Okay look, some of the math I do on a daily basis is like 5 levels above basic addition (it looks like I've written a whole ass sentences of gibberish) but like what if they changed it? I'd rather be sure that 2+2 still equals 4 than be wrong and the thing I'm working on ends up making expensive sounds.
There's also just removing the cognitive load of having to process this information. You're allowed to look up the answer (that's what a calculator and the slide rule do).
Using the tools you have to speed up your work doesn't make you a worse engineer than those in the past. You're building off their work so you don't have to constantly literally reinvent the wheel.
Yoy can use 2 normal rules to add/rest 2 numbers, but you can't do it in a slide rule with its logarithm scales.
But luckily there are solutions out there
The issue is that the floor on confidence in knowledge is now basically nothing.
Why is it that 8th graders in 1990 could do solid algebra and polynomials on paper and not need help? Nothing about the math has changed.
Slide rules do not do basic math, that's a poor comparison. People that did higher math on slide rules only used it for part of the problem dealing with logarithms, and that was a shorthand for larger approximation tables in books. That's necessary help. Solving for 2+2 is not. That's for little children that count on their fingers. If you're not in the "WTF?" camp, you're part of the problem.
Difficulty performing mental arithmetic doesn't necessarily correlate with poor overall intelligence or inability to grasp higher math concepts. In a world where we all have calculators in our pockets, there is no reason to bar someone from studies or a career involving higher mathematics simply for being neurologically atypical, nor to shame them for whichever coping strategies allow them to perform.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the most basic of math should be as basic as reading. Something that anyone can do themselves.
Do you honestly think that for the rest of your life every moment will let a calculator or ChatGPT help you have every interaction you have? People are perfectly capable of basic math.
I'm not confident you're participating in good faith here but, on the off-chance you are; I'm not sure I take your point.
Can you substantiate your initial claim? "The floor on confidence in knowledge is now basically nothing" seems too broad a statement to meaningfully defend.
Even if we assume you're talking about US 8th graders you'll have to be more specific. The US has seen degraded academic performance across the board but the degree varies by State (and often again by County).
What's "necessary help" is up for debate as well. There's a hint of something I can agree with here though. I do agree that, for certain vocations, it's important for individuals to have firm graps on the fundamentals. Programmers ought to be able to code without IDEs and Mathematicians work problems without calculators. I don't agree that the common use of good tools by those professionals results in the brain-drain bogeyman you seem to be shadow boxing.
Being alarmed, I suppose, would be the subjective assessment that this isn't too far off from all the cognitive decline correlated to excessive use of AI. It's an extrapolation, sure, but similar.
It's lovely to think that a phone will always be right on us all, for the rest of our lives. IRL, shit happens. Sometimes people just dug a calf out of a pond, their phone got soaked, and they still need to divide 250 lbs of fertilizer by 10 barrels and not be seized by indecision because there's not a cell phone around.
Based on the foundational principles of mathematics, 2 + 1 = 3 because it represents combining a set of two items with a set of one item, resulting in a new set containing a total of three items.
Here is a more detailed breakdown:
Understanding the Numbers
1 (One): This is the basic unit, representing a single object or item. Imagine one apple. 🍎
2 (Two): This represents a collection of two basic units. Imagine two apples. 🍎🍎
3 (Three): This represents a collection of three basic units. Imagine three apples. 🍎🍎🍎
Understanding the Operation (+)
(Addition): This symbol means "to add" or "to combine." It instructs us to take two or more quantities (or sets) and put them together to find their total.
Putting It Together
The equation 2 + 1 = 3 is a statement that follows these definitions:
Start with 2: You begin with a set containing two items.
(🍎🍎)
Add 1: You then combine that set with another set containing one item.
(🍎🍎) + (🍎)
Result is 3: When you count all the items in the combined group, you find there are three items in total.
(🍎🍎🍎)
This concept is one of the most fundamental axioms in arithmetic, often demonstrated using a number line. If you start at the number 2 on the line and move one unit to the right (which is what "+ 1" means), you land directly on the number 3.
that's why the true progress is made if we simplify our mental models so they're easier to explain ... because then the next generation can get running faster and therefore get farther.
I saw that. It's fucking breathtaking, the apologists for stupidity.
If I go start an account on a .ml instance and claim letters and numbers are colonial, patriarchal constructs and should be eliminated, I'll be the most popular poster until I accidentally make everyone illiterate out of spite.
If those clock actually didn't exist anymore, than it really would be no point in knowing how to read them.
And there's close to no point nowadays. If I was making some school curriculum, I would probably keep them because they are useful for teaching fractions. But I would look for an alternative.
I genuinely don't know where I would even find an analog clock anymore outside of school and I haven't been in school for more than 20 years. genuinely do not remember the last time I've seen an analog clock, and I work in a lot of public government offices who are usually pretty far behind the times but even they use digital clocks. to the point that I just went to look had a picture of one and it actually takes me a second to read now.
I don't understand why people are so obsessed on holding on to knowledge that is not relevant to your daily life, digital clocks are objectively better at the task of telling the time and it's what exists everywhere in life now I don't really fault anyone for not being able to read an analog.
If I had to Hazard a guess I guess it's probably just a lack of empathy? Or maybe that's not quite the correct word but inability to put yourself in another's place. They can't Envision someone not having knowledge that they have unless that person is stupid.
The thing that gets me is that calling it a skill feels like a stretch. You need like 4 pieces of information to read an analog clock, most of which can be gleaned from looking at it. Sure, you might not be able to read one instantaneously without practice, but it isn't exactly calculus.
You really can't glean the information just by looking at it if you've literally never seen one before in your life. It's hard to Envision if you're just used to it, like I said I was a little slow to read it but I still know how I'm just not used to it so it's no longer instant . But I also can understand that if you've literally never seen one in your life and never had it mentioned to you you would really have no way to know what the difference between the big or the small hand was.
Now if you did sit and stare at it for long enough you could eventually figure it out as the hands moved but most people aren't going to sit there and stare at a clock for 10min to try and figure it out.
At the end of the day even mundane things can be a skill, and I do agree that there is a substantial lack of critical thinking as the generations go on it was a problem already in my generation much less these latest ones. All That No Child Left Behind and standardized testing crap really destroyed schools hard it went from critical thinking to just memorize the answer or skip the question if you don't know, asking questions became bad and unfortunately that's going to follow you into adulthood
There is many reasons it happened but not being able to read analog clocks was not one of them. I'm sorry that it upsets you so much that I don't agree but I feel like there's a better way to express it than what you chose.
This is incorrect. The Apollo program led to massive development of computer technology because it would not be possible without it. They created the first real time computers and were the world's largest buyer of integrated circuits at the time. Computers were part of every single part of the mission and were critical to it's success. See One Giant Leap : The Impossible Mission That Flew Us to the Moon for further information.
Engineer in 1969 : "nwords"
Engineer today: "no that's my dad, I just graduated and started working here too. Yea my grandfather too." "I grew up pretty conservative"
Engineering mathematics is easy. Follow simple rules, follow simple formula, do basic algebra, don't screw up ur units. The issue is when numbers start to get involved. I've made more mistakes simply doing the number wrong than anything else. This is why using code to solve all ur problems is goated
If they are taking an exam, they are not yet an engineer.
Also if you need to check simple math during your exam, you will fail super hard because you will run out of time with almost non of the work completed.
62 Comments
one_step_behind@quokk.au · 82 pts · 287d
Sure, if we ignore the fact that those engineers had all of their work checked by people we called calculators.
Revan343@lemmy.ca · 62 pts · 287d
That sounds like women's work, of course we're going to ignore it
Godort@lemmy.ca · 59 pts · 287d
I'm just testing that the calculator works. It's part of the scientific process, sweaty
derek@infosec.pub · 5 pts · 286d
An exquisite typo.
jeansburger@piefed.world · 37 pts · 287d
Okay look, some of the math I do on a daily basis is like 5 levels above basic addition (it looks like I've written a whole ass sentences of gibberish) but like what if they changed it? I'd rather be sure that 2+2 still equals 4 than be wrong and the thing I'm working on ends up making expensive sounds.
There's also just removing the cognitive load of having to process this information. You're allowed to look up the answer (that's what a calculator and the slide rule do).
Using the tools you have to speed up your work doesn't make you a worse engineer than those in the past. You're building off their work so you don't have to constantly literally reinvent the wheel.
Aqarius@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 287d
Yup. If I'm not ballparking, all math goes through a calculator. It's already there, and I'm already using it. "Trust, but verify".
arox@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 5 pts · 287d
I am guessing you are an engineer of some sort.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 287d
Engineer of wide surfaces - also known as a cleaner.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 287d
I'm a Cognitive Developmental Transportation Engineer ... aka school bus driver.
Zerush@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 287d
You can't calculate 2+2 with a slide rule
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 287d
Maybe you can't
johncritzman@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 287d
Moves C index to 2 on the D scale
Moves indicating line to 2 on the C scale
Reads 4 on the D scale
Good thing 2+2 and 2*2 yield the same answer. Would have to bust out the addiator otherwise
MeThisGuy@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 287d
abacus say what?
Zerush@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 287d
Yoy can use 2 normal rules to add/rest 2 numbers, but you can't do it in a slide rule with its logarithm scales. But luckily there are solutions out there
Zerush@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 287d
Well, but fails with 3+3, there an US engineer must use still an addiator. Nowadays it's easier with an pocket calculator.
johncritzman@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 284d
But a pocket calculator doesn't get you nearly enough street cred these days
Zerush@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 284d
Well, even an iPhone has an calculator by default (maybe with an monthly fe)
johncritzman@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 283d
But when I'm at the club with my friends and I pull out the Pickett model N600-ES speed rule to calculate the tip, all the eyes are on me
Zerush@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 283d
In my studies I used a doble side rule, the Faber-Castell 2/83 N Novo-Duplex, 31 scales, not so practical for the pocket (>38cm)
brown567@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 287d
You could probably do log_10(10²×10²) instead?
Zerush@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 287d
It's the same as 2*2
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 285d
I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org · 1 pts · 284d
ln(2) + ln(2) = ln(4)
Zerush@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 284d
Try with 3+3
hansolo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 287d
The issue is that the floor on confidence in knowledge is now basically nothing.
Why is it that 8th graders in 1990 could do solid algebra and polynomials on paper and not need help? Nothing about the math has changed.
Slide rules do not do basic math, that's a poor comparison. People that did higher math on slide rules only used it for part of the problem dealing with logarithms, and that was a shorthand for larger approximation tables in books. That's necessary help. Solving for 2+2 is not. That's for little children that count on their fingers. If you're not in the "WTF?" camp, you're part of the problem.
stray@pawb.social · 3 pts · 286d
Difficulty performing mental arithmetic doesn't necessarily correlate with poor overall intelligence or inability to grasp higher math concepts. In a world where we all have calculators in our pockets, there is no reason to bar someone from studies or a career involving higher mathematics simply for being neurologically atypical, nor to shame them for whichever coping strategies allow them to perform.
hansolo@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 286d
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the most basic of math should be as basic as reading. Something that anyone can do themselves.
Do you honestly think that for the rest of your life every moment will let a calculator or ChatGPT help you have every interaction you have? People are perfectly capable of basic math.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 287d
He doesn't know that. None of the idiots advocating regressive imbecilism actually understand what they are talking about.
derek@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 286d
I'm not confident you're participating in good faith here but, on the off-chance you are; I'm not sure I take your point.
Can you substantiate your initial claim? "The floor on confidence in knowledge is now basically nothing" seems too broad a statement to meaningfully defend.
Even if we assume you're talking about US 8th graders you'll have to be more specific. The US has seen degraded academic performance across the board but the degree varies by State (and often again by County).
What's "necessary help" is up for debate as well. There's a hint of something I can agree with here though. I do agree that, for certain vocations, it's important for individuals to have firm graps on the fundamentals. Programmers ought to be able to code without IDEs and Mathematicians work problems without calculators. I don't agree that the common use of good tools by those professionals results in the brain-drain bogeyman you seem to be shadow boxing.
What am I meant to be alarmed about, exactly?
hansolo@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 286d
No, I'm here in good faith.
Being alarmed, I suppose, would be the subjective assessment that this isn't too far off from all the cognitive decline correlated to excessive use of AI. It's an extrapolation, sure, but similar.
It's lovely to think that a phone will always be right on us all, for the rest of our lives. IRL, shit happens. Sometimes people just dug a calf out of a pond, their phone got soaked, and they still need to divide 250 lbs of fertilizer by 10 barrels and not be seized by indecision because there's not a cell phone around.
Prunebutt@slrpnk.net · 26 pts · 287d
As long as they don't ask ChatGPT.
user224@lemmy.sdf.org · 17 pts · 287d
CatsPajamas@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 287d
Now show the prompt lol
user224@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 287d
Sure
CatsPajamas@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 286d
I don't believe you!
Here's what I got from Gemini:
Based on the foundational principles of mathematics, 2 + 1 = 3 because it represents combining a set of two items with a set of one item, resulting in a new set containing a total of three items. Here is a more detailed breakdown: Understanding the Numbers
brown567@sh.itjust.works · 26 pts · 287d
Am engineer, made my own slide rule for fun
Still check basic arithmetic because I'd rather overestimate my own incompetence than underestimate it
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 287d
And a team of 20 black girls who solved all their math problems
xploit@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 287d
Plotwist; It's an AI calculator and the answer is 80085
Soup@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 287d
“Is the answer 3?”
Ai taking a drag from a cigarette: “Sure thing kid, why not?”
“Wow, so smart.”
I genuinely do hate AI, this is joke about it constantly validating everything asked of it instead of actually being useful.
SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 287d
They say we can stand on the shoulders of giants, but first we gotta climb a friggin giant
IronBird@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 287d
just cut it's achilles tendon and it'll lower itself for you
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 286d
that's why the true progress is made if we simplify our mental models so they're easier to explain ... because then the next generation can get running faster and therefore get farther.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 287d
... And now read idiots who advocate that it is OK to not understand analogue clock:
https://lemmy.world/post/37844741
hansolo@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 287d
I saw that. It's fucking breathtaking, the apologists for stupidity.
If I go start an account on a .ml instance and claim letters and numbers are colonial, patriarchal constructs and should be eliminated, I'll be the most popular poster until I accidentally make everyone illiterate out of spite.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 287d
Yeah, and the level of upvotes these idiots have is truly shocking.
Lemmy is no way better than Reddit and the Idiocracy is a documentary.
I feel like fucking vomiting just thinking about it.
MeThisGuy@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 287d
guess the new "go touch grass" is going to be "go read a dial clock"
henfredemars@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 287d
Wasn’t that disproven by Snopes?
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 287d
Idiots on Lemmy were disproved? News to me.
marcos@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 287d
If those clock actually didn't exist anymore, than it really would be no point in knowing how to read them.
And there's close to no point nowadays. If I was making some school curriculum, I would probably keep them because they are useful for teaching fractions. But I would look for an alternative.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 287d
They're far less common than digital clocks now. Same with the bullshit cursive.
LordKitsuna@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 287d
I genuinely don't know where I would even find an analog clock anymore outside of school and I haven't been in school for more than 20 years. genuinely do not remember the last time I've seen an analog clock, and I work in a lot of public government offices who are usually pretty far behind the times but even they use digital clocks. to the point that I just went to look had a picture of one and it actually takes me a second to read now.
I don't understand why people are so obsessed on holding on to knowledge that is not relevant to your daily life, digital clocks are objectively better at the task of telling the time and it's what exists everywhere in life now I don't really fault anyone for not being able to read an analog.
If I had to Hazard a guess I guess it's probably just a lack of empathy? Or maybe that's not quite the correct word but inability to put yourself in another's place. They can't Envision someone not having knowledge that they have unless that person is stupid.
TheTetrapod@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 287d
The thing that gets me is that calling it a skill feels like a stretch. You need like 4 pieces of information to read an analog clock, most of which can be gleaned from looking at it. Sure, you might not be able to read one instantaneously without practice, but it isn't exactly calculus.
LordKitsuna@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 287d
You really can't glean the information just by looking at it if you've literally never seen one before in your life. It's hard to Envision if you're just used to it, like I said I was a little slow to read it but I still know how I'm just not used to it so it's no longer instant . But I also can understand that if you've literally never seen one in your life and never had it mentioned to you you would really have no way to know what the difference between the big or the small hand was.
Now if you did sit and stare at it for long enough you could eventually figure it out as the hands moved but most people aren't going to sit there and stare at a clock for 10min to try and figure it out.
At the end of the day even mundane things can be a skill, and I do agree that there is a substantial lack of critical thinking as the generations go on it was a problem already in my generation much less these latest ones. All That No Child Left Behind and standardized testing crap really destroyed schools hard it went from critical thinking to just memorize the answer or skip the question if you don't know, asking questions became bad and unfortunately that's going to follow you into adulthood
FelixCress@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 287d
More I read USians, more I understand how come Trump was elected the second time.
LordKitsuna@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 287d
There is many reasons it happened but not being able to read analog clocks was not one of them. I'm sorry that it upsets you so much that I don't agree but I feel like there's a better way to express it than what you chose.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 287d
Stupidity was one of them. Go figure.
saturn57@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 286d
This is incorrect. The Apollo program led to massive development of computer technology because it would not be possible without it. They created the first real time computers and were the world's largest buyer of integrated circuits at the time. Computers were part of every single part of the mission and were critical to it's success. See One Giant Leap : The Impossible Mission That Flew Us to the Moon for further information.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 286d
If you're walking under something I've designed, would you prefer I save time?
pigup@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 286d
Engineer in 1969 : "nwords" Engineer today: "no that's my dad, I just graduated and started working here too. Yea my grandfather too." "I grew up pretty conservative"
Siegfried@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 286d
Till, only USA has engineers
pigup@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 286d
Yes they drive trains
Unknown_0671@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 287d
muntedcrocodile@hilariouschaos.com · 3 pts · 287d
Engineering mathematics is easy. Follow simple rules, follow simple formula, do basic algebra, don't screw up ur units. The issue is when numbers start to get involved. I've made more mistakes simply doing the number wrong than anything else. This is why using code to solve all ur problems is goated
denial@feddit.org · 2 pts · 287d
If they are taking an exam, they are not yet an engineer.
Also if you need to check simple math during your exam, you will fail super hard because you will run out of time with almost non of the work completed.