u/JacksonFatBack

I think this is the unfortunate consequence of matchmaking. When servers were popular, you got a community.

I'm sorry: players are jerks.

I think it's very unfortunate and leads to outcomes and gaming we do not want. It means that one or two lower scores (like 90%/85% ie A- B+ equivalent) derail an applicant's application.

In reality, that's much more likely to lead to students selectively choosing classes or schools they know they can get perfect grades in and avoiding risk-taking.

Why do you say that?

I would say it's safer. It depends on what timescale we are discussing.

It's just a lot more difficult for AI to do things as simple as folding towels.

I do not really think this is proof. It's a good experiment to run, but n=1.

My guess is that VACNet is generally accurate. Probably 99%+. But from what I have seen, it can sometimes be wrong. The scout is not a cause per se, but the gameplay it encourages can algorithmically appear like a cheat.

D

^{Rolled: Question: Which vitamin does sunlight help your body produce}

If you are passionate about programming & CS, you should consider studying it. I know it's cliché, but you might find that focusing on passion is more rewarding than strategically trying to time the job market in 5 years.

-12

I think this might explain the Indian culture around studying and focus on just two professions.

My Indian friends say they only had two options growing up: Engineer or Physician. There are of course others, but parents/teachers/society does not present them as options.

I find Canadians and Europeans much more open to other careers. There is a lot of emphasis on finding your path/passion over money and prestige. I think this might be a privilege we have, given that the disparity between teacher and engineer is 2:1 and not like, 10:1. That is, the stakes are lower.

I would not address it. Addressing things can feel like an excuse (even if not intended). Your stats are fine and you have a decent shot at MD (45% according to the GPA/MCAT grid) and can certainly get into a DO school (if in the US).

Zuck was pissed last time. If this is gamed again, I think steam might come out of his ears.

Post bacc or SMP, then do exceptionally well on the MCAT

It's a solid starter base, but definitely be prepared to expand

Read this: https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/goros-advice-for-pre-meds-who-need-reinvention-updated-for-2021.1448918/

That should answer everything you need. In short, a lot depends on your MCAT (assuming you're applying in the US). I would not settle for 511—shoot for the moon.

I think the reality is that cops get lied to. They get lied to every day and become jaded.

The cop is wrong but I sympathize with him—this is an obscure law/situation.

what is the exponent `2-1=0`?

Unfortunately people who do not get in seldom post or update us. I suppose it's not something one wants to admit.

But yes, the overall statistics are well known: About 40% chance for first-time applicants, then decreasing chances with each additional application cycle.

Sure there are. How about progressive taxes based on income? Do you think those are effective?

Yes. Because wealth is just accumulated income. Otherwise we just punish people for saving.

Consider what happens if you threaten to redistribute wealth at a certain point: anyone near that point is incentivized to consume, even flagrantly.

I don't have an opinion on redistribution per se. I am just saying that if anything, use income.

But income is a good measure of inequality. So I would flip your statement: if you're going to redistribute, use income.

Wealth and income have a high correlation anyway.

What do you think?

Hmm, I see. I am saying that income disparity is the better measure of inequality.

Why would measuring income instead of wealth lead to redistribution? And what is unimportant about that?

Do you want to explain? I think income is a better metric to measure. Wealth is just accumulated income.

You're free to disagree, but why be so flippant?

Wealth is just accumulated income. You and I can have equal income but vastly different wealth (or the reverse).

Income is what's important—not wealth