For our next DVC catastrophe, we have a chemistry instructor who's teaching significant figures without understanding them.
Her problem is bizarre enough that I can't find a formal reference to contradict her, but... ouch.
Consider (67-64)/12.
Every number in the initial problem has 2 digits, so at the end you should have 2 digits and the answer is 0.25. Every scientist in every field I've ever met would agree.
*EXCEPT* this chemistry teacher. Since 67-64 = 3, she says that somehow you lose a significant figure, so now there's only one significant figure and the correct answer is 0.3.
It is... bizarre, to say the least. I pity the poor physicist who ends up with (0.86427-0.66427)/0.50324 and who suddenly is only allowed one significant figure.
Impus Major already pointed out this issue to her, and she doubled down on her stance. At which point getting a decent grade overrides being right, so he's following the stupidity.
EDIT: And now we know that Paizo can handle threads with sizes over 280,000. Woo hoo!
Hush you. Now Freehold will think that 1/4 is 0.3...
Her problem is bizarre enough that I can't find a formal reference to contradict her, but... ouch.
Would this count as a formal reference?
I think she's getting order of operations mixed up with significant figures, something along the lines of "operation in parentheses should count as one number for the purposes of the exercise." Which doesn't make any sense when you think about it for two seconds, but some people don't have that much time on their hands.
Her problem is bizarre enough that I can't find a formal reference to contradict her, but... ouch.Would this count as a formal reference?
I think she's getting order of operations mixed up with significant figures, something along the lines of "operation in parentheses should count as one number for the purposes of the exercise." Which doesn't make any sense when you think about it for two seconds, but some people don't have that much time on their hands.
Unfortunately, she honestly believes that 67-64 has ONE significant figure because it has no decimal places, and you'll notice that your reference only talks about decimal places.
I'm having Impus Major go in and ask, "So, is 0.234567-0.134567 equal to 0.1 or 0.100000?"
If she answers 0.1, we're in real trouble. If she answers 0.1000000, then we at least have a chance of bringing her around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hush you. Now Freehold will think that 1/4 is 0.3...
Hey, the ancient Egyptians got along just fine for a thousand years using π = 3.16. Sometimes close enough is close enough.
Unfortunately, she honestly believes that 67-64 has ONE significant figure because it has no decimal places, and you'll notice that your reference only talks about decimal places.
What about this?
Exact numbers can be considered to have an infinite number of significant figures. Thus, number of apparent significant figures in any exact number can be ignored as a limiting factor in determining the number of significant figures in the result of a calculation.
Hush you. Now Freehold will think that 1/4 is 0.3...Hey, the ancient Egyptians got along just fine for a thousand years using π = 3.16. Sometimes close enough is close enough.
But...
she honestly believes that 67-64 has ONE significant figure because it has no decimal places
If you're trying to track their thought process for the right answer, maybe they're going by the rule to never trust your last digit? 67 could be anywhere from 66.50001 to 67.49999
Unfortunately, she honestly believes that 67-64 has ONE significant figure because it has no decimal places, and you'll notice that your reference only talks about decimal places.What about this?
Exact numbers can be considered to have an infinite number of significant figures. Thus, number of apparent significant figures in any exact number can be ignored as a limiting factor in determining the number of significant figures in the result of a calculation.
I think it's fruitless to pursue her brain down any rabbit hole we choose. Since there are no decimal points, 67 and 64 cannot be assumed to be exact numbers, and therefore they each have exactly 2 significant figures. So, the reference should be, "The result has the same number of significant figures," and the correct answer should be written 03, but nobody does that.
But she believes it to be 3 with one significant figure and won't be convinced otherwise.
Let's backtrack a bit. That's chemistry?
Maybe there is a field-specific context (or standard) for the operation in question?
Or was that a chemistry instructor teaching significant numbers in general?
Let's backtrack a bit. That's chemistry?
Maybe there is a field-specific context (or standard) for the operation in question?
Or was that a chemistry instructor teaching significant numbers in general?
(1) Yes, she is a chemistry instructor.
(2) No, GothBard minored in Chemistry and my mother is a Ph.D./M.D. in immunology, which involved a staggering amount of chemistry. There is no "special version" of significant figures for chemistry.
(3) Yes, she was trying to teach them in general, and when Impus Major started getting answers wrong after completing his Associates' in Physics, he started asking questions.
And it boils down to the fundamental confusion around decimal places that David M Mallon alluded to: His reference makes it absolutely clear that 0.67-0.64 = 0.03 has two significant figures. But remove the decimal points to get 67-64=3 and the rules are less clear.
Even worse, the notation is inadequate to the task. If I write 0.03 on its lonesome, it has one significant figure. So the only way to do it properly is to write 0.67-0.64 = 0.030, which makes it look like you're gaining accuracy, or 67-64 = 3.0.
So it's definitely a "fuzzy" area of the field. I always told my students, "Ignore everything except the initial input and you'll be OK."
It works remarkably well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
67 could be anywhere from 66.50001 to 67.49999
What are you, an architect?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
67 could be anywhere from 66.50001 to 67.49999What are you, an architect?
Measure once cut twice!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, nobody gave two s&@&s about significant figures after Chemistry 150 freshman year. The rule was usually "use your common sense."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Measure once cut twice!67 could be anywhere from 66.50001 to 67.49999What are you, an architect?
Measure once, do the entire project twice, more like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Measure once, do the entire project twice, more like.
Nah just cut another piece to go next to that one put em together and put another piece over it. No one will see it till they demolish the place. Or it blows over in a stiff breeze...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Measure once, do the entire project twice, more like.Measure once cut twice!67 could be anywhere from 66.50001 to 67.49999What are you, an architect?
I worked with a guy that does this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Called mom with her birthday wishes.
*sigh*
My parents aren't aging that well.
Let's backtrack a bit. That's chemistry?
Maybe there is a field-specific context (or standard) for the operation in question?
Or was that a chemistry instructor teaching significant numbers in general?
(1) Yes, she is a chemistry instructor.
(2) No, GothBard minored in Chemistry and my mother is a Ph.D./M.D. in immunology, which involved a staggering amount of chemistry. There is no "special version" of significant figures for chemistry.
(3) Yes, she was trying to teach them in general, and when Impus Major started getting answers wrong after completing his Associates' in Physics, he started asking questions.
And it boils down to the fundamental confusion around decimal places that David M Mallon alluded to: His reference makes it absolutely clear that 0.67-0.64 = 0.03 has two significant figures. But remove the decimal points to get 67-64=3 and the rules are less clear.
Even worse, the notation is inadequate to the task. If I write 0.03 on its lonesome, it has one significant figure. So the only way to do it properly is to write 0.67-0.64 = 0.030, which makes it look like you're gaining accuracy, or 67-64 = 3.0.
So it's definitely a "fuzzy" area of the field. I always told my students, "Ignore everything except the initial input and you'll be OK."
It works remarkably well.
(go 43 seconds in, it wont let me queue for some reason)
Called mom with her birthday wishes.
*sigh*
My parents aren't aging that well.
Dad wasnt...dad, after a while. I'm sorry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love pets and their uncertain object permanence, or their faith in your ability to change things they don't like.
We've got a nice juicy storm hitting California this week, so of course the Cranky Calico is nonplussed. She makes me go into the kitchen with her, I open the back door, she hears and smells the rain, bats her tail angrily a few times, and wanders back inside...
...and 15 minutes later she's asking me to do it again. You can hear the rain on the roof, kitteh!
I've also seen it in wonderful videos of dogs who go to a door, see the bad weather outside, and immediately go to a different door hoping for better weather through that one.
Recognizing that the weather sucks seems like one of those simple evolutionary things you'd expect all animals to do, but pets seem to feel that since you can make light, heat, and food whenever you want, why can't you adjust the weather as well? Makes no sense!
Called mom with her birthday wishes.
*sigh*
My parents aren't aging that well.
I've been lucky enough to avoid this, but both of GothBard's maternal grandparents suffered it so immensely that by the end they didn't even recognize their own children.
#1: Cancer.
#2: Dementia.
Everything else can wait for a distant #3.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Was I Doing Again?
"Ms. Scint, did you grade my writing prompt yet?"
It's probably a good thing I've been talking to my therapist about ADHD...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love pets and their uncertain object permanence, or their faith in your ability to change things they don't like.
We've got a nice juicy storm hitting California this week, so of course the Cranky Calico is nonplussed. She makes me go into the kitchen with her, I open the back door, she hears and smells the rain, bats her tail angrily a few times, and wanders back inside...
...and 15 minutes later she's asking me to do it again. You can hear the rain on the roof, kitteh!I've also seen it in wonderful videos of dogs who go to a door, see the bad weather outside, and immediately go to a different door hoping for better weather through that one.
Recognizing that the weather sucks seems like one of those simple evolutionary things you'd expect all animals to do, but pets seem to feel that since you can make light, heat, and food whenever you want, why can't you adjust the weather as well? Makes no sense!
I've heard that pets see turning on and off the shower as controlling the rain.
Well, other than mistyping their phone number, this person apparently has a heck of a resume -- just got a call from a different company inviting them to an in-person interview. Given that the recruiters are calling every week and even leaving messages, it's a pity they can't get in touch with the candidate...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I learned today that my manager, if given tens of millions of our national currency units, would buy a fleet of Raunch Yachts, each containing a clone of Ryan Gosling.
Well.
Ryan Gosling wouldn't be my first choice, no. Neither would be yachts, for the matter, as I am not an amphibious drake. I am so much more of a hills, mountains, and forests dragon. Lakes are fine, as long as I am on the shore and floating on a fragile, shaking, motion-sickness inducing deck. I like the solid, firm ground to stand upon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Was I Doing Again?
"Ms. Scint, did you grade my writing prompt yet?"
It's probably a good thing I've been talking to my therapist about ADHD...
Look! Look! A squirrel!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SQUIRREL!
...and I've reached the end of the Golden Age of Doctor Who, and will be spending the next couple of months agonizingly plodding through its death spiral, because completionist.
Most series fall off gradually, occasionally showing sparks of their former brilliance as they die. Seinfeld, M*A*S*H, and The Simpsons all fall well into this category. (Yeah, yeah, I think The Simpsons may still be being produced, but does anyone actually care?)
Some die between seasons. The first season of Sweet Home, a Korean monster drama, was based on the manhwa and was extremely well done. In the second season, as far as I can tell the writers who'd adapted the manhwa tried their hand at extending the story and created something unwatchable. We really tried to make it through the season in the hopes that maybe Season 3 would be better, but ended up giving up and turning it off.
Doctor Who is the first time I've seen a series enter its death spiral mid-season. The first series of Season 15, Horror of Fang Rock, was extremely well-done and I was all curled up and ready for another enjoyable season of Tom Baker. He's definitely my second-favorite Doctor, and he and Troughton are head-and-shoulders above the rest.
The along comes The Invisible Enemy:
- After making Leela a strong, independent, fierce and cunning sidekick, this writer went with, "Oh, she's too stupid to be affected by a mind-affecting virus, so she's naturally immune."
I can't even begin the tirade about how insulting and misogynistic this is.
- This is the series that introduces K-9, The Robotic Dog That Killed Doctor Who. Every old Doctor Who fan in my circle agrees: K-9 marked the beginning of the end of Doctor Who.
- Since the writer clearly loved Fantastic Voyage, someone needs to get shrunk to go into the Doctor's brain and remove a bloot clot infection.
- Since the writer was a hack, he came up with the, "Fully mature, fully-clothed, makes no sense even in a series with time travel and a sonic screwdriver," clones, so the Doctor and Leela could go on their own journey.
- Since the writer was an unbelievable hack, the clones only last for 10 minutes, putting an artificial time pressure on the entire series. Which, given that I've got 45 minutes left to watch, is going to play out in slower-than-real-time stupidity.
So yep, all in all, looking at this ONE series, I'm thinking, "I'm never going to see another good Doctor Who series until I hit the modern era."
We'll see whether they manage to prove me wrong.
I'm curious to see what you make of Colin Baker.
I found a few episodes of McCoy's Doctor to be better than I thought they were as a tween. Hated Ace back then (I thought that I would be far more deserving, because no one despises troubled youth more than other troubled youth), but like her better now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm finding so far is that what you expect from your entertainment as a teenager and as an adult differs far more than you'd think it would. Highlander is my favorite example: I loved it as a teenager. Now I find it painful to watch.
Similarly, Jon Pertwee's Doctor was everything a teen could ask for: Dashing, handsome, a snazzy dresser, and a man of action who was also quick to smile and be kind. Unfortunately, as an adult I am far less interested in individuals and far more interested in the plot and the writing, and Pertwee's stable of writers were uniformly awful, all coming from the, "Hey, this fad is popular right now! We need to put it into the show!" school of thought that was so execrably predominant in the 1970s, leading to all shows from all genres all having the exact same elements because originality was dead. Not that I'm opinionated or anything...
So a strong reason I'm misliking Tom Baker is that all the previous Doctors seem to have pushed back against the writers to say, "No, this is who I am as the Doctor. Write the plot however you want, but the Doctor would never behave that way, so you need to change that."
Tom Baker took the approach of, "Well, if you wrote it, I should do it."
Sometimes he'll pick up a gun and shoot someone. Sometimes he'll say that he abhors violence and he'd never pick up a gun. Sometimes he's patient. Sometimes he's impatient and snaps angrily at his companions. I'm barely into the third season of Tom Baker as Doctor, and I've realized that more than any other Doctor, the Tom Baker Doctor has no solid personality; he behaves in whatever manner the writers told him to.
So he's enjoying the advantage of mostly better writers. But he's suffering from the disadvantage that they couldn't agree on who the Doctor was, and he was willing to go with whatever the writer of the moment thought.
That description of Tom Baker's Doctor is sort of ironic, in the light of fact that Tom Baker himself, allegedly suffers from (diagnosed much-much later in his life than being the Doctor) bipolar disorder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm finding so far is that what you expect from your entertainment as a teenager and as an adult differs far more than you'd think it would. Highlander is my favorite example: I loved it as a teenager. Now I find it painful to watch.
Oh, boy. We watched it with friends some 10-15 years ago and it was... Sad.
That's one of the few movies that I am actually happy (and hopeful) to see a reboot as I thought it might actually deserve one since the last watching.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm finding so far is that what you expect from your entertainment as a teenager and as an adult differs far more than you'd think it would. Highlander is my favorite example: I loved it as a teenager. Now I find it painful to watch.
Clearly, you are not here, nor were you born to be a king.
I swear, some of the best-meaning people have the dumbest ideas...
As is fairly typical for a global megacorporation, we're renovating our user interface. Happens once every 3-6 years, so it's not exactly a surprise to us nor our customers.
Except this time our executives are *so* excited about how "revolutionary" this UI is that they're pushing it out at least 6 months before it's actually ready for industrial use. And that's a great idea because our customers can be telling us all about the bugs as we're wrapping up our development, right?
Bethesda, much?
So I just spent today trying to get the labs for my course working. Y'know, those things where you get instructions to actually go into the application and accomplish something useful? Given the state of the user interface, it's like dancing en pointe through a muddy minefield.
It's been an exhausting day, and I get to look forward to another 4 days of this nonsense this week and next.
Because waiting until your product is actually ready to be shipped isn't done any more...
Argh. The tooth/gum ache returned with a vengeance. It seems to be more intense than it was before.
Well, THAT was bizarrely interesting. I have no idea whether there was a bunch of hubbub over the "Leela's too stupid to be affected" approach to disease, but episode 3 saw a sudden rewrite of, "Oh, no, it's just a biological factor that we somehow missed for the first 2 episodes because reasons."
But I did learn that Tom Baker hated the Leela character, likely explaining a lot of the perceived hostility of the Doctor towards Leela. (Read a lot of interesting stuff about how after Elizabeth Sladen left the series and Baker did a series alone, he concluded that the Doctor's companions were superfluous and argued against them. But "interesting" and "true" are disparate adjectives...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . . stable of writers were uniformly awful, all coming from the, "Hey, this fad is popular right now! We need to put it into the show!" school of thought that was so execrably predominant . . . because originality was dead. . . . .
there are libraries' worth of truth in that statement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heating's been bust for a couple of days at work. When we suggested getting some space heaters in, the big boss was resistant at first, saying that our unwillingness to work in the cold reflected poorly on our combat readiness in case of war with Russia. I assume he was joking, but can't be 100% sure.
. . . stable of writers were uniformly awful, all coming from the, "Hey, this fad is popular right now! We need to put it into the show!" school of thought that was so execrably predominant . . . because originality was dead. . . . .there are libraries' worth of truth in that statement.
I wish I could make everyone who swears by this sit down and watch a few days worth of truly original stinkers. Fads are annoying, but rarely appear with no reason whatsoever- although they certainly may lack appeal to all but a niche audience. Not all that's original or novel is good solely due to being original or novel.
I dunno, maybe I've been watching too many failed shows of the xx's/starting lineup of fall XXXX retrospectives.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heating's been bust for a couple of days at work. When we suggested getting some space heaters in, the big boss was resistant at first, saying that our unwillingness to work in the cold reflected poorly on our combat readiness in case of war with Russia. I assume he was joking, but can't be 100% sure.
Are there windows in your place of work that your boss is careful to avoid?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . . stable of writers were uniformly awful, all coming from the, "Hey, this fad is popular right now! We need to put it into the show!" school of thought that was so execrably predominant . . . because originality was dead. . . . .there are libraries' worth of truth in that statement.I wish I could make everyone who swears by this sit down and watch a few days worth of truly original stinkers. Fads are annoying, but rarely appear with no reason whatsoever- although they certainly may lack appeal to all but a niche audience. Not all that's original or novel is good solely due to being original or novel.
I dunno, maybe I've been watching too many failed shows of the xx's/starting lineup of fall XXXX retrospectives.
Nobody claimed that "all original content is good."
The claim is that, "No formulaic content is great, and virtually none of it is even good."
I'd rather watch 100 hours of good, great, and downright terrible original content than 100 hours of mediocre-to-bad regurgitated content.
I think what's particularly interesting is that we've already mentioned two examples that illustrate my point:
From a watchability standpoint, Highlander and The Invisible Enemy have about the same running time, and in my personal opinion Highlander was far more painful to watch.
And yet if someone who had seen neither one asked me which one I'd like to watch with them, I'd watch Highlander every single time. Its world-building, its originality, and its whole, "This is nothing like anything you've ever seen before," put it head-and-shoulders above The Invisible Enemy. Because after we've watched it, we'd have something to talk about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
. . . stable of writers were uniformly awful, all coming from the, "Hey, this fad is popular right now! We need to put it into the show!" school of thought that was so execrably predominant . . . because originality was dead. . . . .there are libraries' worth of truth in that statement.I wish I could make everyone who swears by this sit down and watch a few days worth of truly original stinkers. Fads are annoying, but rarely appear with no reason whatsoever- although they certainly may lack appeal to all but a niche audience. Not all that's original or novel is good solely due to being original or novel.
I dunno, maybe I've been watching too many failed shows of the xx's/starting lineup of fall XXXX retrospectives.
when you get right down to it, there aren't very many new stories to tell, in a way. the closest one can get, from my point of view, to "original" or "novel" narratives is by shuffling sundry dramatic structures together and aiming for variations of the classics. the other component of "newness" usually has very much to do with the quality of the 'window dressing' in the story. i think part of the reason why we so readily invest in stories is because we can recognize themes and ideas from within our own memories, and we can be challenged to expand our perspectives by finding where our familiarity ends and those new variations in structure or flavor are encountered.
take, for instance, our two views of that old show Firefly. while i haven't watched/experienced the Outlaw Star (iirc, that's the name) that you declare as an earlier and better version of Joss Whedon's "hack job" (i do hope i'm not too far off the mark there, or none at all) seen in Firefly, based upon my recall of your earlier statements they're essentially the same tale, told in differing ways. one came before the other, and you saw the copy (or, at best, parallel) in the one that was late to the party. since i was late to the Firefly part of the show but it was my first encounter with that narrative structure, i enjoyed it and still hold it in fine regard; perhaps someday i'll experience Outlaw Star and decide which i prefer.
i also think it's fair to say that there will always be some form of social commentary in any tale told. sometimes it's veiled or subdued in its presentation, and other times it's quite "on the nose" -- the bursts of inspiration writers gain for weaving a story have to come from somewhere, of course. and there isn't anything inherently bad about either means of presentation or treatment. sometimes it's disliked because of the message, other times because of the aforementioned 'window dressing', or any other host of reasons. a fad isn't bad because it's a fad; neither is it good just because it's popular at a given time.
crafting a truly original tale is damned near impossible, i think. crafting a good story or telling a story well (two very different things) is easier, but definitely challenging. if you can tell a good story (or even a new story), and tell it well, . . . that's golden -- for the artist and the fans alike.
i think NH's original quoted comment is an excellent summation of the complexity of storytelling, no matter how new or old, good or bad, graceless or sophisticated. i liked and faved it simply because of how deep a dive we (or one) can make in analyzing and reflecting upon its myriad iterations. that's all.
** spoiler omitted **
While I fully accept the "nothing is truly original" argument, I also appreciate your point that any "original" story is cobbled together by taking existing elements and putting them together in a new or interesting way.
Star Wars and The Hidden Fortress are both good movies. Because Lucas added elements, removed others, adjusted the setting, and otherwise made The Hidden Fortress his own when he rewrote it. He didn't just check off checkboxes to make sure he included all the elements from the original film.
Hence my statement that any "writing by formula" wherein, "This script must include these elements because they are popular at this time," is necessarily bad writing.
Nobody claimed that "all original content is good.". . . stable of writers were uniformly awful, all coming from the, "Hey, this fad is popular right now! We need to put it into the show!" school of thought that was so execrably predominant . . . because originality was dead. . . . .there are libraries' worth of truth in that statement.I wish I could make everyone who swears by this sit down and watch a few days worth of truly original stinkers. Fads are annoying, but rarely appear with no reason whatsoever- although they certainly may lack appeal to all but a niche audience. Not all that's original or novel is good solely due to being original or novel.
I dunno, maybe I've been watching too many failed shows of the xx's/starting lineup of fall XXXX retrospectives.
Yes, you are saying it right here, I know.
I think what's particularly interesting is that we've already mentioned two examples that illustrate my point:
From a watchability standpoint, Highlander and The Invisible Enemy have about the same running time, and in my personal opinion Highlander was far more painful to watch.
And yet if someone who had seen neither one asked me which one I'd like to watch with them, I'd watch Highlander every single time. Its world-building, its originality, and its whole, "This is nothing like anything you've ever seen before," put it head-and-shoulders above The Invisible Enemy. Because after we've watched it, we'd have something to talk about.
huh. Interesting.
The problem with Firefly is the dude tried using it as his creative genius shield that set him apart as some creative visionary. But he straight up ripped it off from someone else that actually was a visionary in their field.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **.... . . stable of writers were uniformly awful, all coming from the, "Hey, this fad is popular right now! We need to put it into the show!" school of thought that was so execrably predominant . . . because originality was dead. . . . .there are libraries' worth of truth in that statement.I wish I could make everyone who swears by this sit down and watch a few days worth of truly original stinkers. Fads are annoying, but rarely appear with no reason whatsoever- although they certainly may lack appeal to all but a niche audience. Not all that's original or novel is good solely due to being original or novel.
I dunno, maybe I've been watching too many failed shows of the xx's/starting lineup of fall XXXX retrospectives.
Firefly v. Outlaw Star
......simply, Firefly wins because it doesn't have Aisha Clan-Clan in it. It's like they tried to give a migraine a personality.