There’s a grain of truth in here, but not quite. One in every four or so (not quite, but we can roll with it regardless) identified species of animal is a beetle. Not one in every four animals, by population nor overall species.
The reasons for this is are many, but may include because beetles are big, easy to catch, agriculturally-significant, and are particularly easy to pin and study, dramatically boosting the count of beetle species we work with on an academic level (lending to higher identification rates). There are also just a shitload of beetle species, naturally.
Scientists estimate something closer to ~10 million species of animals, which would still make beetles a huge percentage of the species, but a far cry from 25%. If you looked at the total number (estimated) of individual animals, beetles are pretty insignificant.
Source: Studied entomology and love me some Coleoptera
I check to see if I can put February 30th (less common of an error these days) on the oldest year they’ll let me. 29th if 30th isn’t an option and try to select a really old non leap year
People don’t want to change the status quo or inconvenience themselves slightly in any way for the greater good. People want a magic drop in replacement that magically “fixes/solves” the environmental crisis and allows life to continue on as is. (So they don’t have to take “yucky” public transit)
What really needs to be known though is life has to somewhat drastically change so we can make the world a healthier place for generations to come in the future.
You’re being downvoted because you’re right. I’ve had people argue that EVs still aren’t a good alternative because they may require a bit more effort every once in a while. Like, charging for 30 minutes at a charger on a long road trip vs just gassing up. Other than that they are pretty much a drop in alternative and people still balk at them.
Then trying to get them to use public transit instead? Doesn’t even matter if it’s more convenient, they’re stuck in their ways and will refuse to change ever.
Get out of your ruts people. Just because “this is the way things are” doesn’t mean it’s the best way. Ffs the amount of midwesterners who come to my city to visit and think we’re being “unsafe” by using the train, just get out of your mindsets.
What’s kinda funny is we already have a mode of public transit almost everybody, even those who drive everywhere, use: elevators. Buses, trains, etc. are only seen as “yucky” because most people (at least in America) don’t use them and refuse to spend their tax dollars on them, leaving them to be used primarily by the poor and desperate. But when you have public transit that is used by everybody, like elevators, you find they’re well-funded and well-kept, and absolutely no one will bat an eye about having to use it.
It really boils down to 2 things. First is the obvious comfort, they think it’s more comfortable to be in a car. But that is broken down with traffic. You bring up traffic and they’ll complain for hours about it.
Second is fear. They won’t admit it but they’re just terrified because they just hear of the big bad city and think stepping on a train is a one way ticket to getting stabbed, while never having any real knowledge of what it’s like.
Commuted for a decade - never got stabbed, but got mugged a number of times. My parents told me repeatedly how fantastic catching the tram, train, bus etc. was - they loved catching it in on a Sunday at 11am and leaving around 2pm. They never did the 8am rush hour crunch or 6pm post-school commute. Public transport can be as fancy as you like, but if you need to travel via a rough area and the transport lacks security…
So what’s the solution for people like me that live 10 miles from the closest shop, 15 miles from the kids schools and 10 miles to the closest train station and we have no bus services that serve the village?
Vote to allow more dense, mixed-use, transit-oriented development as well as more and better public transit. In many cases there’s a chicken-and-egg problem of NIMBYs blocking new, denser development because of fears of bringing too much traffic, but the public transit that would allay those fears isn’t built because there’s not enough density.
And so what happens is places get stuck in a trap of perpetual car-dependence, which is bad for the environment, bad for the economy, and bad for social equality (cars are super expensive and thus a particular burden on lower income folks, and many people with disabilities simply can’t drive).
The only way to break the cycle is for people to recognize what’s happening and intentionally vote their way out of it.
“Vote to allow more dense, mixed-use, transit-oriented development as well as more and better public transit.”
But I don’t want that. My neighborhood is great, and I don’t want to turn it into my local small city or my local big city. Plus, what you’re describing is very expensive, and taxes are already high.
Well either you could move to a different location if you want to, convince your community and local politicians to build better infrastructure, or realize that you are a minority, an edge case that usually is not adressed in these talks because a few people in remote locations using a car doesn’t hurt if we could get rid of car dependency in densely populated areas where the vast majority of humans live.
On bike those distance are fine. Ebikes exist also. Either way I’d rather life and society adjusted itself to a slower commute than the danger and depression of car based transportation infrastructure. I used to ride my hike one hour to get groceries and an hour back. Those who are disabled can ride the bus and train. A lot of changes need to be made. Infrastructure and people need to change. I’d rather have a car free safe road for walking and riding my bike. We will all live longer to just from exercise and safer travel in general.
I’m convinced a lot of the fuck car people are people in their 20s with no kids who live in the city where they can heavily rely on good public transport and not have a need to travel too far.
I totally get the sentiment but it’s just not practical for a lot of us. To get people away from cars the local authority would need to practically fill the roads with small extremely regular buses that go all over the place. You’d never wait more than a couple of minutes outside your house for a bus to arrive to go somewhere.
Yeah, society, as it is now, is designed around cars. That’s kind of the entire point of the fuck cars idea. We shouldn’t have built our society with the assumption that everyone should need a car, and we should start transitioning towards something more efficient and sustainable.
In some cities, e.g. Vienna, public transport already beats cars. For playing your own music I have some mid/low-range noise cancelling and can watch movies
My perspective is that the “basic” people can’t wait to bring up how much they despise IPAs and without a single exception the reason is always “they’re just SO hoppy!!!”
Which is exactly why I think it’s an unnecessary and boring thing to talk about. If someone asks them, they should just say no I don’t like it. Instead they volunteer the information and emphatically state the reason as though it’s a surprise or unique in some way
They’re probably just trying to be helpful, you know… You sound very aggravated about them simply stating a preference and the reason for said preference.
If someone were for example to offer you an overly sweet type of confection or cake, wouldn’t you similarly answer “no thanks, too sweet for my taste?”
No one is offering them an IPA or asking their opinion. You seem like maybe you’re one of these people? Since you’re ignoring what I wrote. They volunteer the information and then harp on it. I have heard this since I started drinking IPAs in like 2012. Ok we get it, you all hate my beer. I’m not talking shit about their awful sour beers or whatever, I keep it to myself unless asked.
Nope, I’m not “one of those”. While I too don’t like beers to be too hoppy, it’s not something I go out of my way to tell people like some crazed stereotypical vegan 🤷
I can see how that would get annoying in the long run though and I’m 💯 with you on sour beers lol. Second worst beer I ever tasted was a gose and the worst wasn’t an IPA either lol
Yeah it definitely gets annoying. It’s at the point where if I’m drinking with 3 new people, I expect at least one person to ask what I got and if it’s an IPA tell me how much they don’t like it. It’s been going on so long and it’s uncanny how often it happens…
I’ve tried sour beers and usually they are god-awful. I think I had a drinkable one once. I mention them here though because it also feels like a trend that the same haters of my beer will often be drinking a sour beer lol. In my head I’m like “welp your opinion is confirmed completely unreliable on all beer”
I heard a real-world explanation about why IPAs are the most common and commonly-sought craft beer. Half the reasons are unflattering, but a few are valid.
They’re harder to fuck up because the Hops covers every damn thing and is so forgiving. Ever heard a cooking show talk about how hard a perfect Filet Mignon is because you can’t hide behind anything and everyone knows what it should taste like? Ditto with a good red ale or even pilsner.
Similarly, nobody is known for their signature Filet Mignon because (within reason) a filet is a filet. Ditto with most types of beers. IPAs give opportunity for a lot more variety. Which is why you have more breweries making them, and then more people consuming them. I go out of my way to find non-MGP whiskey because MGP whiskies all taste the damn same to me, and I usually find a couple unique bottles every year. I can respect someone who wants to try a totally new beer every week and just fall back on a few faves.
Related again to #2. Beyond being “SO hoppy”, IPAs have more unique flavor profiles than all other beers combined. Different hops can net you notes of orange, lemon, grapefruit, or notes of the pith of one of those, or notes of the rind of one of those. Different amounts or processing of hops can give you different intensities of those. That’s a lot of flavor profiles from sweet to sour to bitter, all in the same category.
So I’m “basic” nowadays re: beer, and I despise IPAs because I literally cannot stand the bitter&pithy ones (esp Grapefruit Pith), and there’s no easy way to know what an IPA will taste like till you’ve paid for it and cracked it open. I also get reflux and nothing blows that shit out of the water like an IPA. There’s a hops shop down the street from me, but if I’m going to brew a beer (super rare, I usually make whiskey or mead) it’s gonna be something will a chill flavor profile.
there’s no way to know what an IPA will taste like before you crack it open
That’s why I like brewers that publish their hops. I’m the opposite of you, I live for the citrusy, fruity type of hops and despise the more traditional floral/piney strains. If I see simcoe on the bill I’ll go to bed sober, but if you’ve got Willamette or Cascade I’ll make tea from them.
Stands for India Pale Ale. i was originally told they used to brew stronger beer to make it last the long trip to India before refrigeration was a thing.
So it tends to be higher ABV and more bitter or hoppy to go with the higher alcohol content.
The hop part is a bit more interesting. The strong beers of the time weren’t enough to keep the beer from getting infected. However, hops are a natural preservative. The oils have antibiotic properties. They were initially used as a preservative for weak British ales and the taste was a side effect but not necessarily the desired effect. When they had trouble shipping their beers across the world, they would pack the beer full of hops so it would make the trip. Eventually, Brits in India developed a taste for the bitter beer that was shipped to them and a beer style was born.
This is my shower. It has 12 heads and consumes ten thousand gallons of deionized water per minute. It costs four hundred thousand dollars to use this shower… for twelve seconds.
Tankless water heater baby. But lemme tell ya what it would BLOW to take a shower in that without power. A cold shower is rough enough without 11 extra heads blasting you.
What I never quite understand/know is where internet based services land. If I run a cloud based storage company / web design company or such, the servers are on my personal property and therefore should be considered allowed. Where does that start becoming non “personal.”
It’s like charging someone to park their ideas/data on my personal property. Which I imagine would be considered private property instead. Where is the nuanced line?
We’re communicating using the fediverse. I can use my own private instance to connect, but in my case I am using a “collective” instance. While capitalism sees the Lemmy Blahaj as a “private enterprise”, it is functionally more akin to a free associative collective where members can take their content with them.
I would say part of the confusion is because our technology has evolved in a capitalist context, collectivism isn’t the default state of being so the solutions made cater towards (corporate) private ownership.
IDK, maybe we could decide such things similar to how we’re having this conversation and we’re able to upvote on what’s being said. Totally unprecedented I know.
Socialism is when you don’t have to do alienated work. And when noone else has to. Of course the productivity will be higher if you share the means of production with others. But it’s perfectly fine to work on your own too and harvest the fruit of your work. As you know, nobody gets rich by his own hands work, but you can get along. Capitalist exploitation starts when other people work for you and when you take the added value for your own benefits.
You’re getting a lot of flak (rightly), but I figured I’d actually give you a right definition so this can be a growing opportunity: If you own a resource and you use that resource to produce profit, that resource is private property. If you’re not making profit, it’s only personal property. Farm for your family? Personal property. Farm where you give the output to your community? Personal property. Farm where you sell the yields? Private property.
Yes, exploitable land can be owned by an individual in a socialist economy. If you’re growing food for your family, then that’s just one family the state doesn’t have to feed. If you’re growing food for your community, then that’s several mouths the state doesn’t have to feed. If you’re hoarding or selling food (or in one very famous historical case, burning it out of spite), then you are monopolizing a resource that could be feeding people, and the state will intervene, whether by buying your land back from you, taking it from you, liquidating you as a class, or some other solution to be determined by the state in question - there is no one size fits all blueprint to socialism.
I know I was being snarky, but I do appreciate the context. The monopolizing bit clarifies it for me as something that you may own but if found to be monopolizing the resource to a detriment of the community, that is not acceptable. So “own” isn’t really used here to mean entitled to, but something that you may possess as an appropriation while acting in good faith.
Yes, people who burn food during a famine should be rehabilitated, and prisons were the method (that doesn’t work) that people thought was effective to that end at the time.
After millions of people had already starved to death. A minor but necessary bump in the road toward industrialization, I’m sure.
It wasn’t necessary. They could have foreseen the need for an independent commission to verify the numbers that local officials were reporting. They could have cracked down harder on sabotage of planting and harvesting and the mass slaughter of livestock by kulaks.
Industrialization was necessary. If they didn’t push hard for industrialization we might all be speaking German right now. They cut it close to the wire and the mistakes that they made resulted in mass suffering. But there were no more famines with the exception of post ww2 after that famine, in an area that previously frequently had famines, because collectivization worked once the kinks were worked out.
I’ve read Trot stuff and found their arguments unconvincing in this context. Global proletarian revolution is something we all have to exercise agency over, if youre in the soviet union you can’t just rely on everyone else spontaneously uprising, you have to plan for that not happening. And it didn’t happen, so…
You’re right, it’s so fucked up that Stalin stole all those poor Kulaks’ grain and put it in a big swimming pool so that he and his cabinet could swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck.
The soviets took enough grain from Ukrainian peasants to induce widespread hunger and death. But let’s blame 1% of the peasantry who had already liquidated as a class.
I literally said “liquidating you as a class” as a possible retaliation. “Gulags” is not a gotcha, if you hoard or destroy food during a famine you are committing murder and you need to be stopped for the good of society.
By the way, the US prison population today is higher than the Gulag population of the entire Soviet Union at its peak. I’d sure as hell rather see gulags full of reactionaries and food-burners than full of drug users and the chronically unemployed. I’m curious, why do you prefer the latter?
By the way, the US prison population today is higher than the Gulag population of the entire Soviet Union at its peak.
Well being worked to death and/or being strait up shot tends to keep those numbers down. And how many of those “hoarders” were quite literally starving but they had a tiny bit on hand? And how many more were in there for “anti-soviet behavior” instead of anything related to hoarding or destroying food.
“Gulags” is not a gotcha
Gulags, concentration camps and the like are definitely a “gotcha” as much as a “gatcha” can exist.
Want to add on that there is another distinction which I think is slightly more accurate. Personal property only denies use to others through the details of use by the owner, private property prevents others from using resources that the person using the property isn’t directly using through threats of violence.
Wrong. Personal property is owned by an individual person. Private property is owned by corporations/ capital. It’s impossible for one to magically change into the other.
In one of the bathrooms at my workplace, the light timer used to be far too short. It reacted to sound, but not very well, so whenever it switched off, you’d hear me clapping my hands like a dumbass.
Then one day, I had a co-sitting with another guy. And of course, the light went out on us. I was already thinking, great, now I’ll get to applaud that guy shitting.
But instead, the guy lifted his leg, stomped a single time and the light went back on. That was the day I learnt that I’m a rookie at pooping.
So you’ll occasionally see two white lines perpendicular to the road at a set internal. A helicopter, drone, or plane can time when a car passes both of these lines and can calculate the average speed of the car.
This info is then relayed to a police car on the ground who then pulls over the driver.
Less likely to be noticed by drivers or alerts like on Waze. Probably a bit more costly though if they’re using helicopters or planes instead of drones.
Dihydrogen monoxide isn't a good name for water, especially in this context. Hydroxic acid or hydrogen hydroxide make much more sense.
Water only splits into O2 and H2 under electrolysis, not due to acid/base chemistry. You have to be actively adding electrons. In solution, it dissociates into ion states as protons H+ and hydroxide OH-.
Hydrogen Hydroxide
Water.
Specifically, water reacting as a base. When reacting as an acid its systematic name is Hydroxic Acid.
Oddly enough, water can be considered a molecule (H2O), or an ion group (H+ and OH-). Once I got that through my skull, the whole acid/base mess got much clearer.
Water is the most common substance that can be either an acid or a base (on earth), but lots of other compounds are also amphoteric.
In fact, on other planets where ammonia fills the same role as water, ammonia would be the most common amphoteric substance, so most solutions would be in a liquid ammonia solvent. This means neutral pH on those planets would substantially higher!
K_w is the auto dissociation constant for water, and at room temp, K_w is about 10^(-14). Taking the negative log of the square root of K_w gives the pH of pure water of about 7. The auto dissociation constant of ammonia, however, is about 10^(-30), so the pH of pure liquid ammonia is about 15! Basically, as soon as we start using solvents other than water, pH gets really funky
Edit: and before anyone jumps in to say “ack-shully, pH is based on the concentration of hydronium ions in solution, so you can’t use pH for systems based on solvents other than water,” pH can also be considered to be based on the protonated form of whatever the solvent is. So in an ammonia-based solution, you would find the pH by taking the negative log of ammonium instead of hydronium. Instead of defining pH as
pH = -log [H_3 O^(+)]
A more universal definition would be
pH = -log [H_2 A^(+)]
Where the auto dissociation reaction of any amphoteric solvent can be written as
HA + HA -> H_2 A^(+) + A^(-)
This is more detail than most people care about, but there’s always lurking pedants on the Internet, so I thought I would leave a more detailed explanation
I knew that other planets had other chemicals as the most abondant substance on them but it being replacing water is something i never knew. Perhaps, aliens are sipping ammonia based cola as we speak !
Care to explain the neutral PH thing ? I don’t really understand it. Does it mean ammonia based liquids wan to stabilize to 15 PH or something like that.
Sorry if it sounds dumb, English isn’t my native language and i wasn’t really a science guy at school when kid. Now, everything fascinates me. I never was good with math but i saw its beauty in programming ( if we taught kids math by making games with it we’d have a whole generation of math lovers )
Not dumb at all! In order to not write an even bigger wall of text, I assumed some things, like everyone already knowing that in water, a pH of 7 is considered neutral. This is because that solution would have an equal amount of acidic ions and basic ions, each with a concentration of approximately 10^(-7) moles per liter. But with a different solvent like ammonia, the change in auto dissociation constant means that to get an equal number of acidic and basic ions, you would only need a concentration of 10^(-15) moles per liter.
So, it would change a lot of the standard practices in a lab, like making buffers, neutralizing solutions, etc. Since it’s Saturday and I’m doing this all off the top of my head, I don’t know what other implications there might be, but basically a lot of things that chemists and biochemists take for granted would need to recalculated. Acids would be more acidic, bases more basic, etc. In ammonia, even water would be a fairly strong acid!
The chemistry doesn’t really change, but a lot of the standard practices would need to be done differently (including the way we make buffers, measure pH, and the range of pH that a solution could be).
I knew water have a pH of 7 and is neutral and after reading your response i very very vaguely remember our teacher telling explaining what pH meant in middle school but a reminder was definitely needed. The rest is extremely interesting so Again, a huge thank you !!!
I’ll likely go read about chemistry for dummies because i feel a bit ashamed of my limited knowledge with basic chemistry.
No need to get ashamed! Lots of people had bad experiences in chemistry classes at a young age and don’t remember much beyond “it was hard, it didn’t make sense, and I was really bad at it.” So, you’re in good company!
This is at least partly because chemistry was traditionally a “weed out” class, meaning it was used to determine whether people “had what it takes” to succeed in the sciences. As a result it was usually taught in a way that made it harder than it needs to be and a lot of people decided not to pursue STEM careers/education because chemistry felt too hard. But lots of times , it felt too hard just because it was taught poorly (on purpose).
Basically, don’t be afraid to get back into chemistry! Even though I’m in chemistry education, I don’t really have any great book recs for someone starting from scratch, as I’d want to recommend a textbook that’s not necessarily easy to work through in your own. However, The Poisoner’s Handbook by Deborah Blum and Uncle Tungsten by Oliver Sacks are both really fun to read and relatively accessible. To get more of a well rounded, academic understanding I would highly recommend taking a class at a local college (community college if you’re in the US, to keep the cost down, but there are probably similar options in other countries). It would be more work and deadlines, but trying to educate yourself about this stuff can be really hard and intimidating, and if you take a class, you’ll be much more likely to stick with it and get something out of it.
Thanks for the books recommendation. Where i live, I don’t think there’s any way to learn chemistry at a school other than going to middle school again, which I doubt I’d be even allowed.
There’s probably a book or an app that can teach the basics of chemistry. Most people i know are so illiterate about chemistry that they mix household products and create toxic gases.
Well, my grad school research used quantum mechanical calculations to predict physical properties of chemicals, so it fits for me ;)
Plus, as long as I have to teach first years the Bohr model, I figure chemistry can claim him as an honorary chemist. After all, what is chemistry but applied physics? Relevant xkcd: “Purity of the field”
Also I’m learning French and everything has a gender but I don’t see any pattern to it at all. Pizza is female, books are male, a suitcase is female, hats are male and so on.
Also in French, the names of numbers go absolutely mental once you go above about 50. That’s got nothing to do with gender but I want to complain it whenever I can.
Correct, all diminutives are neuter in German. In this instance the base word is die Magd (historically the maiden, nowadays the maid), which is grammatically female.
Ah, yes the famous quatre-vingt-dix-neuf (commonly pronounced "quatre-vingt-deez-nuts"). Numbers are quite a mouthful in French. One of the reasons I erased it from my memory the moment I didn't need it no more.
Eleven through nineteen do not follow the same naming convention that the twentys, thirtys, forties and so on do. For example, fifty one, fifty two… Instead of eleven it should be tenty one. The pattern should match.
Mädchen is a diminutive, and all diminutives are grammatically neutral.
It’s the same in Dutch btw, and my girlfriend who is learning Dutch is frequently abusing this as a cheat code: whenever she doesn’t know the gender of a word, she’ll just use the diminutive and it will automatically be neutral.
So french is just like portuguese, but in portuguese you normally know if something is male or female by the ending of the words (with a feel exceptions), for example pizza is female because ends with “a”
But French is so hard to find rules about that compared to say Spanish.
English
French
Spanish
?
a mouse
une souris
el raton / el mouse
so in French “-is” is a female ending?
a mouse pad
un tapis de souris
una afombrilla de mouse
no, tapis is male, even if souris is female
a cable
un câble
un cable
ok, if it ends in “e” it’s male?
an icon
un icône
un icono
yes, ends in “e” it’s male!
the memory
la memoire
la memoria
no, ends in “e” it’s female!
Spanish is much simpler: ends in ‘a’ it’s mostly female (except stupid poema, and a few others), ends in ‘o’ it’s male (except foto, and a few others). If there’s a rule to French I don’t know it, and none of my French teachers knew it. If you’re French, you just grow up learning which words are male and which are female, so French speakers just naturally know and can’t explain it.
Yeah, there are quite a lot of exceptions but “-e is female, otherwise is male” works most of the time. Then if you want to be more precise you can remember some generic exceptions like -age, -isme are male and -tion, -té is female. You’ll still have some exceptions like une souris, une vis, une dent, un câble, un graphe, un cône, une image (exception to the exception) but it probably works in about 80-90% of cases.
This always confused me, even as a native speaker so I looked it up some. Ultimately it’s because modern German is the confluence of multiple older, historic languages one of which came from a tree with a strict male/female rule for nouns while the other one’s grammar defaulted to a neutral case.
As languages merge or adopt from others they often becomes a conjoined mess of multiple rules coexisting at the same time. A contemporary example is that in English the plural of a word is usually formed by attaching the suffix “s” to the singular form, aka house becomes houses. However there’s plenty of exceptions (mouse, mice) in particular if the words stem from a different language (octopus, octopi but nowadays octotuses is also acceptable). In that sense to people not privy to the etymology of words and who only study/learn the language per se there would be no perfectly accurate mechanism to predict the plural of a word.
That’s a misrepresentation of old English. Man used to be neutral, and was modified by were and wif respectively for man and woman. Wife comes from woman, not the other way around.
German is so weird. They came up with the concept of a neutral gender, but objects that obviously have no real gender (tables, boxes, sunglasses) don’t use neuter.
Like, what’s the process when they create a new word.
I’m really curious what the process for it forming was like too but just gonna put it out there that gender in language generally has more to do with tracking what the word is than literally thinking stuff has gender. Originally there was a proposal to call it left and right to make it clear that it’s just a split.
Because we already had a word for “computer” (literally: calculator) which had the male article so when we started using the English word “computer” we kept the article :)
Mostly yes, but a few gendered languages (Wikipedia lists the Yeniseian and most Dravidian languages, Dizi and Zande) use strict semantic criteria, so that the grammatical gender does correlate strictly with the actual gender 99% of the time.
French here. If you learn in Belgium or Switzerland, they have “septante” and “nonante” for 70 and 90.
It’s for sure more intuitive, but you have to admit that saying “four-twenty-twelve” (non-french speakers: that’s literal translation for 92) is sooooo cool!
They want you to hand copy what ChatGPT outputs and turn it in? That’s a terrible response to AI. If they want to hold you accountable, they should have you write it right there in front of them.
This has nothing to do with work from home policies. I also don’t know how to approach the concept that completing schoolwork in school is “in person surveillance” and not just “schoolwork”
It’s like (lack of) work from home politicies in that it’s forcing people to do things a specific way in a specific place even though it’s much less convenient AND much less efficient.
It’s in person surveillance because “right in front of” implies physical proximity where the teacher is watching, making some students unnecessarily anxious.
I get that you probably grew up in a more primitive time where such methods were the norm, but things change as society progresses and your industrial age solution to an information age challenge is likely to cause a lot more harm than good, if it even does good at all.
He thinks AI should do all the thinking for him and he should be able to take all of the credit, so he doesn’t have to learn anything. Ignorance is something to strive for to these people because ignorance = less work.
I said you think, and you do. Anyone who advocates allowing young people to let AI do their schoolwork for them thinks that way. All your arguments point to letting people do such, therefore that’s what you want and what you think. I am an adult who actually paid attention in school and I can read context of conversations… You’re not getting anything past me.
First of all, I never once advocated for AI to do homework for people. On the contrary.
Second of all, even if I had, you don’t have the amazing mind reading powers you seem to ascribe to yourself.
I’m an adult who actually paid attention in school too. Guess the difference is that I didn’t STOP paying attention and developing my view of our ever-changing world the moment I left school like you seem to have done.
I think students ONLY demonstrating their knowledge in class and being forced to do work that would be better accomplished elsewhere is primitive, yes.
I think school should take advantage of modern technology such as computers and the internet without letting doing the pseudo-plagiarism of having GPT do everything. Enforcement of the latter doesn’t necessitate going back to how things were done in the 80s and earlier.
You said “Schools should use technology; students shouldn’t use ChatGPT,” but this is devoid of actual ideas on how to address what we’re talking about
If absolutely necessary, you could install software that detects and blocks ChatGPT. It’s probably already available. You don’t have to go back to the stone age every time a new technology poses potential problems.
Ever hear of hyperbolic expressions? I was using one of those.
Basic isn’t always best, especially when “back to basics” is outdated and impractical methods that unnecessarily favor some students over others by rejecting valuable tools and methods that will be crucial for life after school.
First of all, we were talking about homework. By definition you don’t waste instruction time doing that in class. Second, you were insisting on it being handwritten as if it’s the 80s or earlier.
Just give it a rest with the reactionary backwards reform ideas, grandpa.
If a teacher needs to evaluate a student’s level of comprehension, they have students demonstrate their level of comprehension in class, I just don’t get what you think is a “reactionary backwards reform(?) idea.” Homework itself is largely an outdated and “primitive” teaching method that has shown to be counterproductive to student well-being and learning when applied indiscriminately. I never said anything about hand writing, the word “to write” means “to set down in writing.” Of course students could and should type their work lol
But why would you? You should be able to use any sources you want to learn whenever you want, just be prepared for the exam. I wrote hundreds useless homeworks like this in middle school and I remember nothing from most of them.
Because participating in life means you have to know things, not Google.
If you won’t, we’ll just use Google and save money by not even hiring you. If you can do it with an AI, so can we, so we don’t need you. It’s as simple as that.
You won’t be prepared for the exam unless you actually do the work ahead of time. That may not be immediately true in middle school, but it’s definitely true by the time you get to upper division undergrad coursework, at least if you’re in a competitive program. You really are only selling yourself short in terms of being competitive at the next level.
This is even more true in grad school where you are expected to produce twice as much in half the time.
Never said anything of the sort. That’s your own uncreative view of the world refusing to see any alternative to how things were done back when they didn’t have the technology we have today.
Ok, so hand copy all your assignments from ChatGPT all semester and I, the instructor, will count them as 50 percent of your final grade. The other 50 percent is based on a hand-written final essay written in class. How do you think you will do?
I am old so all of my formal university education was completed decades ago, but people cheated back then too and in my experience it’s usually way more effort than it’s worth as opposed to just doing the work and coming out with the skills you’ll need to be successful at the next level.
That’s my dreary little bit of moralizing for the day.
Sounds like a disability act lawsuit waiting to happen tbh. Some of us have very poor fine motor skills or worse and would be severely disadvantaged by having to do even short hand written assignments…
If someone actually had a disability, they wouldn’t have to do it or would be given other accommodations. That’s basically how it was for thousands of years before people had word processors.
Yeah, except many schools don’t have the tools to properly do such accommodation, meaning that the students with disabilities are inevitably left behind.
Especially the ones like me with hard to detect disabilities such as ADHD who would have to fight tooth and nail to get their disability acknowledged in the first place and then to convince them of the fact that ADHD, while being mainly mental, DOES significantly impair fine motor skills used for hand writing.
Lemmy accidentally deleted my comment right before I was going to post it, I had to rewrite it.
I’ve fought for years to get accommodations that I was legally obligated to, (504 Plan) fought with a school, (they were actively refusing to give accommodations, illegally) for 3 years, before giving up and switching schools.
The next couple of schools I tried were not well equipped to provide accommodations, albeit not malicious, (in one case not telling anyone until two months in)
Even after I finally got what I was legally owed, I still had to put up with often writing assignments by hand, (I have fine motor coordination disorder, as the commenter above mentioned), including an entire test. (One of the end of year ones for my sophomore year)
I also have CAPD, which allowed me to skip taking Spanish class, after two years of fighting for it. (I failed the first year of Spanish for obvious reasons, I had to retake it the next year.) (This was at the first school, I don’t know why I was able to get this accommodation but not the others, I was in middle school)
Fun fact, fine motor skills are taught differently in different countries. In some countries, children spend a considerable time improving their writing skills and even the less gifted reach a reasonable level. Of course, I am not talking about children with central nervous system or physical disabilities.
Also, spending so much time on fine motor skills reduces their ability to work in other, somewhat more relevant skills.
I’m not talking about students who haven’t done their cursive exercises, I’m talking about students with disabilities making hand writing inherently much more difficult than for other students, especially the ones who’d have to fight tooth and nail to prove it because their handicap is generally thought to be “only mental” in spite of being more complex, like ADHD.
Germany traditionally is quite shocking in their practice of segregating children with disabilities into special Förderschulen. Whereas the U.S. has the Individual’s with Disabilities Education Act since the 1970s, Germany was basically forced into integration recently after the country signed the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009. And even then, they are taking their sweet time to integrate. See e.g. aktion-mensch.de/…/inklusionsquoten-in-deutschlan… as how currently, slightly less than half of German students with disabilities go to a regular school (the Inklusionsanteil).
As soon as we get interchangeable genitals no one will give a fuck about the gender wars anymore haha. Like come on, can’t tell me you wouldn’t try a vagina on, even the most bigoted bastards must think about it.
And as I found out in this thread, you can also adjust the handwriting. That’s cool. But in the picture, the writing looks so artificial that the person could have used a normal printer.
I use it mostly to print drawings onto birthday cards.
(btw, I totally agree that OPs results are far from look handwritten; just wanted to stand in for some benefits of plotting in general. If I would try what op does I guess I would try things very differently)
Most modern “plotters” are just bigass printers. The word used to only mean pen-based vector-drawing machines, but the overlapping use in architechture and engineering meant that as cheap inkjets supplanted the pen plotters they co-opted the name.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.