At White Castle...



  • When I worked at a tourist shop during my summers in college I did register work.  We had a calculator available just in case we had to recalculate change.  In my case since I enjoyed doing basic math in my head I had no problems with handling the customers who looked at the change due and then gave me an extra few coins to round it out.  But I am not normal, I am glad that there was calculators available and I know all my other coworkers used them as needed, and I am glad that they did since odds are it would be more accurate than what they could do in their heads.  Cashiers tend to get paid minimum wage because they only have to use a minimum amount of their brain.  I personally do not expect cashiers to do any higher level things like being able to work out change in their heads.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Also, if you are doing hundreds a day you are going to make a mistake some time, even if you are good at elementary arithmetic; repetitive, tedious tasks are the easiest to make a mistake on.

    You're obviously not a beta.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    (snip)

    (2) This $3.88 breakfast was typical for me, and once (maybe on this occasion) I gave the cashier $10.13 because I only had a ten and change and wanted to get rid of some of it... and (after a confused look) got back the original 13 cents and then the $6.12.

     

    I love doing that (handing over 'extra' money to result in less coinage in the change) , especially when the confused look on the cashier's fact changes to amazement when the machine gives them the answer. "OMG! It's like he someknow knew that giving me the extra twelve cents would mean he got exactly $5 back! He's a witch, burn him!"


     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Until someone proves a coorelation between "math skills" and "quality of life", I'm always going to answer "so what?" when people complain that Kids These Days (tm) can't do math without a calculator. Guess what? I can't do math without a calculator. Hell, I can barely do math with a calculator (I get dyslexic if numbers have more than 4 digits). That's exactly why I learned computers-- so I could tell the computer to do it for me and give me a result I could copy and paste elsewhere. And, at the risk of being "that guy", I make more money than all of my friends and family*-- primarily because I work with computers in an area with a large and healthy IT market.

    Even if some math skills might be useful (and for most people they probably aren't) arithmetic seems like an unlikely candidate--computers do it better, faster and cheaper. Arithmetic would tell me that a 1.99% ARM is a good deal but financial skills would tell me Stay Away. Besides, we're talking about a menial, repetitive task here, even a super math genius is probably going to make a mistake or two when they're doing hundreds of these a day. When I worked menial jobs I usually paid as little attention to the job as necessary; my brain was busy reviewing the concepts that would lead to a better job and my hands just working on autopilot. Of course I'm going to use the damn calculator instead of wasting brain power on making change.

    As for myself, I'm very good at arithmetic, in college I could multiply any two 5-digit numbers together in my head instantly or convert 32-bits of binary into decimal instantly (going the other way is a bit harder). And by "instantly" I mean I literally didn't think of it, somehow I would just "know" the answer. I haven't done it in years, though, so it's quite possible I can't do it nowadays. Still, it's not something I ever found particularly useful and I always just use a calculator to do that stuff for me.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    (1) I'm concerned that they learn elementary math skills (and making change is exactly that) because otherwise, when they have kids, the parents will be ill-equipped to reinforce the importance of these same skills. I adopted one at age 14 who came from this environment, and even now at age 18, he's only able to do elementary math.

    This skill, along with so many others (like handwriting) is pretty much dead outside school.  Although it is important that your kids do well in school is more important that they do well in life, so perhaps focusing on a different skillset is in order.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Until someone proves a coorelation between "math skills" and "quality of life", I'm always going to answer "so what?"

    Moreover there is a difference between basic math skills and actual intelligence, heck some physics sucked at math sometimes (like Ernest Rutheford that always got confused imparting classes that involved algebraic equations) so even if you suck at giving change it doesn't disqualify you as a future Nobel prize winner ;)

    @blakeyrat said:

    Guess what? I can't do math without a calculator. Hell, I can barely do math with a calculator (I get dyslexic if numbers have more than 4 digits).

    This reminds me of my college years, we couldn't use a calculator (it wouldn't be of much help anyways as it was a lot of math proof) nor a computer (it would have made a huge difference as is easier to program and find mistakes with one).  Of course we had 10% retention at the time (I don't know the current number)



  • @RichP said:

    I love doing that (handing over 'extra' money to result in less coinage in the change)

    Yeah, and you know what cashiers call people like that? Assholes. Unless you are just handing over exactly the extra coins needed to make an even dollar amount, you are being a dick. (And no cashier is going to be confused when you hand them $10.12 to pay a $5.12 bill. In fact, they usually ask me if I have an extra 12 cents in that case, which I never do because I hate change so much that I dispose of it as quickly as possible.)

    Seriously, you people are unjustifiably proud of your ability to do simple arithmetic.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    And no cashier is going to be confused when you hand them $10.12 to pay a $5.12 bill.

    Not true@morbiuswilters said:
    Seriously, you people are unjustifiably proud of your ability to do simple arithmetic.
    Whatever, non-beta.


  • @Sutherlands said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    And no cashier is going to be confused when you hand them $10.12 to pay a $5.12 bill.

    Not true

    I have never seen it happen. As I said, it's very likely they are going to ask me if I have the extra coins so my change comes out of an even-dollar amount, which indicates to me most cashiers not only are aware of this "trick" but utilize it as much as possible. Which makes sense because cashiers tend to prefer giving away as few coins as possible. Coins go quickly in a change drawer and getting extras is a PITA which holds things up.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    And no cashier is going to be confused when you hand them $10.12 to pay a $5.12 bill.

    Not true

    I have never seen it happen.

    Yeah, well, I can't remember the last time FF crashed on me.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    As I said, it's very likely they are going to ask me if I have the extra coins so my change comes out of an even-dollar amount, which indicates to me most cashiers not only are aware of this "trick" but utilize it as much as possible. Which makes sense because cashiers tend to prefer giving away as few coins as possible. Coins go quickly in a change drawer and getting extras is a PITA which holds things up.

    I agree with you in general, but you've lead a very charmed life if you haven't run into the dumber-than-a -box-of-hair cashier that can't conceive of doing manual arithmetic, like, in her head. And separating the whole number from the fraction is definitely considered an advanced topic with this group.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Sutherlands said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    And no cashier is going to be confused when you hand them $10.12 to pay a $5.12 bill.

    Not true

    I have never seen it happen. As I said, it's very likely they are going to ask me if I have the extra coins so my change comes out of an even-dollar amount, which indicates to me most cashiers not only are aware of this "trick" but utilize it as much as possible. Which makes sense because cashiers tend to prefer giving away as few coins as possible. Coins go quickly in a change drawer and getting extras is a PITA which holds things up.
    Well, I've never had firefox crash on me.  Oh, boomzilla already said that? Hm...

     

    I've had it happen a couple times to me.  One time it was something "complicated" - like the cost was $6.12 and I gave $11.12.  The cashier looked at me funny and said "it was only $6.12" so I said "Yeah, so I should get $5 back".  Had at least one other instance where there person just gave me back my extra change and then gave me the "appropriate" change for whatever the bill was.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    We've gone over this before. It's some Euro-countries way of classifying people into "smart" and "fucking retarded", apparently. It determines which schools you're allowed to attend, because Europe is a lot like our dystopic novels.

    It's so ingrained in those racist, prejudiced, brains that they just assume every society labels people like slabs of meat and treats them like shit if they get the wrong label.

    I thought it was just the Dutch, but then again most euro people here seem to be Dutch so a misunderstanding would only be logical. If you want millimeter "equality" and be held back your whole childhood instead, come to socialist Sweden!



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Monomelodies said:
    For me - a beta of course - not a problem, but many of my co-workers kept calculators handy.

    What does "beta" mean in this context? The only thing that makes any sense there was "beta male," but I've never heard that beta males were good at doing arithmetic in their heads.

    Alpha vs Beta, as some folks have rightly observed, seems to be a Dutch thing. At least, I'm not aware of any use of alpha versus beta in other countries than the Netherlands (I'm a Dutchman, in case anyone is wondering). It's not very smart of Monomelodies to figure foreigners have the same vernacular, in my opinion.

    Alpha versus beta is actually not about people at all. It's about studies. For some reason, in common speech, "alpha" subjects to study might be history, sociology, archaeology, anthropology, or law. "Beta" studies would be mathematics, chemistry, physics, and of course computer science; basically the gist of it is that Beta studies are the exact sciences. So now you see where the alpha vs beta person thing comes from: every field of study has its own sort of archetype when it comes to its students.



  • @toon said:

    Alpha versus beta is actually not about people at all. It's about studies. For some reason, in common speech, "alpha" subjects to study might be history, sociology, archaeology, anthropology, or law. "Beta" studies would be mathematics, chemistry, physics, and of course computer science; basically the gist of it is that Beta studies are the exact sciences. So now you see where the alpha vs beta person thing comes from: every field of study has its own sort of archetype when it comes to its students.

    It's still fucking ridiculous and offensive. And practically useless.

    I wonder if they teach Aldous Huxley to those "alphas" and "betas".



  • @toon said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @Monomelodies said:
    For me - a beta of course - not a problem, but many of my co-workers kept calculators handy.

    What does "beta" mean in this context? The only thing that makes any sense there was "beta male," but I've never heard that beta males were good at doing arithmetic in their heads.

    Alpha vs Beta, as some folks have rightly observed, seems to be a Dutch thing. At least, I'm not aware of any use of alpha versus beta in other countries than the Netherlands (I'm a Dutchman, in case anyone is wondering). It's not very smart of Monomelodies to figure foreigners have the same vernacular, in my opinion.

    Alpha versus beta is actually not about people at all. It's about studies. For some reason, in common speech, "alpha" subjects to study might be history, sociology, archaeology, anthropology, or law. "Beta" studies would be mathematics, chemistry, physics, and of course computer science; basically the gist of it is that Beta studies are the exact sciences. So now you see where the alpha vs beta person thing comes from: every field of study has its own sort of archetype when it comes to its students.

    Hmm, according to the Dutch Wikipedia, it's about sciences (all of the above fall in that category, according to the Dutch) and there's a third category called gamma sciences in which all of the ones I just called "alpha" belong. The Alpha sciences, apparently, would be sciences of the mind (psychology and stuff). According to a Dutch Wikipedia disambiguation page, an "alpha" is someone who studies literature. So apparently the folks who like to talk about alpha vs beta (talk about, to quote a few people on here, "fucking retarded") don't really know what they're on about.



  • @toon said:

    So apparently the folks who like to talk about alpha vs beta (talk about, to quote a few people on here, "fucking retarded") don't really know what they're on about.

    I am shocked that arrogant assholes who think they're superior to everyone else could be horribly mistaken.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I agree with you in general, but you've lead a very charmed life if you haven't run into the dumber-than-a -box-of-hair cashier that can't conceive of doing manual arithmetic, like, in her head. And separating the whole number from the fraction is definitely considered an advanced topic with this group.

    To be fair, I rarely pay in cash. I get cash back on my credit cards and credit cards are far more convenient. I only carry $200 or so in emergency cash in my wallet and only dip into it maybe once a week.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @toon said:

    So apparently the folks who like to talk about alpha vs beta (talk about, to quote a few people on here, "fucking retarded") don't really know what they're on about.

    No, we know exactly what we're on about. On about my 5th beer is what I'm on about. OK, maybe not so exactly, any more, but approximately...



  • @boomzilla said:

    On about my 5th beer is what I'm on about.

    The AMA thinks you have a problem.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @toon said:
    Alpha versus beta is actually not about people at all. It's about studies. For some reason, in common speech, "alpha" subjects to study might be history, sociology, archaeology, anthropology, or law. "Beta" studies would be mathematics, chemistry, physics, and of course computer science; basically the gist of it is that Beta studies are the exact sciences. So now you see where the alpha vs beta person thing comes from: every field of study has its own sort of archetype when it comes to its students.

    It's still fucking ridiculous and offensive. And practically useless.

    I wonder if they teach Aldous Huxley to those "alphas" and "betas".

    Well, it's just vernacular, really. There's no real difference in how smart someone is. It's not like one is better than the other or anything. Also, it's not an official thing.

    There are, however, different kinds of high schools. And in practice, the difference is the intelligence of its students. The idea behind this system is twofold: first, it means that you get to share a class with people roughly as intelligent as you are. Second, different versions prepare for different things to do after: some high schools prepare for university, some teach you, for example, woodwork. Of course, there are several shades in between. But if there's anything offensive there, that might be it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @toon said:
    So apparently the folks who like to talk about alpha vs beta (talk about, to quote a few people on here, "fucking retarded") don't really know what they're on about.

    I am shocked that arrogant assholes who think they're superior to everyone else could be horribly mistaken.

    Touche, I suppose, good sir. I guess I didn't have to be so whiny and attacky the other week. I was offended, but I'm sorry if I overreacted.



  • @toon said:

    Well, it's just vernacular, really. There's no real difference in how smart someone is. It's not like one is better than the other or anything. Also, it's not an official thing.

    The fact that:

    1) You label people like this at all

    2) You do it so regularly that you think nothing of posting to this international site as if we all instinctively understood the term

    tells me you're either delusional or lying.

    Labeling people is not "just vernacular". It's offensive, and it's wrong.

    @toon said:

    first, it means that you get to share a class with people roughly as intelligent as you are.

    Why is that considered desirable?



  • @toon said:

    There are, however, different kinds of high schools. And in practice, the difference is the intelligence of its students. The idea behind this system is twofold: first, it means that you get to share a class with people roughly as intelligent as you are. Second, different versions prepare for different things to do after: some high schools prepare for university, some teach you, for example, woodwork. Of course, there are several shades in between. But if there's anything offensive there, that might be it.

    I would say the offensive part to Americans is the fact that a child's options are so set in stone at a young age. Additionally, there's the disgust and classism I've seen some Europeans express towards the lower-class students (not that there aren't Americans guilty of the same, but it seems less accepted here). My experiences are from German foreign exchange students coming from Gymnasium. When we asked one if she had any friends in Hauptschule or Realschule she gave a disgusted face and said "Ew, no, we do not have the interactions with those people." She was very adamant that all students in lower schools were less intelligent than her and that they deserved the life they had been assigned. Of course, she was pretty much an insufferable cunt; she was from east Germany and complained incessantly about reunification. She felt that even though many things were better that people were less obedient and had less pride in their nation.

    As a counter-point, most top American universities give large scholarships to poor entrants and have many lower- or middle-class students. Of course, we still have a big problem with shitty public education screwing over lower- and middle-class kids, but there are far more options available. It's not unusual for a very successful person here to come from a poor (or even middle-class) family. In general, we are repulsed by successful individuals who rub their success in the faces of the less-successful. Flaunting your degree or wealth isn't going to make you any friends.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @toon said:
    Well, it's just vernacular, really. There's no real difference in how smart someone is. It's not like one is better than the other or anything. Also, it's not an official thing.
    The fact that:
    1) You label people like this at all
    2) You do it so regularly that you think nothing of posting to this international site as if we all instinctively understood the term
    tells me you're either delusional or lying.

    Labeling people is not "just vernacular". It's offensive, and it's wrong.

    Why is it different from "left-brained" vs "right-brained"?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    As a counter-point, most top American universities give large scholarships to poor entrants and have many lower- or middle-class students. Of course, we still have a big problem with shitty public education screwing over lower- and middle-class kids, but there are far more options available. It's not unusual for a very successful person here to come from a poor (or even middle-class) family. In general, we are repulsed by successful individuals who rub their success in the faces of the less-successful. Flaunting your degree or wealth isn't going to make you any friends.
    They give scholarships to poor students, not dumb students.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    Why is it different from "left-brained" vs "right-brained"?

    Why do you assume I'm not offended by that, as well? Because I am.

    But the difference is, that's just wacky psuedo-science that stupid people use to judge you. That's not a government defined and enforced classification that decides what type of school you can attend.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    As a counter-point, most top American universities give large scholarships to poor entrants and have many lower- or middle-class students. Of course, we still have a big problem with shitty public education screwing over lower- and middle-class kids, but there are far more options available. It's not unusual for a very successful person here to come from a poor (or even middle-class) family. In general, we are repulsed by successful individuals who rub their success in the faces of the less-successful. Flaunting your degree or wealth isn't going to make you any friends.
    They give scholarships to poor students, not dumb students.

    I never said otherwise. Additionally, a lot of this stupid-vs.-dumb talk is nonsense. There are some differences in natural intelligence, of course, but most of the poor students I've seen came from shitty, broken families that put no value on education*. Many were perfectly intelligent and could excel if properly instructed. And many of them get screwed over by our shitty public education system. However, a self-motivated poor kid can get into Harvard, and many do. The German education system seems designed to permanently decide a student's fate at a young age.

    As should be obvious, I don't really think much of our public education system, but I really wouldn't want Germany's system. Of course, it lowers our average test scores to include all kids but at least we're not just saying "Fuck it" and giving up on educating them.

    • That's not to mention a lot of popular black culture which views getting good grades as "acting white". Fuck those people. We'd be so much better off if most hip-hop stars vanished from the face of the Earth.


  • @blakeyrat said:

    @toon said:
    Well, it's just vernacular, really. There's no real difference in how smart someone is. It's not like one is better than the other or anything. Also, it's not an official thing.

    The fact that:

    1) You label people like this at all

    2) You do it so regularly that you think nothing of posting to this international site as if we all instinctively understood the term

    tells me you're either delusional or lying.

    Labeling people is not "just vernacular". It's offensive, and it's wrong.

    To make one thing perfectly clear: I'm just explaining what another person meant by "beta". The whole distinction seems moronic to me and I've never been in any situation where it's been of any use. It's like comparing apples and oranges at the very least. Some folks may be the labeling type, but I am not one of them. Which is made clear by the fact that I haven't been labeling people; you're telling me I have, and that I do it regularly. You've obviously got me confused with someone else (or perhaps you can point me to a post of mine?).

    @blakeyrat said:

    @toon said:

    first, it means that you get to share a class with people roughly as intelligent as you are.

    Why is that considered desirable?

    Because that way, you're better able to tailor education to the needs, and the mental capacity (sorry about that term, I honestly can't think of a better one) of the student.



  • @toon said:

    To make one thing perfectly clear: I'm just explaining what another person meant by "beta". The whole distinction seems moronic to me and I've never been in any situation where it's been of any use. It's like comparing apples and oranges at the very least. Some folks may be the labeling type, but I am not one of them. Which is made clear by the fact that I haven't been labeling people; you're telling me I have, and that I do it regularly. You've obviously got me confused with someone else (or perhaps you can point me to a post of mine?).

    Sorry about that, it certainly sounded like you were in on it, since you were saying things like "it's just vernacular", which sounds exactly like someone who uses the terms would say to defend using the terms.

    The real flaw is my inability to follow threaded conversations. That makes me a Omega. I guess. Or something.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @toon said:
    There are, however, different kinds of high schools. And in practice, the difference is the intelligence of its students. The idea behind this system is twofold: first, it means that you get to share a class with people roughly as intelligent as you are. Second, different versions prepare for different things to do after: some high schools prepare for university, some teach you, for example, woodwork. Of course, there are several shades in between. But if there's anything offensive there, that might be it.

    I would say the offensive part to Americans is the fact that a child's options are so set in stone at a young age. Additionally, there's the disgust and classism I've seen some Europeans express towards the lower-class students (not that there aren't Americans guilty of the same, but it seems less accepted here). My experiences are from German foreign exchange students coming from Gymnasium. When we asked one if she had any friends in Hauptschule or Realschule she gave a disgusted face and said "Ew, no, we do not have the interactions with those people." She was very adamant that all students in lower schools were less intelligent than her and that they deserved the life they had been assigned. Of course, she was pretty much an insufferable cunt; she was from east Germany and complained incessantly about reunification. She felt that even though many things were better that people were less obedient and had less pride in their nation.

    I don't know about set in stone. I mean, the options are about the same for either country. You go to high school, then either you get a job or you do more school. However, I must admit that it's hard to get into university if you didn't attend the kind to prepare you for it. Universities will generally not let you in unless either you did, or you finished some other form of higher education. The latter is not unheard of, but uncommon and time-consuming. Not to mention expensive. I suppose that might be considered unfair.

    I'm not an expert on Germany, but I know that the difference between east and west Germany can still be clearly seen. The difference was apparently huge after the wall fell (I say 'apparently', because I'm only 31 years old), but it's less so now. Let's take for argument's sake East Germany right after the wall fell; it's much more comparable to the (then) Soviet Union than to the Netherlands (which is more like West Germany), where culture is concerned. The difference really is significant.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    As a counter-point, most top American universities give large scholarships to poor entrants and have many lower- or middle-class students. Of course, we still have a big problem with shitty public education screwing over lower- and middle-class kids, but there are far more options available. It's not unusual for a very successful person here to come from a poor (or even middle-class) family. In general, we are repulsed by successful individuals who rub their success in the faces of the less-successful. Flaunting your degree or wealth isn't going to make you any friends.

    I'd say that's about the way it is over here, except scholarships are basically given by the government here. It's unusual for a university to give scholarschips.



  • @toon said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @toon said:

    first, it means that you get to share a class with people roughly as intelligent as you are.

    Why is that considered desirable?

    Because that way, you're better able to tailor education to the needs, and the mental capacity (sorry about that term, I honestly can't think of a better one) of the student.

    A lot of this is just self-fulfilling prophecy. Label kids "smart" and "dumb" and the "smart" kids will do well while the "dumb" kids won't. Someone once called it the "soft-bigotry of low expectations" which is a very concise way of putting it. Obviously there are going to be some differences, but most people are capable of quite a lot if properly motivated and educated. Additionally, I think it's very important for children of varying intelligence levels to interact. I think it's beneficial for the good and poor students. School plays an important socialization role and I think it's more important for all students to learn real-world social interaction than for the smartest 20% of high schoolers to advance to quantum mechanics; they can learn that shit in college, if they need to.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @toon said:
    To make one thing perfectly clear: I'm just explaining what another person meant by "beta". The whole distinction seems moronic to me and I've never been in any situation where it's been of any use. It's like comparing apples and oranges at the very least. Some folks may be the labeling type, but I am not one of them. Which is made clear by the fact that I haven't been labeling people; you're telling me I have, and that I do it regularly. You've obviously got me confused with someone else (or perhaps you can point me to a post of mine?).

    Sorry about that, it certainly sounded like you were in on it, since you were saying things like "it's just vernacular", which sounds exactly like someone who uses the terms would say to defend using the terms.

    The real flaw is my inability to follow threaded conversations. That makes me a Omega. I guess. Or something.

    No prob. Anyway, I said it was just vernacular because to me, those labels aren't as offensive as they seem to be to you (I think we're agreed on how moronic they are though). To me it sounds more like non-geek versus geek. Unless you find that offensive, in which case that's a bad example. Also, there are no schools or government bodies that actually make that distinction.



  • @toon said:

    You go to high school, then either you get a job or you do more school. However, I must admit that it's hard to get into university if you didn't attend the kind to prepare you for it. Universities will generally not let you in unless either you did, or you finished some other form of higher education. The latter is not unheard of, but uncommon and time-consuming. Not to mention expensive. I suppose that might be considered unfair.

    Our problem is probably with too many people going to university, rather than not enough. However, I think the option should be open for most students. (In other words, most students should be able to pass a university entrance exam should they desire to, but it really should not be expected for every person to go to college. We have a proliferation of useless degrees in this country--with accompanying student debt. Also, a lot of our universities are turning into high schools because so many entrants didn't learn the basics in high school and we have this notion that all people should go to college, which is just bullshit peddled by people who make money off the college system.)

    @toon said:

    I'm not an expert on Germany, but I know that the difference between east and west Germany can still be clearly seen. The difference was apparently huge after the wall fell (I say 'apparently', because I'm only 31 years old), but it's less so now. Let's take for argument's sake East Germany right after the wall fell; it's much more comparable to the (then) Soviet Union than to the Netherlands (which is more like West Germany), where culture is concerned. The difference really is significant.

    I don't doubt it. My point is that she freely admitted that people were richer, happier and more free but felt this was meaningless because people didn't salute the old flag like they used to and because people were less obedient of authority. She was disappointed that east Germans no longer had a lot of national pride; I'm all for national pride when it's deserved--I'm very proud of my country--but national pride when you freely admit there was less reason for it is just blind nationalism.

    She also criticized us for being so Puritanical. She had moved in with her 30 year old boyfriend when she was 16 (with her parents blessing) and she insisted we were the ones who were weird for seeing a problem with that. She was completely humorless as well. She did break down crying and run from the room when we watched video of the Shoah, so she wasn't all bad.

    @toon said:

    I'd say that's about the way it is over here, except scholarships are basically given by the government here. It's unusual for a university to give scholarschips.

    Yes, your system is completely nationalized whereas ours is only 90% nationalized or so. But the best universities are almost all private so your best bet is a scholarship from the school. I don't think the government should be giving scholarships at all, but here we are..



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Additionally, there's the disgust and classism I've seen some Europeans express towards the lower-class students (not that there aren't Americans guilty of the same, but it seems less accepted here). My experiences are from German foreign exchange students coming from Gymnasium. When we asked one if she had any friends in Hauptschule or Realschule she gave a disgusted face and said "Ew, no, we do not have the interactions with those people." She was very adamant that all students in lower schools were less intelligent than her and that they deserved the life they had been assigned. Of course, she was pretty much an insufferable cunt; she was from east Germany and complained incessantly about reunification. She felt that even though many things were better that people were less obedient and had less pride in their nation.

    As a counter-point, most top American universities give large scholarships to poor entrants and have many lower- or middle-class students. Of course, we still have a big problem with shitty public education screwing over lower- and middle-class kids, but there are far more options available. It's not unusual for a very successful person here to come from a poor (or even middle-class) family. In general, we are repulsed by successful individuals who rub their success in the faces of the less-successful. Flaunting your degree or wealth isn't going to make you any friends.

     

    In Belgium, we have roughly the same system as other European countries. We have three different kinds of high school, divided roughly by intelligence. But this has nothing to do with being lower or middle class. I don't see why you would assume so, is that actually how it is in other European countries? I have trouble believing that. A lot of poor people go to university here, and all universities are just as cheap here (500 euro tuition per year + 100 or 200 euro for books, with scholarships for poor people that bring this to zero), so there's no "top universities" where you have to be either really smart and get a large scholarship, or really rich. For that reason I would say it is more equal than the system in the US, actually.

    The division by intelligence seems really sensible to me. The schools from one category prepare for university and are very general in what they teach. Another category prepares you to be ready to immediately get a job after high school (mostly manual labour), and the third category is somewhere inbetween and leaves the options open for both (and some more technical jobs like electrician). This is a sensible division: people that want to start a job immediately after high school don't get taught advanced mathemathics which they will never need, people that want to go to college to study literature don't get taught how to work with wood. That this introduces a division by intelligence is quite obvious, but I don't see why that would be a problem.



  • @briverymouse said:

    In Belgium, we have roughly the same system as other European countries. We have three different kinds of high school, divided roughly by intelligence. But this has nothing to do with being lower or middle class. I don't see why you would assume so, is that actually how it is in other European countries? I have trouble believing that. A lot of poor people go to university here, and all universities are just as cheap here (500 euro tuition per year + 100 or 200 euro for books, with scholarships for poor people that bring this to zero), so there's no "top universities" where you have to be either really smart and get a large scholarship, or really rich. For that reason I would say it is more equal than the system in the US, actually.

    The division by intelligence seems really sensible to me. The schools from one category prepare for university and are very general in what they teach. Another category prepares you to be ready to immediately get a job after high school (mostly manual labour), and the third category is somewhere inbetween and leaves the options open for both (and some more technical jobs like electrician). This is a sensible division: people that want to start a job immediately after high school don't get taught advanced mathemathics which they will never need, people that want to go to college to study literature don't get taught how to work with wood. That this introduces a division by intelligence is quite obvious, but I don't see why that would be a problem.

    Because the division by intelligence is usually just a division by class and family environment. Also, a lot of intelligence metrics are sadly one-dimensional. The result is that people who are good at taking standardized tests and who have a stable home life do okay whereas extremely bright people who don't do well at tests (or who are improperly motivated) or who have an unstable home life do poorly and get shunted into manual labor. And it happens in the US, it just isn't as inevitable as it seems to be in Europe. It also seems it was less likely to happen in the past here, but our education system has been failing for decades.

    I also think people should learn certain practical skills from school. I see basic woodworking as something most people should know, along with basic mechanics, basic finance and basic housekeeping. As a practical matter, how often do students in the lowest high school (in the US "high school" usually means 9th through 12th grades whereas in Europe it seems to mean anything past 4th or 6th grade) end up in university? These kids are, what, 10 years old when their life is being decided for them? (Ironically, I would have thrived in such a system--at 10 I was exceptional at standardized tests, had perfect grades and scored very high on IQ tests, but by the time I was 16 I stopped giving a shit and had mediocre grades and test scores. As it is, I enrolled in a couple of years of very cheap community college but skipped most of my classes. I dropped out eventually, which I'm very happy about because I wasted very little time or money on college and I seemed to learn more than most of the people who did go to college. I also make more money than most of them.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I can't do math without a calculator.

    I'm willing to bet that's not true, strictly speaking.  Do you use a calculator to figure out how many minutes it is until <arbitrary timestamp>?

    I don't worry that they choose not to calculate change (Except for tutoring others, I don't recall ever having to do calculus after college, so arguably that skill is irrelevant for me).  I worry that they don't recognize any value in knowing how.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Step back. Think about your assumptions. If someone tells you, "man these kids won't get anywhere in life if they can't make change," your brain should instantly respond with, "what... is that true? Prove it."

    Strawman.  I don't argue that they "won't get anywhere in life if they can't make change," but that their potential is widened if their default setting is not "let someone/thing else do the thinking for me".

    @blakeyrat said:

    Teaching your kids skeptical thinking will get them a hell of a lot further in life than making change.

    Change that to 'critical thinking' ("you're wrong and I can explain") and I'd agree.  Skeptical thinking ("you're wrong and I'm right") is what he practices now.  That's why he thought he could get away with lying to a judge.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    I don't argue that they "won't get anywhere in life if they can't make change," but that their potential is widened if their default setting is not "let someone/thing else do the thinking for me".

    I agree that being open to learning things is fine, but that's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether there is value in doing simple arithmetic manually. I don't expect most people to know how to ride a horse, it's no longer a particularly useful skill.

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    That's why he thought he could get away with lying to a judge.

    Your son sounds like a really fun guy to hang out with.



  • @serguey123 said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:
    (1) I'm concerned that they learn elementary math skills (and making change is exactly that) because otherwise, when they have kids, the parents will be ill-equipped to reinforce the importance of these same skills. I adopted one at age 14 who came from this environment, and even now at age 18, he's only able to do elementary math.

    This skill, along with so many others (like handwriting) is pretty much dead outside school.  Although it is important that your kids do well in school is more important that they do well in life, so perhaps focusing on a different skillset is in order.

    Somewhat agreed that math in the concrete after school is ... less than alive.  In the abstract, it's developing the discipline to reason about simple math (and then reason about problem solving, causality, etc.) that I'm talking about.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    @serguey123 said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:
    (1) I'm concerned that they learn elementary math skills (and making change is exactly that) because otherwise, when they have kids, the parents will be ill-equipped to reinforce the importance of these same skills. I adopted one at age 14 who came from this environment, and even now at age 18, he's only able to do elementary math.

    This skill, along with so many others (like handwriting) is pretty much dead outside school.  Although it is important that your kids do well in school is more important that they do well in life, so perhaps focusing on a different skillset is in order.

    Somewhat agreed that math in the concrete after school is ... less than alive.  In the abstract, it's developing the discipline to reason about simple math (and then reason about problem solving, causality, etc.) that I'm talking about.

    The problem being that most basic math education is just rote memorization with no emphasis on critical thinking or practical application. So a lot of otherwise-intelligent people go through school thinking "Math Sucks!" and not realizing that it's actually math instruction which sucks. Until one day a friend who knows math demonstrates the elegant beauty of the discipline and makes it interesting by giving some history to go along with the formulas and they suddenly realize that math is actually really cool (and not nearly as difficult as they were lead to believe by incompetent text books and instructors).



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Because the division by intelligence is usually just a division by class and family environment. Also, a lot of intelligence metrics are sadly one-dimensional. The result is that people who are good at taking standardized tests and who have a stable home life do okay whereas extremely bright people who don't do well at tests (or who are improperly motivated) or who have an unstable home life do poorly and get shunted into manual labor. And it happens in the US, it just isn't as inevitable as it seems to be in Europe. It also seems it was less likely to happen in the past here, but our education system has been failing for decades.


    I also think people should learn certain practical skills from school. I see basic woodworking as something most people should know, along with basic mechanics, basic finance and basic housekeeping. As a practical matter, how often do students in the lowest high school (in the US "high school" usually means 9th through 12th grades whereas in Europe it seems to mean anything past 4th or 6th grade) end up in university? These kids are, what, 10 years old when their life is being decided for them? (Ironically, I would have thrived in such a system--at 10 I was exceptional at standardized tests, had perfect grades and scored very high on IQ tests, but by the time I was 16 I stopped giving a shit and had mediocre grades and test scores. As it is, I enrolled in a couple of years of very cheap community college but skipped most of my classes. I dropped out eventually, which I'm very happy about because I wasted very little time or money on college and I seemed to learn more than most of the people who did go to college. I also make more money than most of them.)

    We don't work with tests to decide which school people go to, the parents
    choose (at age 12). You can still change to a different type of
    school relatively easily until about age 14 to 16 (you have some catching up to do, of course, but nothing that a motivated teacher can't solve in a few months). At what age do you propose a child is old enough to choose? Americans seem to think this is age 18, but this means everything you learn up to then is general knowledge. You think that is a good thing, but I disagree. I'm happy my high school prepared me for one of the best engineering schools in the world, instead of teaching me woodworking. I don't see why I would ever need that skill in later life.

    It's not a division by class. Sure, when you are improperly motivated at home, you don't perform well at school. But teachers do everything they can to motivate children, and I don't see what more the education system can do. You can keep hoping they will someday decide to start studying and go to university, but what are the odds? On the contrary, if teachers before high school see that children are intelligent (not by any standardized test, but by following them for a whole year), they can often convince the parents to send them to a high school that prepares them for university. From there on, they are surrounded by other intelligent, hard-working children and will be motivated by that, instead of only being friends with people from the same class, whose parents are often just as non-motivating.

    To answer your question: only a few people every year from the "lowest" high school (which prepares you for a job, not for university) start at university. But there are a lot of people with poor parents that do very well in university. I just looked it up, and statistics seem to suggest that the problem of social class deciding education is much worse in the USA than in Europe.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    I can't do math without a calculator.

    I'm willing to bet that's not true, strictly speaking.  Do you use a calculator to figure out how many minutes it is until <arbitrary timestamp>?

    By "strictly speaking" of course you mean "if I'm a pedantic dickweed".

    But to humor you, it depends on how far away the timestamp is. If you ask me how many minutes it is until 6:00 PM PST (as of this typing), I could easily answer 52. If you ask me how many minutes it is until 6:00 PM PST Feb. 5th 2098... then I have no fucking clue.

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    I don't worry that they choose not to calculate change (Except for tutoring others, I don't recall ever having to do calculus after college, so arguably that skill is irrelevant for me). I worry that they don't recognize any value in knowing how.

    I believe there is a negative value in computer science programs requiring calculus, when it's almost entirely useless for jobs relating to computer science. It just, for no reason, destroys the self-esteem of students who are good at logic and programming but terrible at calculus.

    Fortunately, it sounds like that's not as big a deal with most universities anymore, compared to when I went to school.

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    I don't argue that they "won't get anywhere in life if they can't make change," but that their potential is widened if their default setting is not "let someone/thing else do the thinking for me".

    Doing thinking like, "how much change do I give back" is exactly the reason we built things like computers in the first place. It's stupid to go to a kid whose spent his entire life working and playing with a machine that can seamlessly, instantly, and perfectly do X, and tell them they have to learn how to do X without the machine. It's a waste of your time and a waste of the kid's time.

    There's no crazy post-apocalyptic scenario in which computers cease to exist, and also in which making change will be a useful survival skill.

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    Change that to 'critical thinking' ("you're wrong and I can explain") and I'd agree. Skeptical thinking ("you're wrong and I'm right") is what he practices now.

    I don't see a difference between the two. The skeptic would never say "you're wrong and I'm right" unless they knew they were right, in which case it's the same as scenario A, yes?

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    That's why he thought he could get away with lying to a judge.

    That's a lack of wisdom and not at all what we're talking about here.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @morbiuswilters said:

    A lot of this is just self-fulfilling prophecy. Label kids "smart" and "dumb" and the "smart" kids will do well while the "dumb" kids won't. Someone once called it the "soft-bigotry of low expectations" which is a very concise way of putting it. Obviously there are going to be some differences, but most people are capable of quite a lot if properly motivated and educated. Additionally, I think it's very important for children of varying intelligence levels to interact. I think it's beneficial for the good and poor students. School plays an important socialization role and I think it's more important for all students to learn real-world social interaction than for the smartest 20% of high schoolers to advance to quantum mechanics; they can learn that shit in college, if they need to.

    I don't really disagree with anything you've said here. On the other hand, in the US, we're trying to force everyone through the same path, which is to say, college. This has the obvious effects of making college more expensive (a combination of increased demand and subsidies) and the dumbing down of the curriculum. It's becoming common to have many university students taking remedial math and writing.

    There's definitely value to be gotten from tracking (that's what separating students of different ability is generally called in the US), but as you mention, there are benefits to having them mix, too. Also, at some point people have to take some responsibility for their broken homes, etc, and either get their acts together or be satisfied with a life lived in the underclass. Sadly, it seems like the latter is the preferred option for many lower class people who aren't recent immigrants. Just like immigrants, it may require multiple generations to get out of the mess.

    Of course, our socialized jobs program education system isn't helping matters, and I'm not sure how you can rebuild the institution of marriage. Especially with more women graduating college, the tradition (not to say human nature) of hypergamy seems to be even more bad news on that front.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    @serguey123 said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:
    (1) I'm concerned that they learn elementary math skills (and making change is exactly that) because otherwise, when they have kids, the parents will be ill-equipped to reinforce the importance of these same skills. I adopted one at age 14 who came from this environment, and even now at age 18, he's only able to do elementary math.

    This skill, along with so many others (like handwriting) is pretty much dead outside school.  Although it is important that your kids do well in school is more important that they do well in life, so perhaps focusing on a different skillset is in order.

    Somewhat agreed that math in the concrete after school is ... less than alive.  In the abstract, it's developing the discipline to reason about simple math (and then reason about problem solving, causality, etc.) that I'm talking about.

    The problem being that most basic math education is just rote memorization with no emphasis on critical thinking or practical application. So a lot of otherwise-intelligent people go through school thinking "Math Sucks!" and not realizing that it's actually math instruction which sucks. Until one day a friend who knows math demonstrates the elegant beauty of the discipline and makes it interesting by giving some history to go along with the formulas and they suddenly realize that math is actually really cool (and not nearly as difficult as they were lead to believe by incompetent text books and instructors).

    +1



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Doing thinking like, "how much change do I give back" is exactly the reason we built things like computers in the first place. It's stupid to go to a kid whose spent his entire life working and playing with a machine that can seamlessly, instantly, and perfectly do X, and tell them they have to learn how to do X without the machine.
     

    Agreed in the broad sense, but garbage in gets you garbage out.  Being able to do these calculations in your head reasonably well (even just a reasonable quick estimate) can be immensely helpful when someone types the wrong number into the computer.  



  • @da Doctah said:

    @Nagesh said:

    I think White Castle is place of fiction for movie. Is it real like McDonald?

     

    It's real, and it's spectacular.

    The burgers are affecionately known as "gut grenades" locally.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The fact that:
    1) You label people like this at all
    2) You do it so regularly that you think nothing of posting to this international site as if we all instinctively understood the term
    tells me you're either delusional or lying.
     

    Yeah, that's the kind of attitude I'd expect from you ESFJ types.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    By "strictly speaking" of course you mean "if I'm a pedantic dickweed".

    Absolutely right on the pedantic dickweedery; I'm just pointing out the distinction between "can't" and "don't want to", as it's relevant to me.

    @blakeyrat said:

    I believe there is a negative value in computer science programs requiring calculus, when it's almost entirely useless for jobs relating to computer science. It just, for no reason, destroys the self-esteem of students who are good at logic and programming but terrible at calculus.

    Agreed, to a point. The same argument might be applied to literature, social sciences, etc.; college would have been easier if I didn't have to write a paper on "My Kinsman, Major Molineux".

    @blakeyrat said:

    Doing thinking like, "how much change do I give back" is exactly the reason we built things like computers in the first place.

    The same type of thinking is also the reason we were able to build things like computers in the first place.  I'm hoping that one of today's kids gets around to inventing the teleporter, and I'm betting it won't be one of the 16 year olds that can't subtract from 100.

    @blakeyrat said:

    @CarnivorousHippie said:
    Change that to 'critical thinking' ("you're wrong and I can explain") and I'd agree. Skeptical thinking ("you're wrong and I'm right") is what he practices now.

    I don't see a difference between the two. The skeptic would never say "you're wrong and I'm right" unless they knew they were right, in which case it's the same as scenario A, yes?

    I admit some creative license here, but many (not all) dictionary definitions of 'skeptic' liken it to merely exhibiting doubt or questioning 'accepted' fact.  Perhaps a bastardization of the original Greek?

    @blakeyrat said:

    That's a lack of wisdom and not at all what we're talking about here.

    Or, a gross miscalculation of risk and reward.  Once it was mentioned that the cop's video recorder would demonstrate his folly, the wisdom quickly took over.



  • @CarnivorousHippie said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Doing thinking like, "how much change do I give back" is exactly the reason we built things like computers in the first place.

    The same type of thinking is also the reason we were able to build things like computers in the first place. I'm hoping that one of today's kids gets around to inventing the teleporter, and I'm betting it won't be one of the 16 year olds that can't subtract from 100.

    I hope they don't waste their time doing the calculations for it on paper, from both the "why are we wasting these smart guys' time" angle and the "holy crap what if you made like 20 mistakes" angle.

    @CarnivorousHippie said:

    I admit some creative license here, but many (not all) dictionary definitions of 'skeptic' liken it to merely exhibiting doubt or questioning 'accepted' fact. Perhaps a bastardization of the original Greek?

    Oh well here's the problem. You see, I live in the 21st century, and I use 21st century definitions of words. I didn't realize I was talking to a fucking ancient Greek. Christ, what the hell is wrong with people on this forum.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Doing thinking like, "how much change do I give back" is exactly the reason we built things like computers in the first place. It's stupid to go to a kid whose spent his entire life working and playing with a machine that can seamlessly, instantly, and perfectly do X, and tell them they have to learn how to do X without the machine. It's a waste of your time and a waste of the kid's time.
     

    This is the reason why stores cannot conduct business when the power goes out.  No one knows how to do it manually any more.  With a reference book and a piece of paper, it would be possible to continue to conduct business, albeit slower than usual.  Still, they'd be able to keep sales going.  That's what used to happen.

    If you don't know how to do it, you'll never be able to know if the computer has malfunctioned or not.  Or if the answer makes sense.  Or you end up with stupid situations where the total is $14.98 and you give $20.03 to get a five dollar bill and a nickel back, and the kid asks "What are the 3 pennies for?"  (I've had it happen.)  If the total is $11.46, you give a $20 bill, and the kid gives you  $38.54 in change because he entered $50 instead of $20 and didn't think about whether getting almost $40 back in change after receiving a $20 bill is logical . . .

    We are supposed to be in charge of the computer.  We're supposed to know more than the computer.  The day we blindly turn it all over to the computer is the beginning of the end of the human race.  Sorry, but the attitude of "let the machine do it" is a dangerous, fucked-up attitude at best.  Hell, you've seen and posted WTFs on this site.  Do you really believe that the machine can do it "seamlessly, instantly, and perfectly" every single time?  I don't, and my kids are being taught to trust-but-verify when it comes to the output of any computer.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    This is the reason why stores cannot conduct business when the power goes out. No one knows how to do it manually any more.

    I'm sorry, have you seen the tax code? Our lovely government has made it virtually impossible to do a transaction without a computer in any case.

    @nonpartisan said:

    Still, they'd be able to keep sales going.  That's what used to happen.

    What happens now is that 99% of businesses realize that without any power, they can't provide the goods/service they're supposed to. So they either have a backup generator (which can also power the registers), or they close (because there's no point to, say, going to a movie theater if the power is out.)

    That, plus the fact that unless you live in the Congo the power only goes out maybe once every 3 years, for an hour... I put that in my "non-issue" file.

    @nonpartisan said:

    We are supposed to be in charge of the computer. We're supposed to know more than the computer. The day we blindly turn it all over to the computer is the beginning of the end of the human race. Sorry, but the attitude of "let the machine do it" is a dangerous, fucked-up attitude at best.

    Ooo! I watched the Terminator and it made me all scared!!! And the Forbin Project! And 2001: A Space Odyssey!! Hollywood says computers are eviiil so they must be!

    Fuck.

    Don't base your life around retarded ideas from hack science fiction writers. That applies double to Scientologists.

    @nonpartisan said:

    Hell, you've seen and posted WTFs on this site. Do you really believe that the machine can do it "seamlessly, instantly, and perfectly" every single time?

    Have any of the WTFs been due to a computer making a math error? Ever? In the history of this site? I don't recall any.

    @nonpartisan said:

    I don't, and my kids are being taught to trust-but-verify when it comes to the output of any computer.

    Fine. Teach them whatever you want. We teach kids a lot of useless shit. Just don't pretend it's useful, that's all I ask.

    And stop fucking double-spacing, what are you, 80? You wish you were back on your Smith-Corona electric typeriffic or what the fuck ancient fucking device required double-spacing between sentences? Join the rest of us in the 21st century, leave those ancient Greeks behind and come our way.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    What happens now is that 99% of businesses realize that without any power, they can't provide the goods/service they're supposed to. So they either have a backup generator (which can also power the registers), or they close (because there's no point to, say, going to a movie theater if the power is out.)
    Wow.  Just . . . wow . . .

    Really?  You deduce that when I say "reason why stores cannot conduct business" that I'm referring to a movie theater too???  Dude, get to bed.  You need your sleep.  Of course there are businesses that, due to their very nature, rely on having electricity.  Movie theaters.  Factories.  Print shops.  Etc.  Hint:  I'm not talking about them.

    @blakeyrat said:

    That, plus the fact that unless you live in the Congo the power only goes out maybe once every 3 years, for an hour... I put that in my "non-issue" file

    So, since problems occur so rarely, you don't prepare for them?  I take it you don't back up your data then because, hell, hard drives only fail once every several years?  That's a non-issue?  You live in the lovely Pacific Northwest.  What if that power went out for several days due to something unforeseen?  Say, oh, maybe a major earthquake?

    @blakeyrat said:

    Don't base your life around retarded ideas from hack science fiction writers. That applies double to Scientologists.

    Perhaps a little hyperbolic saying the end of the human race, but the two most basic, essential skills from which all other abilities are founded are reading and math.  To advocate for not having to learn mathematics, you may as well advocate for not learning to read, because the computer can just read it to you.  And we've got books on tape.  Who needs to be able to read?  What a useless skill that is!

    @blakeyrat said:

    Have any of the WTFs been due to a computer making a math error? Ever? In the history of this site? I don't recall any.

    "Dear Mr. Blakey Rat, Your bill of $0.00 is overdue.  If you do not reconcile this within seven days from the date of this letter, we will be turning your account over to WTF Collections Agency.  If you have any questions, please call (800) BITE-ME, or log on to www.cantdomathworthshit.com."  Underlying those letters are mathematically-related errors, likely due to rounding, probably someone used floating point improperly . . . but whatever the reason, an uncorrected mathematical error has occurred behind the scenes.  Or any of those "Your video will start in 6.99999999999999999993 seconds" errors.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Fine. Teach them whatever you want. We teach kids a lot of useless shit. Just don't pretend it's useful, that's all I ask.

    I won't pretend it's useful.  I will emphasize with every lesson that knowing math is something they will genuinely use on a daily basis in their lives.

    @blakeyrat said:

    And stop fucking double-spacing, what are you, 80? You wish you were back on your Smith-Corona electric typeriffic or what the fuck ancient fucking device required double-spacing between sentences? Join the rest of us in the 21st century, leave those ancient Greeks behind and come our way.

    Are you talking about putting two spaces in-between sentences?  Like this?  Just out of high school, 1990, I went to work for a secretarial/answering service.  Learned how to properly type a paragraph for business correspondence on Ashton-Tate's MultiMate word processing software.  PC-XT class machines.  Canon LBP-II laser printer.   The printer had 512KB of memory.  The only useful font was Courier.  So everything we typed was fixed space with two spaces in-between each sentence.  I learned proofreading skills there.  Proofreading skills have declined a bit (yes, I know I make grammatical errors, bite me) but I came out of that experience with an eye for detail.  When we need a peer review of new equipment configurations at work, most of my peers turn to me first.  Several of the little things I find may be considered to be pedantic and perhaps not strictly necessary, but ultimately I receive high praise from them.  When I ask my colleagues for a peer review as per SOP, sometimes it doesn't get done fast enough.  They'll still come back and say, "We know you configured it -- it's probably just fine!"  I can attribute this back to my early experiences in double-checking work.

    Translation:  I'll type my posts any fucking way I want.  What a thin skin you must have if you can't stand seeing two spaces between sentences.

    So I graduated high school in 1990.  That doesn't make me 80.  If it's now 2012, I'll let you make a guess as to my age.  Without using a calculator.


Log in to reply