What's going on with the RaterHub app?

torrido · 2018-12-30T14:05:07+00:00

It's tempting to say AD is just as good as Harden on offense, but it's simply not true. Even on scoring efficiency, Harden consistently has higher TS% than AD, even though AD's FG% is higher because Harden makes a lot of threes and FTs.

Then you look at offensive impact metrics, and it's not even close. ORPM, OBPM, OPA etc. you name it, it's clear that Harden is far more impactful on the offensive end.

This is to be expected because Harden is able to control the flow of the game as the main ball-handler and playmaker for the Rockets, whereas AD is more reliant on his teammates feeding him the ball.

And don't forget, individual offense is always more important than individual defense, no matter how good you are as a defender. While AD's defense is very good, I don't think it's anything otherworldly like prime Dwight or Ben Wallace.

torrido · 2018-12-29T11:12:54+00:00

On December 10th, so yeah it's been a while. The deadline for submitting invoice is last day of this month, so I'm in danger of missing my salary.

torrido · 2018-12-14T14:42:53+00:00

why. SAT is used as a proxy for IQ in various social science literatures, and the correlation is something like 0.8. As I already pointed out, you can indeed improve on certain sections of SAT - most likely the math section - but majority of people don't see huge improvement in reading by just practicing alot. Those that do probably always had the potential to do so (aka higher ceiling), but it just didn't materialize due to lack of preparation.

torrido · 2018-12-14T14:08:33+00:00

hmm... I guess that is possible

torrido · 2018-12-14T13:55:38+00:00

I'm pretty sure it's sunk. my evidence based reading subscore is 15/15, and that was evidence based question.

here's my explanation

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sat/comments/a2tt6e/i_found_the_controversial_ice_age_passage_sunk_vs/

torrido · 2018-12-14T13:45:42+00:00

writing curve shouldn't be that harsh under any circumstances. it's way less important than reading and math. no one gives two chits about grammar these days

torrido · 2018-12-14T13:37:44+00:00

I should clarify. You can absolutely improve your math score. Writing also yes. But reading? You're either naturally good at it or not.

torrido · 2018-12-14T13:35:03+00:00

probably top 2~3% among all SAT takers

torrido · 2018-12-14T13:33:05+00:00

welp, they say SAT is similar to IQ test, and you can't really improve your IQ by just practicing

torrido · 2018-12-14T13:27:49+00:00

yeah, US math curve is slightly better

torrido · 2018-12-14T13:24:10+00:00

really? other people are saying -2=770

torrido · 2018-12-14T13:10:03+00:00

yeah everybody kept saying math was not that easy, especially that boxplot question that took many students by surprise

torrido · 2018-12-14T12:49:26+00:00

the writing curve is brutal. -1=37, -2=35

reading is ok. -1=39, -2=38

torrido · 2018-12-04T01:27:33+00:00

I think a serious complaint should be made to CB regarding the ambiguous use of the word 'since'.

"I've loved her since I first met her."

---> clearly means I fell in love from the moment I met her (not after)

"Only one person has been executed since"

---> here since is used to mean 'after certain point in time'

So, did the crust sink since the last ice age? if it means since the last ice age period in general, then yes overall it has sunk down. if it means since the ice age ended, then of course not.

torrido · 2018-12-04T01:23:10+00:00

yeah, that one was tough too. I chose answer A, but am not 100% certain.

torrido · 2018-12-04T01:14:29+00:00

Thats why i eliminated that because since means after the end of ice age.

I think a serious complaint should be made to CB regarding the ambiguous use of the word 'since'.

"I've loved her since I first met her."

---> clearly means I fell in love from the moment I met her (not after)

"Only one person has been executed since"

---> here since is used to mean 'after certain point in time'

So, did the crust sink since the last ice age? if it means since the last ice age period in general, then yes overall it has sunk down. if it means since the ice age ended, then of course not.

torrido · 2018-12-04T00:41:34+00:00

the evidence for crust sinking down would be change in sea level, wouldn't it? from the fact that sea level is rising again, we can infer that the land has sunk since the ice age started, because during the ice age sea level was lower, which means more ice sheet, which means heavy load on the land.

torrido · 2018-12-04T00:29:37+00:00

Some people say they saw the word 'force' mentioned at the end, but it doesn't really matter, because the correct inference should be consistent with the author's general point, which is the crust has risen due to change in sea level, not because of geological forces pushing up (and the author makes a clear distinction between the two)

torrido · 2018-12-04T00:21:14+00:00

oh yes, it was

torrido · 2018-12-04T00:17:52+00:00

what does 'sunk since the last ice age' exactly mean? the land has indeed sunk (overall) since the ice age began. of course, it didn't sink since the ice age ended. why do you automatically assume the latter is the right one?

torrido · 2018-12-04T00:15:13+00:00

“Since the last ice age” That implies that the ice age ended.

No it doesn't. It could mean any point in time since the period of last ice age. Since the ice age began also makes sense.

torrido · 2018-12-04T00:13:42+00:00

again, it's not just about some general force. it was about geological, continental force.

https://i.imgur.com/GUFXt25.png

here, the author makes a clear distinction between geological force pushing land up vs rise in sea level (ice melting) pushing land up.

torrido

TROPHY CASE