"In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history will be the majority and will dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance."
Order of function error: does not compute! *heh*
Ran into someone who thought πr² meant (πr)². No, it’s π(r²). (πr)² yields a SUBSTANTIALLY different number.
Example: where r = 2: (3.14159 x 2)² = 39.4783509124, whereas 3.14159 x 4 [that is, r²] = 12.56636. That area is less than ⅓ of the incorrect computation.
Correct math can help define and comprehend the material world. Innumerates are easy prey for professional liars (like, say, politicians and mass MEdia Hivemind Podpeople).
I am constantly amazed at folks who just see no benefit from even such simple maths as algebra, trig, geometry, etc., in their daily lives. There was a brief point in my life, college calculus classes, when I could pretty much just look at a simple math problem and know the answer. (Gave my prof fits, ‘cos I rarely wrote down the steps to achieve the answer. . . cos I hadn’t thought of ’em.) But. . . word problems in that class that attempted to use semi-sorta “real world” situations where different calculus functions could be used to solve things were not so much my metier at the time.
Time passed, as is its wont, and everyday circumstances took on “math meaning” in my perceptions more and more often, until not a day passes that something doesn’t trigger algebraic, “trig-ic” *heh*, differential. . .-ic ?, or whatever thoughts.
Disclaimer: I am no genius, and nor am I someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of darned near everything, but. . . I am an Odd, and my education is even Odd-er.
That may not explain to my readers why, when I read something written by a typical 20-something or older “grup” writer, I often just shake my head and compare their vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and knowledge base to an eleven or twelve-year-old. . . me.
Yeh, when I read a writer who has groped blindly for a suitable word and instead grasped an execrably UNsuitable word to use, I compare that writer’s vocabulary to my sixth grade self, partly because, while recovering from a second surgery, I discovered a set of vocabulary quizzes in a two-volume dictionary set (each volume at least four inches thick in large, oversized formats). Yes, I went through the college-level vocabulary test, NOT because I was “smarter” than the average sixth grader, just because I had read more, even before becoming temporarily restricted physically, but VORACIOUSLY more so during that restricted period.
And that, combined with my fundamentally Odd way of looking at reality, probably defined as much of the next sixty years of my life, as much as simply being an Odd has in general. And so, people with a Stupid Level Vocabulary™ (and often even stupider level grasp of syntax, orthography, and basic arithmetic, physical mechanics, and life in general) probably tend to irk me more than is useful.
“Gummint” schools are largely “prisons for kids,” but there can be bright spots. . .
Of all the classes I had in high school, two “classes” have proven to be the most _personably_ valuable, long term, and both for similar reasons. I was lost in my first year of algebra, thanks largely to a disaffection stemming from ghastly experiences with ‘new math.” (Before exposure to that abomination of “edumacationist” experimentation, I kinda enjoyed math.) Thankfully, a sophomore year teacher who just loved math and teaching it resurrected a dead enjoyment of math.
And then there was band. I learned more appreciation of music from simply rehearsing and playing the works we were exposed to than in all my college classes combined. I can still hear many of those pieces “between my ears.”
And the math classes and music worked well together in forming logic chains in my head, and those served me well in appreciating and seeing links in language, history, and many other fields. Of course, the fact that I simply ignored classes when they became boring and substituted voracious reading also helped forge those “chains of reason.”
So, “gummint” schools were not a total waste of time. . . as long as I managed to ignore the boring parts. (Example: teachers who taught “from the book” when I had already read through the textbook before the first week passed. Boring.)
Stupidity cubed. Impossible. “Unique” is unambiguously and singly determinate. Only; single. Having no like or equal; unmatched; sole; unequaled; single in its kind or excellence. “Too” cannot be used to qualify it. The only qualifiers are limiters such as “nearly,” “almost,” and “not quite.” Nothing can be “more unique” than. . . unique. “Very unique” is nonsense, at best.
Lame. Of course, from available evidence (ballot box, successful entertainers, best selling novelists–I’m looking at you, Dan Brown–etc.), most people can’t (or refuse to) think well enough IRL to be _able_ to use math in ways that would enhance their lives. JMO, of course, but I’m right.
Building an AR-15 Under 5 Pounds
Nice article, and reads like a nice build. I do lack a bit of confidence in their math, though, given that the build they were comparing to was 5lb5oz and ~$3,500 while the 4lb13oz build was “slightly more than $1,800, nearly half the price of the carbine in the article that spawned this exercise.”
“[N]early half the price”? No, slightly MORE than half the price. “Nearly” implies “almost” or “not quite,” and $1,800 is more than half of $3,500.
Numbers. Language. Not strong suits for this writer.
I saw an article today in passing that reminded me once again how the Internet has helped spread faux-literacy. Its title contained, “all the cool offices aren’t in San Francisco” even though the content of first paragraph of the article indicated that the writer’s view was something very different, that NOT ALL of the cool offices are in SF.
For anyone who’s confused as to the difference, thank the Internet, the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind and your incompetent English teachers for the spread of faux-literacy. (A couple of Venn diagrams would clarify the differences, but there one would have to fall back on skills math teachers may or may not have imparted. *sigh*)
Oh, well, here’s one set of diagrams that can illustrate the difference, although there are other ways to do it. This is just the simplest, perhaps (Click on graphics for optimal size):
Of course, the gripe I give a bare outline of above is just the tip of the faux-literate iceberg. I had live almost six decades before I began hearing/reading subliterate morons saying/writing, “I wish I would have” instead of “I wish I had.” Did this sort of misuse of the conditional perfect just start being widely used as illiteracy (even among college graduates) has grown over the last few decades until it reached some sort of critical mass and spill over into public fora, or has it been there all along and just hidden from me because I had an exposure to people who were primarily a more literate bunch of folks?
*shrugs* Who knows. I certainly see much, much more of these things since the Internet has democratized publishing of all sorts of writing.
faux-literacy Well, what do you think it means, anyway? Lots of folks think they’re literate because other people have told them they are, accept them as literate and even pay them to write their subliterate crap. They think they are literate and others around them do, but what they write (or say) proves that they are not. The more they fake literacy and spread their subliterate, moronic screeds, the dumber public discourse becomes.
And they’re everywhere. Most prominent Mass MEdia Podpeople: condemned as faux-literates by the words they utter. Politicians, Academia Nut Fruitcakes, “Edumacators” and more: all spreading subliteracy via their public pretense of literacy.
The lowest common denominator is the measure of the best in our society.
Not sayin’ the title, but really?
. . . there’s enough (plural noun)s on the. . .
Linguistically innumerate. *gagamaggot* And,
“Ah.” He smiled, and even drunk as he was it was the kind of knowing, sarcastic smile that set my teeth on edge. “Jealousy.”
OK, I’ve not necessarily given enough context for the second, but people who use “jealousy” when they mean “envy” really set my teeth on edge. There’s a clear and useful distinction between the two that poorly-read folks seem all to have missed, and now subliterates are forcing their destruction of a useful distinction out of English. I just hate that.
So, as much as I’ve enjoyed the rest of the book to this point, if this sort of thing continues, I may end up putting this one down just because of the annoyance factor.
What? Oh, this article about the feds making those who unlock their dumb phones criminals. Sure, the info is pretty much useless to Olde Phartes like me who just use a cell phone to make calls (don’t try calling my cell phone, cos I won’t answer), but it’s interesting nonetheless.
Still, how many times can one read something like,
“There’s more than a few ways around this. . . “
. . . without gagging and searching for a way to dopeslap, then tar, feather and hang the author from the highest tree?
There ARE. . . ways, idiot. Count it out. Plural. Got it? (No. He can’t count and can’t parse a simple sentence in English. Typical Hiveminder.)
Continue reading “Apart From Innumeracy and Grammar Failures, Moderately Interesting. . .”