Raider5678

1 hour ago, iNow said:

A modern day Ross Perot. Interesting, but not serious. 

I thought the same of Trump.......

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Don’t get me wrong. I like his trick. I just think there’s more needed to be in charge than support for a freedom dividend. 

He has extensive agenda's on other things. See his healthcare and gun control agenda.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/medicare-for-all/

6 hours ago, iNow said:

hopefully the passionate person causes passionate voting response

Go Andrew Yang!!!!!

I mean. He get's a passionate voting response from me at least. I feel that he'd fair extremely well against Trump. He has very little baggage, he's straight forward, he's not boring to listen to speak, he's not an absolute a-hole, he has a very good grasp of economics, and even though a lot of what he mentions is a rather extreme idea to conservatives, his arguments are really well laid out. They're not mind boggling  complex. Simple, and to the point. I'm not entirely optimistic of Universal Basic Income and how it'll work, but if he were president I wouldn't mind us trying and seeing how it went because it doesn't seem like we're throwing ourselves off a cliff without a plan other then "it sounds good and people applaud."

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

My instinct is he’ll magically lift the sanctions on China right before the election so... voila!!

The economy wouldn't respond like that.

53 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I searched for who was going to win next year and the analysts I read think Trump will win again if he keeps the economy up. Depressing.

I suspect he gets impeached, convicted by the senate, removed from office, thrown in jail, runs for reelection, wins, and voila. We're back to face palming every time we get a twitter notification from the man himself.

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

Increased temperatures of the Earth will render some regions of the planet unable to be habitable e.g. Africa, southern Asia, Australia, America.

All of those regions or some of those regions?

45 minutes ago, cultsmasher said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't that giant freaking jump in carbon dioxide around 550 million years ago have increased the average global temperature at least a little?

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

eventually they will (at the latest, when the new generations of educators come up).

And yet, with the incredibly fast pace of cultural and technological advancement these days, that 4 years to become a teacher means the students are in a totally different world. 

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

I know someone personally who as a teen wanted to become a mathematician (with stellar scores in middleschool), but since they did not follow the method exactly (rather using an equivalent method getting the same result) they got failed exams, repeatedly told not to have  brain for maths, and eventually decided to pursue a different career. Also the expanded inquiry into math as principle seems like a good idea, too often I hear the complaint of "what is it good for?". The issue, I believe is that because it includes ethnic studies, it automatically becomes an source of discomfort for the majority. This, in my mind, clashes a bit with the increasing diversity in the population. I believe we need a discussion about that at some point, as I do not think that we should see society as a zero-sum game.

Based on the quote you quoted, we should throw common core out the window. My little brother fails tests quite regularly because I told him not to use the convoluted method they have for adding and subtraction. So for the last 4-5 questions on a test, where they're required to explain their answer, he doesn't get points.

They're given an entire page to answer something as simple as 67-13 because of how ridiculous it is.

In comparison to how I taught him when he was younger. 67 - 13. Subtract the 3. You get a 4. Subtract the 1. You get a 5. It's 54. Mind blown right? 2 steps. 

They have something called snap math. Basically, they have 3 minutes to answer every question on a sheet of paper(25 questions.).

They keep doing the same paper day after day until they get all the answers right, then they move to the next one the next day.

My little brother is first in the grade, around paper ~60. The next closest kid is 20 something(teachers note on his report card). 

However, because he doesn't do math the way that common core requires they do it, (a convoluted method that is so stupid it should be taken out of the class room and shot, encased in concrete, and launched into a black hole, and then made illegal to look at that black hole, mention it, or think of it.) it's considered wrong.

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

But briefly touched upon, there is the worrying tendency of students to be very narrowly focused in their learning. Quite a few STEM students are very dismissive of concepts outside of their perceived range, and would likely not benefit from the broader perspective such classed would bring.

Being narrowly focused on learning is something I believe is a separate issue. But I also know that a lot of students have a hard time with math because they can't focus on it. Add in extra concepts to that, that just distract from the mathematics section of, well, math, I think it'll make it harder for them to focus.

By adding in additional concepts in math that a teacher must teach, it further limits them in how they may teach it. 

Another possible unmentioned issue, is that if math teachers don't like this curriculum and they disagree with it, many of them may simply opt to teach somewhere else. 

In my high school, introducing things like common core pushed most of the good teachers away. They went to private schools where they make more, and they can actually teach their subject. I feel there is a very good possibility this could do the same.

23 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

Just wait until the politicians change Science Technology Engineering Maths (STEM) into STEAM by adding Arts into the mix.

I hated art so much growing up, I would have refused to take a STEAM course. Other people's ideas of what "creativity" is, is so flawed it's laughable.

Creativity is when a kid(or adult) creates something they thought of in their head, them selves. Influenced by other things, or not. Either way, creative.

It is not the most abstract ridiculous drawing you can make. It's not how you can derive flowers from parabolas. And it's certainly not how to make something "visually appealing". 

My friend made a calculator that can tell you the answer to every single question on the algebra test, just by taking a picture of the aforementioned question.

I don't care if it isn't pretty. In my opinion, it was creative. 

21 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That being said, if integrated into a Math curriculum, I cannot imagine it being more than a side note to illustrate things.

SWBAT means "Students Will Be Able To X" and generally means the students are quizzed on the topic to verify that they are able to X. At least when I was in high school.

The overall push of this program appears to be more then just a side note used to illustrate things, and I'm against that.

Unless you're intending to imply the version they're suggesting won't work, and the farthest this will go will be what you mentioned. 

I'm not quite sure which one you meant?

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The ethnics aspects specifically is seemingly based on the observation that minorities respond very well to it (based on reading some abstracts in ethnomathematics) so it does seem to  have practical benefits

There were boosts inside of math and science scores for minority students who attended ethnic studies classes. That being said, they weren't integrated into math and science classes directly. While I don't know of the specific boosts of doing so, I'm highly skeptical it should be used as an argument for integrating this without first testing it to see if it yields better results then having a dedicated cultural class.

20 hours ago, CharonY said:

Thank you for the source, much appreciated. I'd have to think a bit more about it. First is of course that it should not compromise the core curriculum, and from what I read that does not seem to be the case. The other aspects however, I actually do see the value in it, but I wonder whether K12 is too early or not. 

I don't think K12 is too early to start teaching students about racist behaviors we've had before and the history of our Country. If anything, University shouldn't be the place we're helping students unlearn things. They shouldn't learn them in the first place.

That being said, I don't feel like math class is the place for that.

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

As per your link the class is part of the ethnic studies curriculum, not for the math curriculum.

This is a excerpt from Education Week:

Education Week reports:

If adopted, its ideas will be included in existing math classes as part of the district’s broader effort to infuse ethnic studies into all subjects across the K-12 spectrum. Tracy Castro-Gill, Seattle’s ethnic studies director, said her team hopes to have frameworks completed in all subjects by June for board approval.

If the frameworks are approved, teachers would be expected to incorporate those ideas and questions into the math they teach beginning next fall, Castro-Gill said. No districtwide—or mandated—math/ethnic studies curriculum is planned, but groups of teachers are working with representatives of local community organizations to write instructional units for teachers to use if they wish, she said.'

The link is here, however be forewarned, this site isn't free. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/10/11/seattle-schools-lead-controversial-push-to-rehumanize.html

According to the interview with a person who is directly involved in the planning, this is taught IN math class.

I didn't notice the link before though. Either way, in light of what Castro-Gill is saying, I'd chalk that up to a bad folder organization. Or someone got confused and thought this belonged in an Ethnic Studies course.

For the record, I have absolutely no issue with this being an ethnic studies course. But it's not, it's to be incorporated into the math class.

But then they're unhappy.

That's illogical.....I don't get it.....

Oh wait. We were taught logic was discriminatory. No wonder. Moving on.

So reading in the news, Seattle has introduced legislation that would create a new math curriculum highlighting how math was used by western civilization in order to subjugate cultures of color.

An example would be how numeracy tests were used to screen black voters in southern states.

While this is, and will continue to be, taught in history class, it will now also be taught in math class.

Additionally, questions will purposefully be framed to cast light on social issues such as the disparity in criminal sentencing, drug sentencing, etc.

Furthermore, the math class would also teach students to use different bases, such as base 20, to help make up for the way western civilization have subjugated the mathematical identity of others, such as the Aztecs. 

The above was gleamed from various news outlets. However, here is the actual PDF document that all this is based off of(it seems more fit to go straight to the actual controversial document then to trust "fake news"*)

https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math SDS ES Framework.pdf

Essentially, the document outlines 4 key areas that math class should focus on.

• Orgins, Identity, and Agency.
  • Origins, Identity and Agency, as defined by ethnic studies, is the ways in which we view ourselves as mathematicians and members of broader mathematical communities. Mathematical theory and application is rooted in the ancient histories of people and empires of color. All human endeavors include mathematical thinking; from humanities to the arts to the sciences
• Power and Oppression.
  • Power and oppression, as defined by ethnic studies, are the ways in which individuals and groups define mathematical knowledge so as to see “Western” mathematics as the only legitimate expression of mathematical identity and intelligence. This definition of legitimacy is then used to disenfranchise people and communities of color. This erases the historical contributions of people and communities of color.
• History of Resistance and Liberation.
  • The history of resistance and liberation, as defined by ethnic studies, is the stories, places, and people who helped liberate people and communities of color using math, engineering, and technology. Access to mathematical knowledge itself is an act of liberation.
• Reflection and Action.
  • Student action, as defined by ethnic studies, is fostering a sense of advocacy, empowerment, and action in the students that creates internal motivation to engage in and contribute to their identities as mathematicians. Students will be confident in their ability to construct & decode mathematical knowledge, truth, and beauty so they can contribute to their experiences and the experiences of people in their community.

Seeing this, one of the major things that jumps out at me is this:

"Power and oppression, as defined by ethnic studies, are the ways in which individuals and groups define mathematical knowledge so as to see “Western” mathematics as the only legitimate expression of mathematical identity and intelligence."

To me, the idea of teaching students that our way of doing math, isn't the only way you can do math, seems questionable. Perhaps the Aztecs used base 20 to count, and the westernization of that math to base 10 was oppressive, but that doesn't change the fact we use base 10 today**, almost exclusively, around the entire world.

 Teach them that the Aztecs used base 20. Don't teach them that it's okay if they feel like using base 20 to try and communicate to people, calculate, or write. It's not. It'll basically destroy their life if they refuse to use base 10 in the real world. Oppressive or not, I feel like this is a pill they should swallow and move on with.

Additionally, much of the Origins, Identity, and Agency section seems like it should be sent and banished to history class. When I went to school, I would have hated going into math class and being told to go write an essay about how the origins of mathematics were actually from empires of colored people as opposed to learning how to calculate the angle of triangles using trigonometry

Other topics seem a rather off topic for a math class. (SWBAT = Students will be able to)

• SWBAT explain how math has been used to exploit natural resources
  • This is required for learning math...... why?
• SWBAT identify the inherent inequities of the standardized testing system used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color.
  • Same question as above. Is this topic going to be taught with standardized tests? 
• SWBAT critique systems of power that deny access to mathematical knowledge to people and communities of color.
  • Same question as above. And shouldn't this be taught in civics? How hard is it to say that "Governments that deny mathematical knowledge to people and communities of color = bad." Why is this a concept that must be taught in math?
• SWBAT identify individuals and organizations that have reclaimed mathematical identity and agency.
  • As defined by whom? What is mathematical identity? 2 + 2 = 4 = cultural oppression?
• SWBAT re-humanize mathematics through experiential learning and answering “why?”.
  • I literally have no words to describe how I feel about injecting humans into mathematics. I'm not a fan of a lot of people. I don't want mathematics humanized, I feel like it'll ruin it. People ruin a lot of stuff.

Thoughts?

Quick edit: In full disclosure, I am currently in disagreement against this proposal. In case it wasn't obvious. It could change though.

*A joke. Don't kill me.

**Yes, I understand computers use binary, and we could say that a majority of math is in base 2. But we, being humans, typically don't write in base 2, we typically don't calculate in base 2, and we typically don't communicate in base 2. Invalid argument exception.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

No. I will do no such thing. It’s idiotic to compare national budgets to family budgets. I cannot print money or set trade deals or write regulations or levy taxes. Those all matter in critical ways when having discussions like this. The comparison you’re asking me to make suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of macro economies. 

It's idiotic to compare them on every level. It's not idiotic to compare them on some levels. I was simply asking you to compare them on the premise of borrowing money in different circumstances.

I feel I've provided an adequate argument why borrowing money for perpetual payments is bad. I also feel that this applies to both family budgets and national budgets. If you have a reason to believe otherwise, then I'm all ears. Saying you're not going to compare them because they're different isn't a logical argument in my opinion.

The point where it becomes impossible to borrow more, is light years after the point where it becomes foolish to borrow more.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Only if your creditors see you as a risk to repayment. So long as you pay on time and consistently, you could technically borrow forever. Especially when you can print your own money (wherein inflation becomes a bigger risk, but that’s been at record lows for over a decade)

This is true. However at some point it becomes impossible to borrow more.

I.E, if you keep borrowing money, the interest get's higher and higher. The payments get higher and higher. If your GDP doesn't continue to grow at the same rate, a larger and larger portion of your money is going to paying off loans. The biggest risk is what happens if a recession hits and you're forced to either print crap tons of money, or default on your loans. One can lead to a domino effect of inflation, and one will cause your interest rates to sky rocket. In either case, massive cuts to your spending will be required, and we all know that spending cuts are extremely popular in democracies. 

A better way to describe it is to think of it in terms of investments.

If you borrow money to invest in rebuilding schools and building new trade schools, that's a good case for borrowing money. (In my opinion.)

If you borrow money so that you can increase the education budget of schools, that's a bad case for borrowing money. (In my opinion.)

The two scenario's are similar, but not the same in a very fundamental way. The first scenario is borrowing money for a large up front investment. The second scenario is borrowing money for a perpetual payment. 

If you're borrowing money for a perpetual payment, you'll often result in a deficit. A deficit will result in more debt, more debt will result in more interest, and more interest will result in requiring more money to make that interest payment. Requiring more money to make an interest payment will often result in borrowing more money, spending cuts, or finding a way to generate more revenue(often taxes.) Upfront, people will probably not pay as much in taxes. But by the time their grand kids are paying taxes, they'll be paying more taxes just to pay for the payments their grandparents opted for.

You can't perpetually borrow money.

Heck, think of it at a personal level. If you had to borrow money every year to put towards your rent, and you didn't pay off that borrowed money by the end of the year, but you did make the payment, you'd continually have to borrow more and more money. But since you're making the payment on time, every time, the bank is willing to lower the interest and lend you more money.(Hypothetically). Surely, here, you can see where the process can be drawn out, but won't last forever. 

However, if you borrow money for a house, and spend 30 years paying it off, eventually the payment goes away, and you're left with a house. That's not a terrible way to borrow money.

Borrowing money is not inherently bad. Perpetually borrowing money is. Payments come due. And they'll perpetually grow larger. So unless your economy is growing as fast as/faster than your debt, it simply decreases the financial cushion you have when there's a recession and you still need to make that payment.

9 hours ago, koti said:

I rememebr that ST episode and I'm aware of Bugs Bunny doing what you explained. I guess this is a good example of how highly subjective humor is, this is as funny to me as going through spam on a Sunday afternoon.

Hey, I'm with you dude. I have no clue.

5 hours ago, blike said:

Luckily Capn was able to social engineer his way through my answering service who sent a page out to me stating "CAPN REFSMMAT -  RE: WEBSITE". They even listed a hospital he was calling from 😂. I wasn't on call today so when I heard my answering service text me I about lost my mind until I saw who it was.

What?

On 10/8/2019 at 4:52 PM, iNow said:

Elizabeth Warren is currently the only candidate consistently climbing in the polls, and now appears to have pulled ahead of Biden nationally:

 

I don't get it. How?

8 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You are not using correctly ordered names, so auto-fill/auto-completion cannot work.

It does work actually. Type the first 4-5 letters of the variable, then hit tab when that variable you want is highlighted, and it almost always gets it right.

Visual studio accounts for variable types and it also predicts the variable you're going to use from some sort of artificial intelligence algorithm. Works quite well. 

18 hours ago, Janus said:

No.  Start with the situation of a craft that has already matched velocity with Mars at the edge of its gravitational sphere of influence ( where Mars' gravity begins to over rule that of the Sun's on determining the trajectory).  From This point the craft falls in towards Mars. To land on Mars, the total delta V needed from this point on is (roughly)equal to Mars' escape velocity at its surface: 5 km/sec.

Now let's say you want to land on Phobos.  First you need to match Phobos' orbital speed.  If you were t just let the craft continue on a purely ballistic path, when it reached Phobos orbital distance, it would be moving at( roughly) escape velocity from Mars at that distance, which is 1.414 times the orbital speed of Phobos.  Unless you are incredibly wasteful, you will plan things so that your craft passes Mars so that its velocity and Phobos velocity are in the same direction as they pass each other. This way, you only have to kill the 0.414 times Phobos orbital speed difference between the craft and Phobos to match speeds. This work out to be ~ 0.903 km/sec.  From that point, in order to land on Phobos, you only require an additional delta v of 0.011km/sec, the surface escape velocity for Phobos.   Total Dv ~ 0.914 km/sec  ( compared to the 5 km/sec needed to land on Mars. And while some of this can be dealt with by aero-braking, the total Dv is still much greater. )

The one issue with a Phobos landing in in the timing, your craft has to arrive at Phobos' orbit at the same time that Phobos is at that point.  But this isn't as big an issue as it may seem.

Let's assume that your craft arrives at the proper orbital distance when Phobos is at some other point of its orbit.  The solution to this is quite simple:  When you do your burn, you don't do the full burn you would need to match Phobos's orbital speed.  Instead, you do just enough of a burn to put yourself in a elliptical orbit, one with a longer period than Phobos,  You pick an orbit so that its period is such that when you return to that point of the orbit, Phobos is at that point of the Orbit (so for instance, if Phobos was exactly on the other side of Mars, you would put yourself in an orbit with a period of just under 12 hrs. This way, Phobos completes 1 1/2 orbits in the time it takes you to complete one.)  Once you make the rendezvous, you do the second burn to circularize the orbit. You have just split the delta V need to match orbital speed with Phobos into two burns.

When entering into the Martian system however, you can still use areobraking to reduce your velocity in order to get a capture(extremely risky, for obvious reasons.) From there, assuming you don't have a perfectly circular orbit, your periapsis will be low enough to induce drag when you pass threw it, reducing your apoapsis. This method can be used to save most of the Delta V required to land on mars. That being said, I still don't see it getting below 2-3 km/sec DeltaV, so your point still stands.

18 hours ago, Sensei said:

This has to help them listed together due to sorting algorithm in IDE (auto-fill/auto-completion feature of IDE).

I used visual studio, and it has the auto-completion feature.

But I've never actually used it. Naming conventions for variables where I work at are usually just "Make sure they're descriptive" not that they follow an order that allows them to be identified faster.

That being said we don't program in form 5 much either, so this situation wouldn't apply very often.

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Yes, that is one of their advantages, you can build a base there and study Mars up close with out contaminating it. The gravity is so low you could easily use mag-lev to launch probes and they could return material for study. 

However landing on them would be harder. (Yes, harder.)

If you're traveling at orbital velocities, it's easier to orbit something the size of Mars then one of those extremely tiny moons.

Getting into orbit increases the Delta V required to land on them.

Additionally, Mars has an atmosphere. This means you can Areobrake in the atmosphere as you're coming in for a landing, further reducing the Delta V required to land. If Mars will bleed of 1,200 M/S Delta V with it's atmosphere, from orbit, that's 1,200 M/S Delta V(Totally made up. I have no idea how much it actually is, and I"m too lazy to google it at the moment) you no longer need to carry with you in the form of fuel.

Additionally, the gravitational issues of living on Mars will be nothing to the gravitational issues of living on one of those moons. And as bad as Mars is at deflecting radiation, those moons will be worse.

Overall, the moons are simply a harder target, and harder to establish a colony on.

On 10/2/2019 at 10:12 PM, Sensei said:

ps. Example from my yesterday project: context.getString( R.string.voiceedittext_speech_error_insufficient_permissions ); .... I don't need to comment, I hope so..

Is there a point where variable names become too descriptive?

For example, would "InsufficientPermissionsErrorString" have sufficed? (Go CamelCase!)

On 10/1/2019 at 12:52 PM, CharonY said:

So this is a tricky bit. The criminal justice is currently disproportionately affecting African Americans negatively because the implemented policies (at least individually) were race-blind. A key example is the high penalties for crack vs cocaine. And it works on all levels, African Americans are more likely to be stopped and searched, for example, and were more frequently convicted for possession of drugs, despite the fact that drug use is pretty much the same between black and white communities. The only policy managing to adjust it a little bit was to take those statistics showing that for similar offenses African American were more likely to be receive more severe punishments. On the policy level it has led to some adjustments, e.g. looking into how judges punish folks depending on ethnicity, for example.

Yet in my eyes, by taking Crack and Cocaine, and putting them on a 1:1 ratio when it comes to punishments, would be a good step in the right direction.

And there are numerous other steps we could take, including repealing minimum sentencing laws that prevent judges from using their judgement, and instead requires them to issue a minimum sentence.