Pontificate in its original sense literally means to perform the duties of a pope or priest (a pontiff). The auto part I guess because it’s email? That part is shakier
Auto as in you get it automatically in your mailbox. No need to ask for it or otherwise seek it out. It's just sent to you.
ETA: other meanings likely don't fit. It's not about self pontificating (well maybe only from Charlie's point of view), and the motorcar related to the Pope is already called the Popemobile.
Teachers get can paid more whether you raise taxes or not. Chicago public schools runs a $700,000,000 deficit every year no sweat.
Chicago pays teachers more than any other place in the country and has close to if not the absolute worst student outcomes. Paying more doesn’t solve much
The trick for me was to place a queen (most anywhere, but start with a corner it’s easier), then check and look for the spot with the most reds around it (eg 9, or 8, or 7), place the next queen there, repeat. Then place the bishop as needed.
The key was realizing the proximal spaces next to the placed queen are the most important to cover. Forget about trying to have a long reach, it comes naturally.
I was wondering that too. One would think that with a greedy approach, 1 square diagonally from the corner would be better. (But that doesn't work as well.)
The only ones of these I've tried before (on an old 8-bit computer, where the challenge was to keep runtime acceptable) are the knight's tour and the 8-queens "independence" (no co-attacking) problems.
For the knight's tour all you need is a simple heuristic, consistently applied, of doing the hardest bits first - visiting the next square that has fewest remaining squares that lead to it, meaning that you start in a corner. This is what has me wondering about the puzzle/heuristic being discussed where the first placement is using a different heuristic.
On a slow computer the trick to a fast 8-queens solution is to recognize that a minimal constraint is that the queens need to all be on different rows and columns, so you can start by using an efficient permutation algorithm to generate permutations of {1, 2, .. 8} (corresponding to column placement of queen on n'th row), then just check the diagonals of this reasonable number of candidates.
There is an easy solution to Princeton’s problem, and it’s to have an honor system with a backbone. The way honor historically worked.
At my private high school, and at my university (although they later gutted it), we had a “single sanction” honor code.
That is, if you were caught lying, cheating, or stealing - in any way, and in or out of school, though usually it was in - you were immediately expelled. No mitigating circumstances. No negotiation.
To many of my peers this sounded very harsh, especially since these were very good schools you worked hard to get to and succeed in. But part of why they were good schools was because of this.
We do zero tolerance for so many things but integrity is the one thing that misses it for some reason.
"Zero tolerance" policies like that are much more prone to the kind of excessive leniency in application that's described, precisely because the penalty for being found to have cheated is so very high.
In those cases, the academic integrity committee is much more likely to demand a very high standard of proof of cheating, and it can ironically result in more people getting away with it again and again, where, in a system with (say) a "three strikes" policy, they might be more likely to be expelled, because the committee would not hesitate to give them their first and second strikes—and after that, they're clearly a repeat offender.
You are equating “leniency” and “standard of proof” which goes against my every sense of justice.
You either did it or you didn’t. There is no small crime, they are all the same. That is honor- you have it or you don’t.
There is no “you were accused, but it’s minor so we’ll have to be more sure than usual.”
That would be as ridiculous as saying “you were accused, and it’s major, so if there’s any suspicion at all, you’re gone.”
I know that happens in practice sometimes (like to the lacrosse players at Duke, or to Phi Psi at Virginia), but it’s not just. And it’s not representative of a functional honor system.
You're looking at it in much too black-and-white a manner.
First of all, there's a difference between cheating on the big final exam that determines 40% of your course grade, and cheating on a quiz in week 3. A zero-tolerance policy has to make a decision: does the latter count as cheating? Is that really worth expelling a student over? A more nuanced policy can give that student a more nuanced punishment that may deter them from escalating their cheating—essentially, "scare them straight".
Second of all, there are absolutely degrees of cheating. For one, there's simple volume: did you cheat on one question, or all of them? For another, there's gray areas like "it was an open-book test, but I had also scribbled down some extra notes in the book" or "yes, I had my phone out in the test, but genuinely I was just responding to my parent/significant other/best friend who was having a meltdown". Or even "I had my phone in my bag, which I wasn't supposed to, but I never looked at it during the test; I just forgot to hand it in when I entered".
Your brand of "justice" would see many people who could absolutely be persuaded or shamed into good behavior, as well as actual innocents, lose the chance to ever get a decent education, and thus a decent job. (Particularly given the way the economics of it are going today—if you get expelled, those student loans don't go away, so how are you ever going to afford another university?)
What do you mean by this. What is the cost of one university expelling a liar? There is only benefit.
I am talking about a school like Princeton here. Not a for-profit degree mill.
The school with only honorable students is the most valuable school, all else being equal. All your students will be practically guaranteed jobs.
How much cheating is acceptable, from your wife? Do you have a sliding scale of punishment? I’d be curious to learn from you. Penalty for kissing another man. Penalty for touching another man. Etc.
> What is the cost of one university expelling a liar?
What is the cost to the student?
And you seem to have immediately glossed over the part where not all of these students are, in fact, lying, or cheating.
> The school with only honorable students is the most valuable school, all else being equal. All your students will be practically guaranteed jobs.
Where on earth do you get that idea?
No one in the corporate world really cares if you cheated on your exams. Plenty of them would brag about doing the same. They care about the piece of paper, and not much else, from the schooling itself. (They do care about what experience you have. In fact, they'd love it if, as 22-year-old college graduate, you have 15 years of experience!)
> How much cheating is acceptable, from your wife?
I don't feel like going too much into my personal life with someone like you, but oh boy, buddy, did you pick the wrong person to try that "gotcha" on X-D
> We do zero tolerance for so many things but integrity is the one thing that misses it for some reason
Look at the type of people in positions of power these days? If we enforced any kind of integrity they would be screwed, but since they're in charge they can undermine policies that would hold them accountable as much as they like
Having integrity in elite colleges helps society. If people graduate from these places by cheating, and they see others graduating by cheating, cheating becomes a norm in elite society. If students are observed to be honest, and those that aren't are usually caught and punished, the graduates leave with a norm of honesty.
You are of course very welcome to propose this supposed better model, but please do some due diligence and learn to roughly understand the current flawed models firsts.
For example "angry gods" was never a simple theory, one needs only to read some fan fiction to understand that theology gets complicated fast. Instead "angry gods" is a simplified summary of a very complicated theory about metaphysical hierarchy, creation, agency, the meaning of divinity, and cause and effect, etc etc.
Simplest in this sense does also imply predictability for Dark matter, which cannot be said for angry gods. Angry gods is anything but a simple theory.
Yes I don’t get the worry on an individual basis. If my money is in a CIT they tell me exactly what it’s invested in and it is audited every year.
The worry here seems to be on a systemic level, rather. No one knows how much in aggregate is in these types of trusts nor how it is in aggregate allocated. Which may be a concern from a systemwide risk management pov but far less so for an individual worker.
reply