One of the worst parts of it is that Scooby Doo has had tons of successful series and they've all been pretty good. Yet they somehow managed to fuck this up despite it being an incredibly simple formula for a show.
It was never about Scooby Doo. IIRC, this was supposed to be an original show, but latching it to a successful 90s franchise must have looked like a sure money maker.
Edit: did some fact checking, this was a theory. The show actually was an unfortunate reimagining of Scooby Doo since its inception.
I don’t know. Seeing how modern shows like Foundation, The Witcher, or Star Trek Discovery, to name a few, have gratuitously walked over their own canon, I can understand how the producers thought Velma was a good idea for a new Scooby Doo show.
I think Discovery is a little different. They had way too many producers and writers on that show, all trying to get their little ideas in so when they moved onto a new project, they could get a sexy "By the creators of Star Trek" tagline on it. The situation Walter Mosley described when he left STD made the writer's room sound like a viper pit.
Foundation was so strange because it felt like the writers split into two isolated groups.
The team that was trying and failing to "reimagine" the original story, and the team the totally abandoned the original story and was doing their own thing with the clone emperors story.
Unlike other examples where the show felt like an existing story twisted into the framework of an unrelated franchise, Foundation felt like the clone emperors story came out of the talented writers getting frustrated by the quality of the adaption.
Holy cow, it’s a 70s franchise, but I misremembered, even though I watched dubs in the 80s! Technically it’s a 60s franchise because it was born in 1969.
The second season's arc is about uncovering what SCOOBY was within the show, and there were lots of goofy references to how silly the old cartoons were, and how silly cartoons are in general
FWIW I heard the show was extremely bad, and I had to see for myself.
It was okay, better than the shitty Netflix adult animations. The worst part of it was the Velma character, if they got rid of or changed her it would be better.
It's a formula very useful for a tone of engineering fields, electronic, mechanics, automatic control and probably a bunch more. I used it a tone in my early carrier, including the imaginary flavor.
My field (cryptography) is unlikely to run into this, despite having some advanced math. There's just not that much use for anything in 2D, and abstract algebra doesn't bother with things as mundane as "numbers".
When I started Chem engineering in college, it blew me away that like 80% of lab math and analisis was just using the linear equation everyone bitched and moaned about how useless it was in high-school.
Such an strange error. I'm not saying it's AI but here's my prompt:
Generate a picture of someone thinking and, to symbolize their thought process, show math symbols and equations around their head, these symbols have to include the quadratic formula
I'm guessing a typesetter was too lazy to add another textbox and although they knew how to type "√", didn't realize "²" is in Unicode too. They added a horizontal line as separate graphics to extend the square root symbol but only realized too late the whole thing is in a fraction: maybe someone reminded them and they misinterpreted the advice, or just decided not to split the text box to put the nominator higher.
Unicode isn't meant to replace all typesetting like LaTeX. For example, I can't make proper horizontal fractions (as opposed to slashed like ⅝ or ⁹⁄₁₆) that are normal in my part of the world because that would be too much scope creep. Even the TeX logo is not really doable (Markdown with ASCII: ^T^E^X^, Unicode ᵀᴇˣ).
An imperfect solution is adding ̅ U+0305 COMBINING OVERLINE above everything. For example, it does not sit at consistent height (√4̅a̅c̅) and Windows renders it incorrectly (centered to the right edge of the character, not its center).
This is how I'd render the numerator using Unicode only:
𝑏² ± √4̅𝑎̅𝑐̅
A correct Markdown interpreter can improve the look ogf the superscript:
𝑏^2^ ± √4̅𝑎̅𝑐̅
Nope, it looks like a basic vector graphics editor, think Inkscape, PowerPoint or whatever is built into their animation/effects software. They just used straight horizontal lines for the fraction and the bar of the square root.
My guess is they lost the typesetting in a copy/paste. If you copy superscript or the unusual +/- character into an animation tool that doesn't have the font or doesn't recognize the typesetting it will drop the character or convert it to the nearest ASCII. If you've ever copied and pasted something into an email and had the formatting mangled, that's like what happened here.
i enjoyed the Velma tv show immensely, its okay if you didn't, but people got really carried away with just how much they hate women the show, it's a cartoon, enjoy it or dont, don't act like Rome is burning before your eyes
good jokes, inclusive characters, queer people that don't die in the first episode, fun subversion of expectations, meta humour about tropes, a fun mystery, cancelled too soon, but there's still 30something episodes
it made me reasses how I felt about Mindy Kaling's work as a whole, turns out I had been caught up in the misogynistic whirlwind in the past, I've really enjoyed her older stuff upon revisiting it since seeing Velma
You gotta be trolling, right? I guarantee you "women" aren't the reason people disliked Velma. The Golden Girls ran for 7 seasons from 1985 to 1992, I personally really liked watching the reruns even in a seemingly random order.
The reason Velma upsets people because the entire show is meant to upset those people. It's not a real show. It's a shitpost that targets racial and sexual majority groups. I'm sure they could have made a show if they wanted to and instead they made a shitpost. It's got the same appeal to the people who like it as white hoods have to the clan.
I really enjoyed Velma. I didn't really care, but wanted to show it to my terminally offline wife to see her honest reaction and she loved it from the first scene and we continued watching it.
I feel for Velma. I am so bad at math that sometimes I go into a corner by myself so I can hide what I'm working on from my coworkers while I scribble down very complex maladaptive strategies I've learned to solve simple calculations.
I was making grits the other day. The can had instructions for 1 serving, and 4 servings. I didn't want 1 or 4, I wanted 2. So, I wrote a quick interpolation program on my Casio. Once I ran it, I realized 2 is just double of 1.
I feel like a number of the concepts in this infographic are loosely (if at all) defined. As in - they don't represent established concepts in education and they could have been made by a single party talking out their ass. Or maybe I just have dyscalculia.
I don't mean to discredit Dyscalculia as a thing. As a matter of fact, I transposed a bunch of numbers that I shouldn't have in high school math in spite of sound logic for how I went about the questions. I just have issue with the rest of the infographic being things you can identify with without them having a foundation in science. It tastes a little horoscopey.
Okay, but even if we assumed (x=b) to be a very small equivalence relation, it should appear in the denominator position to form an equivalence quotient.
Oh yeah was a bit sleepy and thought you could just put arbitrary expressions in the numerator instead of just the type.
But consider this: heterogeneous propositional equality type of types x and b under equivalence relation a, which is bound somewhere else in the aether that we can't see in the screenshot
Constructors of this equality type? No fucking clue but I'm sure there exist some to make the need for an equivalence relation make sense
If you told me the creator of that show didn't get the equation right because they had no idea what it was even called to look it up, I would believe you.
Do you have a truly universal method for quadratic expansion that is easier to remember and compute than the formula? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy quadratic expansion and always give it a few shots before resorting to the formula.
You start by dividing both sides by 2a, and then you can multiply both sides by 2a to get rid of the 2a's from both sides. Doing this will give you a sense of accomplishment whenever you don't know how to proceed.
93 Comments
mushroommunk@lemmy.today · 236 pts · 324d
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 170 pts · 324d
FWIW I heard the show was extremely bad, and I had to see for myself.
It is very, very bad.
Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works · 196 pts · 324d
glimse@lemmy.world · 72 pts · 324d
One of the worst parts of it is that Scooby Doo has had tons of successful series and they've all been pretty good. Yet they somehow managed to fuck this up despite it being an incredibly simple formula for a show.
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub · 39 pts · 324d
It was never about Scooby Doo. IIRC, this was supposed to be an original show, but latching it to a successful 90s franchise must have looked like a sure money maker.
Edit: did some fact checking, this was a theory. The show actually was an unfortunate reimagining of Scooby Doo since its inception.
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 324d
Regardless of what the official story is, that's probably what really happened. Same thing with the Halo tv show.
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub · 11 pts · 324d
I don’t know. Seeing how modern shows like Foundation, The Witcher, or Star Trek Discovery, to name a few, have gratuitously walked over their own canon, I can understand how the producers thought Velma was a good idea for a new Scooby Doo show.
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 324d
I think Discovery is a little different. They had way too many producers and writers on that show, all trying to get their little ideas in so when they moved onto a new project, they could get a sexy "By the creators of Star Trek" tagline on it. The situation Walter Mosley described when he left STD made the writer's room sound like a viper pit.
T156@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 324d
Plus the first two seasons basically had the producers get fired, and a new person brought in partway through.
That would be bad for any show.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 323d
Foundation was so strange because it felt like the writers split into two isolated groups.
The team that was trying and failing to "reimagine" the original story, and the team the totally abandoned the original story and was doing their own thing with the clone emperors story.
Unlike other examples where the show felt like an existing story twisted into the framework of an unrelated franchise, Foundation felt like the clone emperors story came out of the talented writers getting frustrated by the quality of the adaption.
philophilsaurus@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 323d
Scooby-doo is a 90s franchise now?
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 322d
Holy cow, it’s a 70s franchise, but I misremembered, even though I watched dubs in the 80s! Technically it’s a 60s franchise because it was born in 1969.
philophilsaurus@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 322d
That’s fair lol I was convinced A Pup Named Scooby-Doo was a 2000s show until like 5 years ago.
manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 323d
The second season's arc is about uncovering what SCOOBY was within the show, and there were lots of goofy references to how silly the old cartoons were, and how silly cartoons are in general
i enjoyed the Velma tv show immensely
Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 323d
That is legitimately the first time I've heard someone say something nice about the show.
missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de · 12 pts · 324d
it was designed as ragebait. but it failed even at that.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 2 pts · 324d
You're talking about it
Stamau123@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 323d
Not watching it tho
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 323d
FWIW I heard the show was extremely bad, and I had to see for myself.
It was okay, better than the shitty Netflix adult animations. The worst part of it was the Velma character, if they got rid of or changed her it would be better.
Starski@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 320d
Don't you be talking smack on my beloved haunted hotel
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 320d
Talking about the bad ones Big Mouth, The Prince, Paradise PD, etc.
Starski@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 320d
Fair
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 322d
they got rid of scooby doo
baines@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 323d
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=inJUFqeJehE
BodePlotHole@lemmy.world · 76 pts · 324d
A negative boy was unsure about a radical party.
The boy was a square, so he missed out on four awesome chicks.
And the whole thing was over by 2am...
guynamedzero@piefed.zeromedia.vip · 27 pts · 324d
This is beautiful, as a mathematics major it brought me to tears. I’ll be reading this at my wedding
chuckleslord@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 324d
I was just taught it to "pop goes the weasel".
pitaya@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 324d
Thanks
Ging@anarchist.nexus · 1 pts · 324d
Now we just need this in song form which is how I was taught lol
AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world · 46 pts · 324d
Coming from someone that memorized it in high school and hasn't used it since, I am enraged.
synapse1278@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 324d
It's a formula very useful for a tone of engineering fields, electronic, mechanics, automatic control and probably a bunch more. I used it a tone in my early carrier, including the imaginary flavor.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 11 pts · 323d
Yeah if your field uses anything beyond basic math this bitch is hiding somewhere
Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 323d
My field (cryptography) is unlikely to run into this, despite having some advanced math. There's just not that much use for anything in 2D, and abstract algebra doesn't bother with things as mundane as "numbers".
Mpatch@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 323d
When I started Chem engineering in college, it blew me away that like 80% of lab math and analisis was just using the linear equation everyone bitched and moaned about how useless it was in high-school.
drspawndisaster@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 323d
The fucking what flavor.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 323d
Tonne not tone < tonne is the measurement/a lot, whilst tone is sound
Flavour not flavor, you don’t want people thinking you’re a gross American.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 43 pts · 324d
I'm terrible at making math jokes, but I don't have any proofs.
Marz157@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 324d
Same here, but I'll suck it up and make one if I halve two.
hayvan@feddit.nl · 37 pts · 323d
When stupid people try to make a show about smart people.
stevedice@sh.itjust.works · 35 pts · 324d
Such an strange error. I'm not saying it's AI but here's my prompt:
Here's the pic:
m0stlyharmless@lemmy.zip · 30 pts · 324d
I suspect it’s an OCR error.
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org · 17 pts · 324d
I'm guessing a typesetter was too lazy to add another textbox and although they knew how to type "√", didn't realize "²" is in Unicode too. They added a horizontal line as separate graphics to extend the square root symbol but only realized too late the whole thing is in a fraction: maybe someone reminded them and they misinterpreted the advice, or just decided not to split the text box to put the nominator higher.
vaionko@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 323d
Can you even do that "proper" square root with unicode? Or is it always just that single character?
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org · 5 pts · 323d
Unicode isn't meant to replace all typesetting like LaTeX. For example, I can't make proper horizontal fractions (as opposed to slashed like ⅝ or ⁹⁄₁₆) that are normal in my part of the world because that would be too much scope creep. Even the TeX logo is not really doable (Markdown with ASCII: ^T^
E^X^, Unicode ᵀᴇˣ).An imperfect solution is adding
̅ U+0305 COMBINING OVERLINEabove everything. For example, it does not sit at consistent height (√4̅a̅c̅) and Windows renders it incorrectly (centered to the right edge of the character, not its center).This is how I'd render the numerator using Unicode only:
𝑏² ± √4̅𝑎̅𝑐̅
A correct Markdown interpreter can improve the look ogf the superscript:
𝑏^2^ ± √4̅𝑎̅𝑐̅
vaionko@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 323d
So they had to use something "fancier" like TeX so they must've known about suoerscriots and the like
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org · 1 pts · 323d
Nope, it looks like a basic vector graphics editor, think Inkscape, PowerPoint or whatever is built into their animation/effects software. They just used straight horizontal lines for the fraction and the bar of the square root.
stevedice@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 324d
That makes about a million times more sense
OpenStars@piefed.social · 6 pts · 323d
I stared at the square of the square root of the squared square root for far too long...
that I almost missed the obvious E = / * A. Where would the field of mathematics be without that good old E = / * A? :-D
stevedice@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 323d
Check out this bad boy.
OpenStars@piefed.social · 3 pts · 323d
It just gets better and better-er(-est?/-ish?)
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 324d
Did they use AI to generate that?
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 324d
Neural Network (bad one)
Corridor8031@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 324d
josephc@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 323d
My guess is they lost the typesetting in a copy/paste. If you copy superscript or the unusual +/- character into an animation tool that doesn't have the font or doesn't recognize the typesetting it will drop the character or convert it to the nearest ASCII. If you've ever copied and pasted something into an email and had the formatting mangled, that's like what happened here.
expatriado@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 324d
didn't get an animation job for the math skills
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 323d
Yeah. Those guys all work on Futurama.
taiyang@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 324d
... Why not just copy the meme they're referencing? It's like they're intentionally trying to screw this up.
manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 323d
i enjoyed the Velma tv show immensely, its okay if you didn't, but people got really carried away with just how much they hate
womenthe show, it's a cartoon, enjoy it or dont, don't act like Rome is burning before your eyesgood jokes, inclusive characters, queer people that don't die in the first episode, fun subversion of expectations, meta humour about tropes, a fun mystery, cancelled too soon, but there's still 30something episodes
it made me reasses how I felt about Mindy Kaling's work as a whole, turns out I had been caught up in the misogynistic whirlwind in the past, I've really enjoyed her older stuff upon revisiting it since seeing Velma
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 323d
You gotta be trolling, right? I guarantee you "women" aren't the reason people disliked Velma. The Golden Girls ran for 7 seasons from 1985 to 1992, I personally really liked watching the reruns even in a seemingly random order.
The reason Velma upsets people because the entire show is meant to upset those people. It's not a real show. It's a shitpost that targets racial and sexual majority groups. I'm sure they could have made a show if they wanted to and instead they made a shitpost. It's got the same appeal to the people who like it as white hoods have to the clan.
drspawndisaster@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 323d
I was a stupid ass teenager when it came out and people online convinced me it was the worst shit to ever grace any screen ever. Maybe I missed out.
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br · 2 pts · 323d
I really enjoyed Velma. I didn't really care, but wanted to show it to my terminally offline wife to see her honest reaction and she loved it from the first scene and we continued watching it.
individual@toast.ooo · 8 pts · 324d
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 323d
She’s in high school in the show.
individual@toast.ooo · 1 pts · 321d
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 321d
In year 2 of secondary we did it.
individual@toast.ooo · 1 pts · 320d
AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 323d
I feel for Velma. I am so bad at math that sometimes I go into a corner by myself so I can hide what I'm working on from my coworkers while I scribble down very complex maladaptive strategies I've learned to solve simple calculations.
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 4 pts · 323d
BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 323d
I was making grits the other day. The can had instructions for 1 serving, and 4 servings. I didn't want 1 or 4, I wanted 2. So, I wrote a quick interpolation program on my Casio. Once I ran it, I realized 2 is just double of 1.
AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 322d
I feel like a number of the concepts in this infographic are loosely (if at all) defined. As in - they don't represent established concepts in education and they could have been made by a single party talking out their ass. Or maybe I just have dyscalculia.
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 322d
AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 321d
I don't mean to discredit Dyscalculia as a thing. As a matter of fact, I transposed a bunch of numbers that I shouldn't have in high school math in spite of sound logic for how I went about the questions. I just have issue with the rest of the infographic being things you can identify with without them having a foundation in science. It tastes a little horoscopey.
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 320d
Gobbel2000@programming.dev · 7 pts · 324d
Wrong formula aside, what is the meaning of dividing an entire equation? (x = b) / a
Crazazy@feddit.nl · 8 pts · 324d
quotient equivalence under an equivalence relation "a" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotient_type
Gobbel2000@programming.dev · 2 pts · 324d
Okay, but even if we assumed (x=b) to be a very small equivalence relation, it should appear in the denominator position to form an equivalence quotient.
Crazazy@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 324d
Oh yeah was a bit sleepy and thought you could just put arbitrary expressions in the numerator instead of just the type.
But consider this: heterogeneous propositional equality type of types x and b under equivalence relation a, which is bound somewhere else in the aether that we can't see in the screenshot
Constructors of this equality type? No fucking clue but I'm sure there exist some to make the need for an equivalence relation make sense
Gobbel2000@programming.dev · 3 pts · 323d
You're probably on the right track. Every hunk of symbols is probably a valid type expression in some system. Including a square root type.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 324d
Animation software didn't have superscript, so no power ofs.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 323d
If you told me the creator of that show didn't get the equation right because they had no idea what it was even called to look it up, I would believe you.
ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 323d
The new Velma show gave birth to THE best fanmade animation about Scooby Doo https://youtu.be/inJUFqeJehE
So while I didn't enjoy the show, I'm grateful for it
BleatingZombie@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 324d
You know, I remember the formula, but I don't remember what a, b, and c are
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 324d
They're the coefficients of a quadratic equation! Y = ax^2 + bx + c
WolfLink@sh.itjust.works · 26 pts · 324d
0 = ax^2 + bx + c
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 324d
Oh true!
_cnt0@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 324d
They are all superfluous if you know how to do quadratic expansion.
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org · 2 pts · 324d
Do you have a truly universal method for quadratic expansion that is easier to remember and compute than the formula? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy quadratic expansion and always give it a few shots before resorting to the formula.
ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 323d
Why so... Negative? /s
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub · 0 pts · 324d
You ignoramus. This is what allows us artistic geniuses to freely unleash our gifts to the world, what we call “creative liberty”.
An insignificant thing like being wrong should not stop our creative juices from flowing unabashed.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 323d
You're not getting your deposit back if those creative juices soak in.
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 323d
On a sidenote, the rule 34 of her is top notch👌
FishFace@piefed.social · -18 pts · 324d
I mean maybe it's just some other formula
shoki@lemmy.world · 62 pts · 324d
I've never seen an equals sign inside a term
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 23 pts · 324d
It makes the term into a boolean ☝️🤓
OpenStars@piefed.social · 16 pts · 324d
I was trying to think what the funniest part was. I think it's the b2 - like just take your b2 vitamins bro, it's worth like squared a regular b.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 324d
As someone terrible at math, I appreciate the explanation for what's so wrong here.
marcos@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 324d
FishFace@piefed.social · 3 pts · 324d
Well I didn't spot that
Montagge@lemmy.zip · 25 pts · 324d
Are both sides being divided by 2a?
OpenStars@piefed.social · 10 pts · 324d
Those are questions that mere mortals would ask. Be better: just "vibe solve" it. :-P
stray@pawb.social · 3 pts · 324d
You start by dividing both sides by 2a, and then you can multiply both sides by 2a to get rid of the 2a's from both sides. Doing this will give you a sense of accomplishment whenever you don't know how to proceed.