Posts by Keith Ng
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to DPF,
Did Ira suggest a specific amount or range to MSD, as a "reward"?
No. He asked if there was a system. He was expecting a set rate for vulnerability reports.
-
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
Bloody hell. That's a shitty stereotype to perpetuate in the service of an opening gag. Everyone I saw down at the Willis Street office was usually nicely dressed!
I was in Newtown. Also: Ain't nothing wrong with dressing down. I do my best work terribly dressed.
-
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Thomas/Graeme: Yeah, what Graeme said. That's pretty much my defence. Except that those were self-service kiosks - not restricted to WINZ clients in any way.
-
OnPoint: Re: Education, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Truth to power. Public accountability with public money. Etc.
I think the point of contention here is that, instead of "truth to power", this is just "some bullshit interpretation of meaningless numbers to power".
-
OnPoint: Re: Education, in reply to Hamish,
Are the values clustered to the bottom left the special schools?
Yes. See http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/well-below-standard-in-analysis/
-
OnPoint: Re: Education, in reply to Peter Green,
The real problem here is confounding variables.
Agreed.
-
OnPoint: Pants != Journalism, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Is a deputy registrar not a registrar?
-
OnPoint: Student Loans are Loans (Duh.), in reply to David Cormack,
So just to play devil's advocate, if you were to make the allowance only for undergrad, you would potentially disincentivise people from doing tertiary study, but once they were there they wouldn't be disincentivised from doing post-grad if EVERYONE had to get a loan. Or a scholarship?
They would still be disincentivised, but they would be *less* disincentivised.
More formally, if a person was offered $1 when another person was offered $5, they would see that $1 as a worse deal than if both were offered $1.
-
Yes. So the question is a) whether stacking another few years of living costs onto student loans will cause more post-grads to skip the country and default on their loans, and b) whether potential post-grads will be turned away because of the lack of an allowance.
Argument for b comes from behavioural economics: Subsidising some, but not others makes the unsubsidised choice appear worse than if none were subsidised at all.
-
OnPoint: Peek-a-boo, I can't recall…, in reply to Jolisa,
(Do not, repeat, do not look up Crisco on urban dictionary. Hey, I told you not to).
I am of the Santorum generation. Crisco barely registers as NSFW.