lol wow nice one. Pretty sure that is the exact justification every rapist has used ever, she said no but I could tell she was really into it. You are proof positive of the thesis of this article, thanks for that.

I don't think you get what is meant by "rape culture". It is not every guy is going around looking to rape women. It is that our society encourages certain views about women and their bodies which make it easier for men to rape and then justify it to themselves. Nobody thinks in their own head that they are a rapist. Oh, she would have totally been down for it if she wasn't passed out, I'll just go ahead anyway. She is totally into me but she doesn't want to look like a slut, I'll just keep going. I deserve to have sex with her because she has been flirting with me all night.

How the hell did you get modded +5 insightful. Of course he understands why sex is desirable, he is questioning why some men wrap their entire sense of self-worth up in whether they are having as much sex as they "deserve" to be or "should" be having. I'm sure you realized that but couldn't resist throwing in some evo psych bullshit. Nice.

I would be open to that discussion. The problem is that is not the discussion anyone is having. They are denying that rape culture exists and insisting that every woman who claims she was raped actually just changed their mind about consensual sex later. Those statements are completely delusional.

You don't see it because you're not looking. It's not that people think raping someone is okay, it's that they don't think what they are doing is rape. They think, oh, she would have totally been down for it if she wasn't passed out so I'll just go ahead anyway. Or, she is saying no but she wouldn't have dressed like that if she didn't want to sleep with me. Or, she is just playing hard to get, she doesn't want to seem like a slut, I just need to keep going she actually likes it. People are great at justifying things to themselves. Nobody thinks in their own head that they are a *gasp* rapist.

I don't understand your point here, nobody ever argued that literally half of men are rapists. Are you actually saying that there aren't men (a significant number of them) who feel like they have the right to sleep with women they find attractive? I don't mean the desire, I mean that they actually think they deserve it for some reason, regardless of what the woman in question feels like. Those men do exist.

Let me put it another way. Have you ever been groped on the sidewalk? Have you ever been followed for over two hours by a man who was staring at you the whole time? Have you ever had someone say something suggestive to you when you were minding your own business and then they called you a stuck up cunt when you politely told them you were busy? Those are common stories I hear from women ALL THE TIME. They are not isolated incidents.

You might not be a rapist, hell almost everyone is "not a rapist," but a lot of people are. And a startling number of people have no regard for a women's autonomy and simple right to go about their business without being harassed. Men do not have the right to a women's attention, let alone her body, and there are many that do not get that.

I don't think that is true. In fact, I think it is a huge disservice to students to teach like that. Every year I see incoming college freshman who think they are good at math because they have gotten straight As and everyone has said, "oh Billy is so good at math." Well, it turns out what they are really good at is following directions. They don't understand anything that they are doing, and they don't have the tools or creativity to do actual college level math. At the same time, there could be great potential mathematicians that were turned off of math at an early age because of the paint-by-numbers way it was taught to them. If you don't understand why you are doing something then you really don't understand what you are doing and shouldn't be trusted to do it.

Maybe 1 in 10 people actually understand long division. Most just do it because they were told to. And who gives a shit about efficiency? The fastest arithmetic method in the world is about a trillion times slower than a calculator. Understanding is what is important.

Yes, I didn't want to be overly inflammatory, but is definitely ignorance that is leading to these kinds of reactions. People find out that they can't understand their kid's elementary school homework and they react out of insecurity. There must be something wrong with the school, they aren't teaching it the right way if I can't understand it. In reality, they were done a disservice when they were in school and now they are preventing their children from learning and loving math because of their own issues.

You don't get it, the old methods were the parlor tricks. We were teaching kids shortcuts and tricks instead of mathematical concepts. That is the whole point of the new Common Core math, their stated goal is to go from wide and shallow to focused and deep. They want to teach kids what it really means to add and subtract. What numbers themselves represent and how we can manipulate them, rather than "here, do this thing I show you ten times and you will pass the test."

The idea that there is some way you are "supposed" to count up shows that you don't get it. You can count up however you are comfortable with, the flexibility is the point. If you like counting by fives you can go to the closest five and then count up from there. Note that thinking like this also helps you later if you go on to work with different bases.

Unfortunately, a lot of people who love math or are good at math are really just good at following directions. They learn the little tricks and formulas and they pass the tests and everyone says, oh little Jimmy is so good at math. And they like it because they feel special. But that is not math. I know many people who have gotten to college thinking that way and were in for a rude awakening when they realized that they knew was not math.

Whether you like it or not, common core is teaching kids to think conceptually. They are learning really deep mathematical ideas very early on. In the long run, I think this is going to be great. In the short term, there is a certain "culture shock" that kids are getting who have learned the old ways for a few years and are being abruptly switched to the new ways. It also requires very good teachers who themselves are very comfortable with math, which the old way of teaching did not. There are going to be some growing pains. But in the end I predict it is going to lead to a lot more kids learning and loving math, especially creative types who were turned off by the paint-by-numbers aspect of the old ways.

That subtraction example has been going around to "prove" that common core is hard/stupid, but it is very disingenuous. Of course for that particular case it is easy to do the "grade school" subtraction. However, when you get to more complicated numbers it becomes very non-intuitive. You can teach kids to do the "borrowing" from the next column, and they will be able to do it, but they won't understand why they are doing it, which is a bad precedent to set.

I guarantee you that everyone who works with math on a daily basis already does subtraction the "common core" way in their head. In fact, tellers have been doing it for decades! If you give someone $20 for $8 worth of goods, they say "nine, ten, and twenty" when handing you your change. It is the exact same thing. Additionally, doing it that way sneakily introduces you to some concepts of algebra. It also adapts better to other domains where "subtracting" doesn't really make sense, but "finding the difference" does i.e. euclidean space.

For your division example, I am sure that is not the end of the unit. That is a great way to understand the concept of division, you can't argue with that. Of course you need to know the shortcut way to do it, but if you learn just that then you won't really be learning division, you will just be learning an algorithm which gives you the answer. Can you not see how this way is better? Just because you did it a certain way when you were in school doesn't mean it is one way, or even the right way, to learn it.

Correct. The authors made no claim about breaking anything, it just got distorted somewhere along the line by the press. Also the algorithm is only quasi polynomial (n^O(log n)), which still makes it impractical for even moderately large sized fields.

Maybe read the article or, I dunno, some of the other comments before making yourself look stupid. This does not break any crypto systems that are currently in use because it only solves the discrete log problem in some specific finite fields with very low characteristic, i.e. not ones used by DH. You might say, oh that is just the first step to breaking DH, but there is no proof of that. Different finite fields have very different properties and there is no evidence at all that results like this can or will be generalized. There are many groups in which the Diffie Hellman problem is not hard for instance, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some groups where it is.

Additionally, RSA is also reducible to discrete log since you can find the decryption exponent via a single discrete log operation, so there is that.