back and forths between two people (at best), since they are the only ones revisiting the post (due to notifications).

Even if people were committed (and/or reminded) about revisiting posts, the threading makes it difficult to find what’s new.

Actually it is for formal women.

Although “Formerly WAS” is a good “Who’s on first” style set up.