|
Fulchrum posted:It took six months, one ten thousandth of the cost of the Iraq war, it freed a people, and removed a dangerous dictator from the area. Whats the downside? Are we really gonna call it a failure just cause the Republicans desperately want us to think it is because BENGHAZI!!!!!!? My point is that republicans tried to hang Obama in the election over just four bodies. If it had been 400 instead it might have lost him the election. And those 400 are a generous estimate if we're trying to get into a war with Russia. Even if it's just a silly pissing match in the Black Sea that ends with an equivalent of the Cheonan incident or some similar "we thought they'd blink first" result, it will give the republicans a great opportunity to twist the knife in his back. Obama will not risk that happening. V-Men posted:America shouldn't be the world police, but we should be so tough and fearsome that no one would even think of doing something we wouldn't approve of, just in case we stop not being the world's police. And ironically it was Bush who took that fearsome Army in Being that had been cultivated in the 80s and 90s and gave the Iraqi the opportunuty to prove to everyone that a bunch of goat farmers with AK-47s are still as able to defeat a world power as they were in Vietnam.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I quote Sun Tzu - A good leader does not seek battle until he knows victory is assured. Literally yes, I actually just had this argument with a conservative on tumblr quote:Yes, we don’t have a foreign policy. If so, define it. As for the war in Libya, I did not support the war because there was no national security interest in getting rid of Gaddafi. And in fact, Gaddafi was cooperating with us at the time, so I would never have advocated removing a regime that was favorable to us. Plus, by helping the Islamists, it resulted in them backstabbing us when they attacked our Embassy on September 11, 2012 A US embassy was attacked somewhere in the world, ergo failure. Also the guy who use to fund terrorists to bomb everything from nightclubs in Germany to British airliners totally who the west might want to get rid of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
I know this is last page; but for some reason the people posting these macros always appear less aware than the average person because coverage of the Ukraine events have been everywhere in the UK for the last week; and I'm guessing that its similar in the US. Hell, I'm getting a ton of people who normally don't post anything about current affairs posting quite good things about Ukraine, which isn't what I was expecting and is actually quite nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
I just... I don't even understand it, all I can really tell is that it's probably racist as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:I just... I don't think it's meant to be. Unless I'm missing something, it's a dig at Pitt/Jolie having an large number of adopted foreign children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
I don't think this is relative to the thread. Then again I also think it's hilarious so I'm probably a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Its a joke that made me laugh a little.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
When did "relative" replace "relevant?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
 Kinda bummed that someone I know follows Victoria Jackson  also I swear I learned a method like this in math class and I graduated high school in '08, way before Common Core.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:
Why would you ever use the new method?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
The 'new' way makes perfect sense and helps students see relationships between numbers. I sometimes teach undergrad logic and I try and find ways to teach the underlying systems in an intuitive way that lets students see it less mechanically. That's a good idea, I'll try and apply something like that to teaching logic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:
I actually had a former student of mine put this on her Facebook. Luckily, another guy called her out and said that this helps teach kids that there is multiple ways to do the same problem which is helpful in engineering. People still think it is crazy nonsense though. The worst was a mother who apparently homeschools her child and this child never has trouble with these problems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Also for problems that aren't as simple as 32-12. The entire point of knowing different ways to solve a problem is so you can apply the most appropriate one for whatever your current situation is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Where do the numbers in the middle column come from?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Abrasive Obelisk posted:Why would you ever use the new method? I figured out something similar when I was a kid to avoid having to memorize additional and subtraction tables for those stupid tests you had to take as a kid. Only having to know 6 pairs of numbers (10-0, 9-1, 8-2, 7-4, 6-4, 5-5) makes for a much easier set of problems. It ended up lining up well with modular arithmetic that came up in a couple of number theory and computer architecture classes I had later on in college. It's not the best way to solve that problem, but if the focus is on trying to get kids to think about the interconnection between numbers and not just about solving arithmetic problems it's probably a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Where do the numbers in the middle column come from? I'm going to guess from getting to 5, then to a multiple of 10, then to the correct multiple of ten, then adding in the correct ones digit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
They're two different algorithms and I think they're both great. The cool thing about the second method is that it lets you play with the numbers on your own terms in a way that's easy for you. If you want to be a mathematician you're going to have to make creative decisions. Life won't always give you an algorithm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
You take the number you're subtracting by and add up until you get a number that's easier to work with, and keep adding until you get the number you're subtracting from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Where do the numbers in the middle column come from? Start with the number being subtracted. From what I can gather, you are taking it to the nearest 5 (so you need 3 as you start at 12). Take that to the nearest 10 (which will be 5). Take that to the initial numbers 10s. Then the remainder is added. Sum the middle numbers (you at most end up adding 4 numbers, two of which are 10s and 5). It's a pretty clever way of doing it as it can be easily expanded to larger numbers without really complicating the maths.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Where do the numbers in the middle column come from? I think they're trying to do modular arthimetic, but want to remember less facts so only go to 5s instead of 10. Doesn't quite make sense to me, but it is sound as far as a way to solve the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
I remember hating math because it felt nothing made sense. In fact, almost all of the math taught in school was horrendously boring and mechanical, but I'd found some books (Godel, Escher, Bach and Godel's Proof) that really made me understand that there's some deep poo poo going on in math. Now it makes sense, but of course I don't do math. I can imagine such methods make the really deep beauty of math more apparent to perceptive students while making it seem less like insane drudgery and more something systematic and easy for the rest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:
Most people I know in STEM have developed number methods like that on their own. I do something myself since it's just easier to convert the problem to round numbers when you have to add up tons of stuff quickly (and just importing stuff to excel isn't practical. Mostly when taking physical measurements and such). Most of the complaints I see from people about this seem to be that kids should just be taught to "brute force" problems through memorization. No finesse, no critical thinking, and no special methods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
 I cannot parse the second way of solving that math problem.That said, I am not great at math and, much more importantly, I'm not trained in education, so I can't really judge. That's an okay way to solve a math problem right? how does it work
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
shalcar posted:Start with the number being subtracted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:
You're counting up from 12 to 32. Then you add up what you used to get to go from 12 to 32.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
So it's basically rounding then adding/subtracting what they rounded off, but doing it bass ackward. Is that an accurate representation of how kids are being taught arithmetic these days, or is it an elaboration for the purpose of ridicule? shalcar posted:
That's how I do it, but in fewer steps. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
One good use of this method is going to a new number base. So if you go to base 8 you could still do the same thing, except go to 4s, then 8s (which would be 10s in base 8). Personally i would have subtracted as it would make it easier (for me) to put into an easy code. Also I would have skipped straight to the base number instead of half of it. Example - 27 - 15 in base 8 (27 is actually 23, 15 is actually 13): 15 - 5 = 10 (which is actually 8) 10 + 10 = 20 (actually 16) 20 + 7 = 27 thus you get 10+7-5 = 12 (which is 10 in base 8). EDIT: You know now that I think about it, maybe not so much Dyz fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
I just posted this on facebook and got a decent response. Feel free to repost without credit: Both the top and bottom algorithms are fantastic. The top one is a bit stricter though because there's only one way to perform the steps. I'm going to write out all the steps because you probably don't realize how many you're doing in your head. 1. Line up the two numbers so that the digits are aligned in similar columns, (10's with 10's, 1's with 1's) 2. Starting with the rightmost column, subtract the bottom number from the top number. (2-2 = 0) If the bottom number is bigger than the top number then 'oh boy' we're going to have to carry, but you're off the hook this time. 3. Move to the next column. Subtract the bottom number from the top number. (3 - 1 = 2) 4. The resulting numbers read left to right form your answer. This would have been much more complicated if the question had been 32 - 13. You'd have to do carrying which usually requires scratch marks on the paper. The cool thing about the bottom one is that it's basically: 1. Start with the smaller number. (12) 2.Add some amount to turn the number into something that's easier to work with. (12 +3 = 15) You could also do 8 if you wanted to. It's up to the creative whim of the student. 3. Add some amount to turn the number into something that's easier to work with again. (15 +5 = 20) See how cool this is? It's an iterative process, just like Newton's method of finding roots. 4. Add some more to try and get it close to the desired result of 32. (20 + 10 = 30) 5. Add the rest. (30 + 2 = 32) 6. Add all the numbers in the center column and you have your answer. Here's another cool thing you may not have noticed. In the entire algorithm you don't subtract even a single time. Also, if the problem had been 32 - 13 there's no change except step 2 would have been (13 + 2 = 15) Both methods are valuable and they teach children that there are different ways to solve problems. This is vital in order to succeed with higher level math. You can't just expect an algorithm when you're doing integration. You have to try things and move stuff around in ways that make it easier for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
The force of the meme is that the method isn't explained- it necessarily seems terrible to a viewer predisposed to dislike Common Core as a result. I have no idea if it's in Common Core- I'd be surprised if it were. That said, as with a lot of pedagogical theory, it's hard to tell if this model translates into better understanding across a broad set of student demographics. There's still a massive conflict over phonics versus whole word memorization, and that's been going on for decades.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
As soon as I saw what the second one was doing, I realized that it's stupid not to teach kids to do math like that. It's the best and fastest way to do a lot of kinds of basic math once you get into problems that are more complex than 32 - 12, because multiples of 5 and 10 are way, waaay easier to work with than trying to make a subtraction table in your head and go through remembering to carry the correct amount of numbers and so on. If you want to think about which method is more useful to teach kids, think about which one will be easier to use without a piece of paper and a pencil. Would you prefer the one that requires a rigid mathematical table, a series of smaller equations, and remembering each digit individually, or would you rather the one that teaches you a creative way to go from 12 to a multiple of 5, then to a multiple of 10, then to the nearest multiple of ten, and then to the actual number, and just count the difference as you go?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The force of the meme is that the method isn't explained- it necessarily seems terrible to a viewer predisposed to dislike Common Core as a result. I have no idea if it's in Common Core- I'd be surprised if it were. It isn't just not explained, I think that may be deliberately obfuscated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
It's even more important to teach the child to generalize that problem-solving technique. If you're teaching "add something to get to a multiple of 5, then to a multiple of 10, then to the closest multiple of 10, then to the number" as a rote algorithm, that's really not much better than the existing rote algorithm. If you're teaching "look, do whatever's easiest for you, here's one possible approach" then that really starts to teach something of actual value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Crain posted:Most people I know in STEM have developed number methods like that on their own. I do something myself since it's just easier to convert the problem to round numbers when you have to add up tons of stuff quickly (and just importing stuff to excel isn't practical. Mostly when taking physical measurements and such). Methods like this work well for very big numbers. I'm a physics major and if I have to add/subtract/multiply/divide large numbers in my head I always break it down into an admittedly longer sequence. I don't always have the luxury of a pad and paper, and practice makes it an actually faster method of simple problem solving because now I don't even need to write down the numbers to figure out what I'm looking for. Also, Common Core is supposed to be /about/ problem solving (at least, that's my knowledge of the subject). Finding new and unique ways of figuring out a solution is fantastic, even if it doesn't always give you the answer in the absolute least number of steps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
It's also important to note that the second method fits beautifully into basic algebra and gives a grounding that children who have this method will already understand while those who only do the first won't. Teaching is more complicated than just picking an "optimal" method and being able to build into advanced concepts is a huge bonus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
But I didn't learn arithmetic that way   That's literally all any complaint amounts to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Also, Common Core is supposed to be /about/ problem solving (at least, that's my knowledge of the subject). The right wing opposition to common core is for all the wrong reasons. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 07:07
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:But I didn't learn arithmetic that way I think that's unfair- educational curriculum reform, especially at the elevel of fundamental techniques, is a very hard area to make clear progress in, for a number of reasons. One difficulty is that it's really hard to get accurate statistics on methodological effectiveness, particularly since studies tend to suffer from observer and regression to mean effects(the kids in a problem school get a sudden increase in attention and funding, and suprise, their grades improve! It must be the new methods!). Another problem is that many curricular shifts(not necessarily Common Core, which doesn't necessarily include the randomly photographed method in the forward above) are the product of commercial marketing campaigns with unpleasant conflict of interest issues. A third problem is target demographic splitting, which has been at the core of problems in the phonics wars. It looks like phonics is a more effective method of reading education for a large contingent of students who struggle with literacy, and could massively improve their lives. It's hard to say no to that- except some students who did well under a whole word literacy scheme(modern versions of the older, rote literacy method) seem to develop reduced comprehension speed, possibly because the cognitive process is altered by the phonics curriculum such that retrieval has to occur at a lower level(we have no clue why the results are so contradictory, that's just speculation.) Curriculum development is in some ways a horrible balancing test about which students you want to benefit, knowing that some methods changes will consequently harm other students' ability to learn. Whatever method was the basis of that photograph (we still don't know), it's entirely possible that implementing it may have such a splitting effect. None of this is to defend that worthless forward, but we shouldn't treat changes to curricula as an unquestionable progressive good- it's very likely that at least some parts of Common Core, like any standards or content shift in education policy, are going to have harmful effects. If we get overly defensive about our own perspectives on education, we won't be able to correct for these errors when they come to light.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
shalcar posted:It's also important to note that the second method fits beautifully into basic algebra and gives a grounding that children who have this method will already understand while those who only do the first won't. Common Core teaches Number Theory to second graders and the traitorspawn are bitching about it. Goddamn. Some people are just consistently wrong about everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The force of the meme is that the method isn't explained- it necessarily seems terrible to a viewer predisposed to dislike Common Core as a result. I have no idea if it's in Common Core- I'd be surprised if it were. Absolutely; I became quite frustrated trying to work out what was going on there, but once I understood it I realized I arrived at the same method myself in middle school. I used it to quickly add bottle caps to use to make up the difference when trading in Fallout, rather than on homework.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
ErichZahn posted:Common Core teaches Number Theory to second graders and the traitorspawn are bitching about it. ...Pardon? What has this got to do with anything I wrote?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 07:41
|
|