Peddled soda before becoming CEO of Apple. Everybody thought that his CEO expertise would carry over to any other kind of business. He didn't understand computers and thought he could beat the competition by turning macs into commodity computers and outmarketing the rest of the field. He very nearly put Apple out of business.

That's a plausible explanation for why a bunch of people may have scattered, but where are all the fossilized phonemes?

when I see the fossil record.

Oh my god! They killed Kentrosaurus!

True, but I'm still waiting for my flying car.

You need calculus to actually understand statistics for continuous random variables.

I agree that Calculus is not directly useful in CS, but disagree about linear algebra being the go-to tool. Anybody who wants to do computer science should be learning discrete math.

Ha! Guess again!

Yeah, I'd imagine having to wait somewhere with both your wife and your gf could get hellish.

What's heat?

I've taught statistics to a variety of audiences for over 25 years, ranging from hard-core engineering students to business majors who haven't seen any math since high school algebra and considered that hard. There are definite differences in how you approach the subject if you want to communicate with the students.

With science/engineering/math students they are used to problem sets. You can focus on a developmental approach to the material, starting with basic probability rules, then random variables, densities and distributions, and expectation, popular distribution models, then into descriptive statistics, point and interval estimators, and linear models. My experience is that the SEM students like to work from first principles and understand how things work. They are very amenable to the fact that there are a few principles, which are common regardless of which distribution they're being applied to. You can teach more theory and rely on the students to apply it on problem sets.

Business & social science students don't like that approach at all! I've found that it works better to start with data, treat histograms as empirical densities, talk about various ways to describe/summarize the data numerically, then migrate to the concept of a population and sample and introduce distributions as an idealized description of the sampling population. Then onto rules of probability and how the sampling would shake out. They're just not willing to build their way from first principles the way the SEM students are. You have to work a lot more examples in class, because they don't have the problem-set/practicum mentality or experience that SEM students do. It takes a lot of work, but I've found that "competency checkpoints" are really helpful - little online quizzes that ask simple questions about basic principles for the module. The students are required to take and retake the CC until they can pass it with a certain threshold (I set 80%) - if they pass it on their first attempt, they get full credit, on the second attempt 80%, third attempt 60%, etc. The good thing about this is that it tells them the principles they are responsible for knowing on the midterms, and doesn't allow them to skip foundational material and move on unprepared for what follows.

The textbook you choose is essential. You have to get one that supports the approach you're using and is written at an appropriate level for the students.

REPUBLIC doesn't mean what you think, either. From Webster: Republic - a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Our protection of basic human rights comes from the constitution, not from being a republic.

For SF, the Heinlein juveniles: Red Planet, Have Space Suit Will Travel, Between Planets, Space Cadet, etc. if your kid can deal with young-teen reading levels. If you need something younger, Asimov had "Norby" and "Lucky Starr", there were a set of books about "Danny Dunn" in the 50's and 60's, Brinley wrote "The Mad Scientist Club" for Boy's Life around the same time, and there were a bunch of "Tom Swift" books - Jr, not Sr, the latter are way too dated. Also from the 50's, check out "The Wonderful Flight to the Mushroom Planet" by E. Cameron. Fifteen years ago my own kids plowed through the "Animorphs" series, but I thought they were formulaic and trite - I guess the recommendation depends on whether you're looking for "good" books or something that the kids will find engaging. In the same vein, Coville's wrote a bunch of lightweight but fun things such as "My Teacher is an Alien".

I would NOT recommend Verne or HG Wells for modern young readers, the prose seems long-winded and obtuse by modern standards, but after your kid's hooked he can certainly go back and fill in with these.

For fantasy, you couldn't do better than "The Enchanted Forest Chronicles" by Patricia C Wrede. Hold off on Tolkien until later, "The Hobbit" might be okay for a read-aloud family activity but is a bit much for most 8 year olds.

Both cases were added in the 1950's as a paranoiac response to "godless communism". There's a Porky Pig cartoon made during WWII where he has a nightmare about Nazism and when he wakes up he stutters his way through the Pledge of Allegiance: "...one nation, indivisible...". Ironically, the original version which lacks the phrase "under God" was penned by a minister.

The small number of times I've bumped into a need to make a formal statement or oath, I've notified the clerk or judge and been advised to end the phrasing with "so help me."

I'm not saying that there isn't a strong religious wind blowing in the USA. There are plenty of people who, like McCarthy in the 1950's, would love to push religion into government. But some of the biggest advocates for secular government have been intelligent religious leaders who recognize the protection that secular rather than religious-based law gives them when they're minorities.

No, the headline does no such thing. It's just a demographic description of the cohort that was studied. That's how scientists are supposed to write, so you know how widely applicable their findings are.

As others have already pointed out, you're doing a good job of illustrating poor logic skills by inferring an emotion-laden conclusion that isn't there.