Yeah, it means the same as pisser in this context.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Our language is wonderful.
Printable View
Yeah, it means the same as pisser in this context.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Our language is wonderful.
It helps to understand that "bum" also means arse. Bum can be a verb, the act of engaging in anal sex. To bum. Thus, a bummer. One who bums.
The funny thing is, bummer isn't a particularly offensive term here. They'll get more annoyed at the use of fag, faggot, poof, woofter, bender, or homo. I mean they like bums, right? So "bummer" is almost a compliment. Imagine calling a hetro guy "pussy" because he likes pussy. He'd be all "thanks" instead of being annoyed.
british slang is just so goddamn sensible. i mean, yeah, "bum", yeah, add an "er" to it and you have an action upon the bum. i love it.
I always thought Poofta was a funny word.
Homo isn't really offensive over here. I think bummer is more offensive. Poof, fag, woofter and bender are, but who the fuck actually uses any of those words.
Actually, I just imagined calling my brother in law a homo (he's is) and it wouldn't go down well, so I take it back, homo probably is offencive. But I thiink bummer and bender are definitely worse.
But then again, I think context is imprtant here. If someone asked me his sexual prefernce and I replied homo, I don't think that would be offencive, but if I actually called him a homo then it would be. Bender or bummer would still be offencive even in the the descriptive case given above.
Wouldn't you call him a pusser, though? Maybe a snatcher?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Then why is "mother fucker" an insult to men who clearly do fit the descrition?
Does anyone actually think MoFo is intended to mean one's own mother?
I don't think people think about it too much. The meaning of an insult is mostly the, "I say this to be mad and make you mad." game. Any literal meaning behind the insult is not relevant.
I think if you called someone anything and they perceive you mean it as an insult, then the game is on.
***
I think we can all agree that boober is fun to say.
Boober? A guy with a penchant for titwanks?
titwank
lol
I assume that is synonymous.
What the hell do you guys call a titwank?
I can't imagine using "homo" without it sounding offensive. "Bummer" is strictly speaking offensive, but it's also kinda playful... other words come across as more insulting. Maybe it's a regional thing. Maybe "bummer" sounds funnier in a Brummie accent, and thus loses its impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
I've been saying "ong" for years. Why? What do you prefer?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
:dance:
I'm not sure if you just don't know what a titwank is, or if you think that calling it me will somehow register as an insult.
Little of both.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I figure anything with wank in it has to be at least something you wouldn't want to be called too often, or have as a nickname.
All this just reminds me of the fact that the only true, effective slur for white people is to call them racist.
Possibly sexist in some instances but no respectable white person wants to be called racist.
Tits = breasts. Wank = jerk. Titwanks are nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm partial to the new wave of insults - calling people cucks and dildos.
cuck. now there's a fucking insult.
I'm storing this. Had not thought of it that way before, but so true.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I've met the good twin, yguwfuw. I know you're the evil one.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Why are you so EVIL?
On this forum? Because I use some sneaky hard-to-counter debate tactics. Also because I sometimes get away with saying things that are less than robust that slip by radars. This isn't to say that I say things that I think are wrong, but that I sometimes notice an argument I make would need to be reformed if enough pressure was applied to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Keto is goat diet. Shit is so much better than eating carbs bullshit.
Is it racist for a white man to black up and sing a song called "squashed nigga"?
But.... pizza!Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Check it, yo: why is pizza good? All that cheese and oil. You can make keto pizzas that are probably pretty good as long as you're not in love with the texture of rising crust wheat.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Also you lose your craving for carbs/sugar on keto. As the body adapts to using ketones for fuel instead of glucose, it becomes preference, and you'll crave fats more (where ketones are created from) instead of carbs (where glucose is made from).
When I say I'm loving this keto diet, I'm including that it focuses more on the food that tastes good. Most carb sources actually aren't that tasty because carbs are typically vehicles to transfer other things, and they're made tasty by lathering them in fats. Just skip the bland carbs (who likes plain bread anyways?) and go straight to the delicious keto-friendly fats.
Today I used my own keys (twice) to let myself in and out of my house, thinking they were my housemate's keys, so I could go and look for my keys.
How do I post a .mov file on FTR?
OR
Where do I put the file so that I can link to it in FTR post and peeps can see it?
idk, I'd do the same as you and ask someone else.
from dropbox...
https://www.dropbox.com/en/help/6Quote:
Supported file types that preview as a video
.3gp, .3gpp, .3gpp2, .avi, .dv, .flv, .m2t, .m4v, .mkv, .mov, .mp4, .mpeg, .mpg, .mts, .ts, .vob, .wmv
It costs tha monies, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
:(
Oh, in which case sorry for inadvertantly advertising dropbox at you.
I didn't bother to check if movie storage was allowed for free, I just use it for image hosting.
YouTube video? Use [youtube] tags
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prX7IfeWl4s
Look what I did yesterday.
Any examples (pictures) of pieces/sets of furniture for any room that you guys really like? Room/desk/furniture porn in general?
So this image is from the NASA archive and is from the last mission to the Moon, Apollo 17 (1972). It's very much overexposed, but there's something there... and no, not the alien shaped blob in the corner, which could just be a simple moon slug...
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20680HR.jpg
source - Apollo 17 Image Library, nasa.gov
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html
I mean I dunno about anyone else, but that's the closest thing to conclusive proof I've seen of one of two things...
1. Aliens built the pyramids,
2. The global powers are preparing an alien invasion hoax, and have slipped this image onto the NASA website to get the ball rolling.
I'm kinda close to 50/50.
Why do Macs suck so bad? Can any of you stand them?
The whole "You must 'eject' your drive before you remove it, or I'll totes screw it up" is the dumbest thing ever.
The whole, "Hey, your drive hasn't been touched in days, but I just decided that you removed it without ejecting it, so I'll corrupt all your saved data. No, not in a way that prevents you from using the data, but in a way that I'll refuse to ever save any later revisions you may make." is kinda rubbing me the wrong way.
(Seriously, though... is there a way to undo this? A utility that fixes whatever the hell the Mac did to the drive so that it will work again?)
Why on earth doesn't Excel close when there are no open spreadsheets? As if I want every application I've ever used loaded into what limited RAM there is on this thing. Why?
Why do I have to push the power button to wake it up from sleep mode? Why isn't just moving the mouse enough?
Why is it the default setting to hide scroll bars? As if web pages don't have nested scroll bars which you need to select between when you use the scroll feature on the mouse.
Not to mention dozens of other things which I've tried to take on their own terms, but at long last, I give up.
This machine is the opposite of what mac enthusiasts tell me it is.
It's like it has half the functionality of any IBM clone, but it makes up for it by doing it in twice as much time.
Next time someone tells you how great their mac is, just laugh in their face. They're a turd.
If it's formatted as hfs, try fsck_hfs on mac or fsck.hfsplus from linux. There shouldn't be anything that straight up prevents it from mounting as rw unless the partition table is fucked, and you can fix that with testdisk. Sometimes macs are dumb and won't let you do basic things. Then you can try to go into single user mode and do it from there.
Things like wake up are handled by the bios, and macs have their bios completely locked, so there's nothing you can do there.
All in all if you want an OS that can't run most commercial software, you'll have more fun with linux imo.
If you do decide to install a linux distro on your mac, make sure to leave osx on there because if there's no osx there's a mandatory 30 sec. wait period to boot from anything that's not hfs and that's also hardcoded into the bios. So yeah, fuck mac.
Macs are pretty fucking terrible.
Really? How shit macs are is more interesting to you guys than maybe a pyramid on the moon?
I mean it's probably just weird angles on the robot thing. But still. It might be a pyramid.
But you guys are blabbering about macs. And furniture.
I don't have a mac, nor do I have any interesting furniture, to throw my two cents into those topics.
So ong... how much are you asking for your moon pyramid?
Impractical maybe, but amazingQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epv2AYSrEhc
Come on, give me your science opinion on the matter! Can that just be an overexposed image of lunar equipment creating angles that just happen to make it look a bit like a pyramid? That's the official explanation. Seems a bit thin to me, but I'm not science.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
That said, if you wanna buy it, my price is a mere $10k.
I'd say point another camera at the same spot and take another picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If the [whatever] isn't repeatable... or reproducible... then science is not prepared to discuss it.
It's not for me. I was asking for a friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Right, so go back to the moon and take more pics. Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I wonder why they stopped going to the moon after this mission?
How do you know that's a picture of the moon?
That's not what I said, but it'd work.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Who do you mean by "they?"Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Who told you moon missions have stopped?
The last mission to the moon
By last, I mean most recent to actually land on the moon. There are more recent missions than this, but they are doing flyby's of the moon, not landing.
Why did "they" stop sending people there?
Sending robots is cheaper and quite effective. It's hard to say what people would add to the missions.
Because it was from a roll of film from a camera that was taking pictures on the moon.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I mean I don't know it is a picture of the moon. I have reason to believe it's a picture that was taken on the moon.
Them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Well, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They're still doing it.
Hrm. Even if it was, whats it of? Sheet of paper? Glove? Fmily photo in bad light?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Oh yeah I suppose it could be one of those triangular gloves that you find on the moon.
IDK why this is so cool.
On September 3, 2002, astronomer Bill Yeung discovered a suspected asteroid, which was given the discovery designation J002E3. It appeared to be in orbit around the Earth, and was soon discovered from spectral analysis to be covered in white titanium dioxide, which was a major constituent of the paint used on the Saturn V. Calculation of orbital parameters led to tentative identification as being the Apollo 12 S-IVB stage. Mission controllers had planned to send Apollo 12's S-IVB into solar orbit after separating from the Apollo spacecraft, but it is believed the burn lasted too long, and hence did not send it close enough to the Moon, remaining in a barely stable orbit around the Earth and Moon. In 1971, through a series of gravitational perturbations, it is believed to have entered in a solar orbit and then returned into weakly captured Earth orbit 31 years later. It left Earth orbit again in June 2003.
Why couldn't that be a triangle shape on a glove? All the other pictures of the moon, we see details of the sand. We see the darkness of space in half the picture. But not on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Is this an issue of scale? Are we seeing something incredibly zoomed in? Did the camera get spun and take a picture of the equipment? Why is there a bend in the bottom right corner...as if it were a fold on a uniform or piece of paper? Is this even the moon? Is it the ground of the moon, and we're seeing imprints caused perhaps by astronaut boots? Was the camera moved between pictures? Was there a tripod that had triangular feet...and this is a picture of the ground? Does the fingerlike shadow imply that this photo was taken by accident...and could therefore be of the ground or of a very close up person?
Ok let's throw some context into this. Let's look at more pictures from the sequence...Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-136-20684.jpg
Note the astronauts shadow is clearly cast, which shows the source of light (one assumes the sun) behind him. But look at the rock at the top left of the image. The shadow is cast differently, placing the sun to the left of the astronaut, not behind him.
These photos are fake. Fuck knows what the pyramid is, it's probably an overexposed image of fucking giza, where these photos were taken.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-136-20686.jpg
Oh look, another image with two objects casting shadows in different directions.
Anyway, the gloves thing is ridiculous because the astronaut is taking the photos by holding the camera. The black blob in the bottom right corner of the "pyramid" image is probably the astronaut's thumb.
Here's the very next one in the sequence...
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-136-20682.jpg
This one supports the official explanation that it's merely a picture of the rover showing weird angles. I'd actually quite like to discuss this with a photograph expert... like, why would the image be less overexposed where the "pyramid" is? Overexposure is letting in too much light, there's no reason I can think that would explain why the light entering the camera would be fluctuating, but I'm way out of my depth trying to think about that.
I really can't figure those shadows out though. The "pyramid" is nothing more than an interesting thing to talk about. The shadows are just wrong.
A bit of digging tells me the official explanation for the mismatched shadows is the use of a wide angled lens. This would distort the image, making two objects that are parallel on the surface appear to be angled towards each other on the image. This would be an acceptable explanation if the astronaut's shadow was distorted... but it's not. A wide angled lens that would distort the shadows to this degree would make the astronaut seem unfeasibly short and fat. Yet the shadow cast appears to be that of a regular undistorted human being.
Something's up with this.
Why do you assume scientists on a million dollar expedition would fail to bring a light source?
To ensure it doesn't become a billion dollar expedition.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Taking one bottle of water too much would probably cost someone their job. Why would they take a light source when they have the sun up there with no atmopshere to dim the sunlight? It's much brighter on the lunar surface than here on Earth.
So, ong doesn't know there are craters on the moon?
Hey, ong. There are craters on the moon.
The slope upon which a shadow is cast makes a dramatic difference in the shape of the shadow.
Wide angle lenses distort the edges much more than the center of the image.
http://www.digitalphotomentor.com/ph...s-750px-10.jpg
Two light sources doesn't make any sense, anyway. There would be evidence of this in the form of two shadows, especially where the small rocks are between the two larger objects.
Based on the shadows the rocks cast, especially that darkened ridge at the front of the big rock, shows the sun is to the bottom left of the image, at roughly 8 o'clock. But it's behind the astronaut, which places it at 6 o'clock. What's that in degrees? It's 360/12=30. There's a roughly 60 degree distortion of the shadows, but no apparent distortion of the astronaut.
I can't explain it other than to assume the shadow of the astronaut was not part of the original image, and was put in there afterwards. But it seems dumb for someone working for NASA to not realise that the shadows need to align.
I'm actually struggling to find a reasonable explanation. Wide angled lens isn't cutting it for me though.
Most convincing argument I ever heard for why the moon landings weren't fake is that the Russians didn't ever call BS on the USA.
Cold war and whatnot.
~0% chance the Russians let this one slide without an obvious debunking of the claim.
Oh hey mojo.
I don't doubt we've been to the moon, fwiw. I just like to question the evidence.
There's a shadow at the FRONT of the big rock, even though the sun appears to be behind the astronaut. That darkened ridge should be illuminated.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
http://49.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv...ghkoo1_500.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They haven't called BS on 9/11 either. That doesn't make what the Americans say to be the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If it's a wide angle lens, then the objects on the far right and far left of the image are like 45 degrees or more off the center line.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Stand with your back to the sun and then turn your head about half-way to the side... you'll see some shadows.
Frankly, this is something you've observed your entire life, but you're not used to seeing it as a single image because humans brains think we're too stupid to handle that level of connectivity in our world view. It's prob worth trusting it on this issue.
Consider this:
When you look in the mirror, you can look at your left eye. You see your eye staring back at you.
Then you can look at your right eye. You see your eye staring back at you.
You never saw your eyes track across your vision from one eye to the other, though. Just snap between images. No interim blurred image as your eyes switched their direction from one eye to the other.
Your brain ignores that part of your history, never reporting it to your consciousness. This happens all the time. All day long. Your brain is constantly ignoring things and stitching the odds and ends together in a way that you don't even question that anything is missing.
OK... that's not actually related to the prior conversation, but it's still worth remembering how dumb and limited unaided observation is / can be.
The space race was a symbolic struggle between the US and USSR, with the USSR beating the US at every step.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Except for sending humans to the moon.
The US did that first, and the USSR had an interest in debunking the claim if it was false. It could spin the propaganda for years that the US was full of lies and that USSR was the only leader in space.
What struggle or interest does the USSR have in 9/11? I don't think they compare. Show me.
Maybe the Russians believed the Americans? There's no question it was possible to get to the moon, the Soviets had already done so with an unmanned mission.
idk, I'm not really intending to get into that first manned mission. There's no evidence left other than the grainy photos Armstrong took, after NASA accidentally lost the original video footage in the 80's. There's a huge motive to fake it, there's also a huge motive to actually do it.
I think we've been to the moon, I just wonder what's up there that has stopped us setting up a base there.
There's an ecominc war going on right now between the West and Russia. If the Russians' official position was that 9/11 was an inside job, that has the potential to cause unrest or perhaps even instability in USA. So why aren't they playing that card? They could.Quote:
What struggle or interest does the USSR have in 9/11? I don't think they compare. Show me.
I suppose the Russians are in it up tho their necks, just like the rest of us. They have their agenda and what the Americans are doing suits their agenda. It's all theatre.
You might well have convinced me with the wide angled lens, though. My friend is a photographer and I'm going to discuss this later with him.
Actually wide angled lens isn't cutting it in the second image of the astronaut's shadow. Note that here, the astronaut is still directly in front of the sun, but isn't centre of the image. His shadow should be distorted, giving the impression the sun is behind him and to the right. But this isn't the case.
Looks like wufwugy's blog became OngBonga's Twitter.
called it
I posted this in IRC in your honor before you posted it here lolQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
i only post like one out of ten libertarian-memes i want to.
This is so clutch:
Thanks, Obama.
wp, I chuckled.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Just watched some videos about this after seeing an article about how this is some huge topic in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Now from what I've seen the methods that are being taught to solve problems are actually teaching kids how maths works & if understood it's a million times better for the children not only in terms of maths but for helping develop their problem solving skills.
The issue is understanding of maths isn't the end goal of your maths education in school (it's a pretty ideal by-product) & it sure as hell isn't what's tested to give you your maths grade. At school you're essentially learning methods to solve problems in a mix of the easiest & quickest possible way because that's what was needed for the majority of people in real life. I'd even go as far to argue that a lot of higher education courses that use maths do the exact same thing where using a method to solve a problem is much more important than understanding the real maths behind it or why it works.
Having spoke about basic maths with ages ranging from 9 (where I started seeing some of these new methods in primary schools) to adults that learnt "the old way" & with teachers the problem really does boil down to this is a better, if harder to teach & more involved, way of teaching maths but with testing how it is you need to know the fastest way of solving a problem because you don't have time for slower methods. It also means that parents can't help their kids with the work which is infuriating for them because they can solve 83-15 and in their minds that's the problem & most people react to things they don't understand by dismissing them especially when it seems to make an "easy" problem "harder".
Which leads to the problem that if you still need to learn the efficient and fast ways that used to be taught & you want kids to understand what they're doing you're trying to fit a huge amount more work into the same amount of time.
So as with most things you need to boil the problem down to it's most fundamental parts & look at what the point of maths as part of an education is in the first place (or the point of education full stop) & then you work at making sure what's being taught, the testing etc all match up.
As someone who enjoys maths & at school I didn't until I actually got into the "real" stuff I'd argue that a proper understanding of what's going on isn't what's necessary for the majority of people.
tl;dr - common core seems to be well intentioned but somewhat missing the point.
edit -
tl;dr 2 - What spoon said
Spring Break is a welcome respite.
I didn't realize how accustomed I'd gotten to the constant noise. Now that the building is quiet, I appreciate it much more.
I'm trying to grade, but I raged on the first report, so I'll try again in a couple of hours. No need to be all ragey and then deal with regrades later. Just chill out and get it right the first time.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the attempts to teach math theory to anybody other than those who naturally gravitate towards it. I was only able to do well in calculus because it was mostly absent in theory. I learned the procedures, when and how to apply them, and I could have learned many more if the teaching had emphasized that. I would have never even passed pre-calculus if it focused on theory. Now that I'm in my first upper level math theory class, I am grasping nothing, and I'm soon to withdraw and change majors to something I intuitively kick butt at.
There are two kinds of people in this world (isn't there always?): those with mathematician brains and those without. There's no amount of try that is going to get me to understand math theory. No I can't show how this function is verified by the properties of your theorem. Even if I could, it means nothing to me and I have no idea how to use this information for anything and I would just be memorizing process anyways. Give me a problem where the answer is a value and show me how to get that value. I'll memorize that and use it for actual things.
I hypothesize that teaching math theory to math intuits requires a fundamentally different approach than teaching any math to non-intuits. The people good at math don't need the instructor's help. They just read the books and think about it and figure the stuff out just fine. But to us normies, textbooks are mostly trash full of nonsense symbols. Instead we need clear and concise annotated solutions.
Pretty much. Good post btwQuote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
re. wufwugy:
I totally get that math is harder to learn when it's purely abstract. I find it hard to memorize anything in math unless I know of a practical application for the knowledge. It hurt me in my undergrad 'cause there are plenty of physics courses with math courses as pre-reqs. This means I had a passing familiarity with the math I was supposed to be competent with when it came time to use the math for physics. I had to go back and re-study all that forgotten material.
However, I disagree that math is for some certain type of people. Math is nothing more than defined symbols and logic. Everyone uses symbols all the time. E.g. your name is not you - it's just a symbol for you - but you can talk about people using their names as a symbol for the person.
Sure, logic is not everyone's forte', but I feel like most people appreciate being spoken to in a logical way when they're being informed of something, or trying to suss out what to believe. I think everyone could benefit from a more practiced view of logic. If for no other reason, than to be able to tell when what they're being told is possibly foolish, or incomplete.
Do I think everyone should take calc. II and calc III? No. I think everyone should have a solid grasp of algebra (I mean SOLID), and I think that politicians would get away with a lot less BS if everyone was a bit better at understanding probability and statistics.
I agree on algebra, stats, and probability. I hope I'm not suggesting that some people shouldn't learn math. What I don't like is the theory aspect of it for those not already oriented towards its abstractions. Understanding stats and such in their real world applications is totally different than understanding what makes stats theorems work.
A distinction I'm making is that I learned some really important stuff in intro stats but this current prob and stats theory class seems to exist only in the ether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You evil, evil wugy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't think this is really true. There is a point to be made that the harder/more abstract the maths you learn is the people teaching it tend to start to move towards people who are good at maths not necessarily good at teaching but there is obviously huge overlap but this has an impact for everyone maybe just proportionately more for people who struggle.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
As for learning maths from books there are a couple of points.
The first is that there are good books & bad books for breaking down ideas and getting to grips with them & the more sources you read the more likely you'll come to terms with whatever it is you're learning. The second is that reading in depth sources of material is a skill in itself & I think this implies to most subjects. If you picked up a law journal for example it'd most likely be hard to get into. It's essentially a new language that you have to familiarise yourself but with the added layer that the ideas aren't necessarily easy to comprehend even if you can read it. Finally & probably most importantly you shouldn't expect to read something & understand it straight away. You should sit down, play about with it, think about it, talk to others about it & you then develop an understanding.
This is something that kinda bugs me about physics students, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
They hold the mistaken conception that their books and professors know True things, and that their role as a student is to memorize these things. To the extent that their grade depends on learning what the book/professor are telling them, this makes some kind of sense. Add in that they are barely adults - just beginning to enter a world outside the loving shelter of their parents - and you see their motivation to blindly trust authority figures.
However, books and professors are not gifted with any power to divine Truths. They are just as fallible as any source of information. Trusting in their methods is only good for a layman's understanding of some of the techniques. It's when you understand that the complex methods are built out of simple assumptions that you see the power and limitations of what you've learned.
I mean... math books have typos, too. Sometimes it's those typos that slow me to a stop and force me to derive something. It's my active involvement in connecting what I think I understand with this new information which is the real learning. Sussing out that the typo is a false statement is indicative of the whole point of learning the theories and methods in play.
The more theory you know, the less of the derivative stuff you need to memorize, and the more you can figure out on your own - from more simple assumptions, no less.
You are correct. Teaching ability is significant. I think my point exists on a spectrum. For example, even though the thing I'm probably worst at intuitively is abstract mathematics, I definitely could learn it better from a more quality instructor.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy