Oh, I think I saw that YouTube video!

Generally the "even engineer dads can't make heads nor tails of it" objection is that the engineer dads didn't spend a couple minutes reading the helpfully coloured highlight box in the textbook. There has been a push in math to develop teaching methods that emphasize understanding rather than memorization. Thus 5x3 becomes 5x5x5 or 3x3x3x3x3 instead of "STFU and memorize your times tables."

A better example, also from Internet memes, is a procedure where you add or multiply a pair of larger numbers by breaking them down into component problems. 37 + 55 becomes (30 + 50) + (7 + 5) and some "parent" on Reddit or Facebook with add a comment like "why can't they just do addition like we learned??" Someone sensible will usually point out that people who are good at arithmetic will often use decomposition on harder problems if they're doing them in their head.

The teaching algorithms are pedagogical tools used to increase understanding or illustrate problems from different perspectives, not the final here's-the-algorithm-you-should-always-use".

I said that the 5x3 answer being marked wrong was likely due to a poorly educated teacher. No, primary school children probably won't be multiplying anything non-commutative soon. That was a joke. However, it is important not to instill, and then spend years reinforcing, incorrect facts. You shouldn't tell students things like "multiplication is defined as commutative" because that kind of thing will eventually screw someone up.

Sure. I think the GP's example, if it was correctly described, is probably a sign of a teacher who doesn't understand what they're teaching.

I was pointing out, educationally I hope, that the GP also doesn't really understand what they're talking about, despite claiming it's "simple." Which, incidentally, makes me suspect the anecdote may not be entirely accurate.

Or maybe they want to prepare the kids so they're not shocked when they start Clifford algebras.

Multiplication isn't defined as a commutative operation. It happens to be so when you're multiplying real numbers but in general it is not.

Fractions are difficult for lots of people. You have to understand what a fraction is before "just double the denominator" is simple and obvious. It's not a new thing. There's the story of the 1/3 pounder failing because people thought the 1/4 pounder was bigger. I have a relative who specialized in teaching remedial fractions.

It is kind of shocking that American universities are accepting large numbers of students who can't do basic math, and in programs that apparently involve calculus no less.

I'm not sure about the assertion this is a recent phenomenon when the head of state recently promised to reduce drug prices by a thousand percent.

but also in economics, with the 2008 financial crisis that was caused by a failure of the institutions that are supposed to regulate such things.

Dunno, the institutions who were supposed to regulate such things did a pretty good job here, as they did in most places that weren't the US or a specific bit of shadiness between the UK and Iceland.

It's also unnecessary. The most common alternative to a republic is a constitutional monarchy, and the presence of a figurehead monarch doesn't make a democracy much more resiliant against determined stupidity.

I agree with what most are saying here. As an old guy (age 65), I noticed quite some time ago that software, generally, rather peaked about 20 years ago. That is, for general things like web browsers, e-mail applications, word processing, accounting, spreadsheets, and the like, we got to the point that there was no real reason to pony up money for Version 18.7 of software when Version 11, which you installed five years ago, was still doing just fine. The problem with software (and intangible technology in general) is that, unlike tangible property (clothes, furniture, houses, etc.) it does not deteriorate. It's code, that stays the same. We don't need to buy new software on a regular basis. Software companies, as an example, figured out a while back that the only way to maintain an income stream was to convince people to switch to a subscription and/or online model. And the problem with *that* is that, to us oldsters, we wonder how exactly going from software we bought years ago that still works great to something that offers no significant improvements is something worth paying for indefinitely. AI is interesting, and fun to play around with. Perhaps it really is the Holy Grail for the overall software industry, where everyone will be paying subscription fees for the rest of their lives because they will rely on AI to tell them when their next appointment is. But I tend to see it as driven more by the need for revenue than actual innovation which will advance society.

"It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of a son of a bitch or another." --Malcolm Reynolds

(Ironically applies well to Joss Whedon himself. Kind of wonder if one of the show writers was thinking about Joss when they wrote that...)

The only single-source point of failure is me.

Did they make any attempt to distinguish between correlation and causation?

Such as? There have been a couple of controlled studies on ultraprocessed food. They found weight gain and other things like speed of eating associated with the UPFs and not other diets. Good luck doing a decade long controlled study until people get heart disease, even if you somehow convinced an ethics committee to let you try.

https://www.cell.com/cell-meta...
https://www.nature.com/article....

There have also been lots of mechanistic studies of many of the common ingredients in UPFs.

I think I saw someone swimming in some sewage en route from scraping a bear carcass off the road, let me go check.

1. I got asked once if I played world of warcraft since they say a guy with the name "thegarbz" playing. I said no. By the way I know exactly who that person is because he impersonated me as a joke. I found that flattering and funny, but it has no impact on my life beyond that.

Reminds me of my first email account ;) One of my professors said we all had to register for an email account (this was in the mid-90s) so we could submit our homework to him, so I registered his name at hotmail.com to mess with him ;)

I don't trust single points of failure.