No, you are quite wrong indeed.
There are bad students out there, we do not live in a perfect happy smiley little world where every human has limitless potential and can do *anything* if only they tried and had good teachers. That nonsense view comes out of what political correctness has done to modern western society.
There are students who truly are unwilling to learn, dont want to be there, and are only in class because they have to.
Perhaps you need to look earlier. Who are your first teachers? Your parents and your early environment. A child can have poor teachers and poor teaching there, and that leaves it mark on them, scars that they'll have to struggle with the rest of their lives. But that struggle began with poor teaching.
There are actually students out there who will never be able to pass certain exams, no matter how good the teachers are and no matter how much they try. Some things are just beyond some people.
If the task or test requires significant physical ability that the student is incapable of performing, maybe. But if the task is primarily mental and the student has a functional brain, I'd disagree. I've taught (tutored, actually) math to kids to were bad, bad, bad at math. High school kids who couldn't do fractions and didn't fully understand numeric place values. Basically, they could do simple arithmetic and that was it. They, their parents and their teachers were convinced they just "couldn't do math". Every single one of those half-dozen kids I've taught passed their math classes and were able to get into college. So maybe I didn't get one of those completely incapable students, but I doubt it. I work on 2 things when I teach: foundational concepts self-belief. It takes a lot of time and a lot of work, but if you can convince your student that it's possible for them to learn the material, you've done the hard part. After that, the foundational concepts are just tools and building blocks and once you get to a certain point, a critical mass of ideas which will vary from student to student, they won't even need you to teach them.
The *real world* is not perfect, humans are not perfect.
If you think that is a cynical view, well then that is utterly irrelevant to my point. Facts are facts, no matter how much we dont or do like that fact.
No, humans aren't perfect and there are a few who have specific physical issues which hinder them. But the vast majority of humans have 1.5kg of functional, self-modifying biological supercomputer in their heads. Sure, some will need more modifying, more programming, more instruction. But all of them are capable of learning. And no, I'm not a shiny-happy-people kind of guy. I'm probably as jaded and cynical as many here on Slashdot, but I do recognize one very simple fact. Stupidity is a choice, the result of laziness. Yes, over 90% of the planet is stupid and getting worse, but it is still a choice.
The top 1% is based on income, not population.
I misspoke, I meant net worth.
It's based on population and wealth, which may be measured by income, net worth or any of a number of other metrics.
Maybe, maybe not.
If you have 100 people, and 50 of them are worth $1000 and 50 are worth $500. Where is the top 1%? It's not 1, it's 50.
How is 50 1% of anything in your example?
Yet you aren't either. Likely because you don't actually understand how math works. You're using a simplistic equation that assumes everyone is worth different amounts, and thus you get a nice linear vector where you can chop off 1%. That's not likely true at all.
Actually, it is very, very true. Some people own more than others, in other words, "are worth different amounts". There's nothing simplistic about that equation.
Your question is too vague. Do you mean what percentage of people fall within the top 1% of personal wealth? That doesn't have a 1:1 correlation with population.
"top 1%" requires definition of what the 1% applies to specifically, and how it's measured.
For example, suppose you add up all the total wealth, then take 1% of that and figure out how many people are in that category? You will come out with a different number than if you take the wealthiest person and the poorest person, and take 1% of that range and figure out how many people fall in that 1%.
Wow, you either suck at math or... No, you just suck at math.
Here, let me try and spell it out for you. The top 1% refers to population as ranked by wealth, not the "average number of people who own 1% of the wealth" or "the number of people who own an average amount of wealth". That's why the word "top" is there. You have a list of people, sort them by descending wealth, and you take the top 1% of the entries on your list, that's the top 1%. The source of dissatisfaction (of the 99%) comes from the fact that if you total the wealth of the top 1%, you'll find that they own a disproportionate fraction (approximately 40% in the case of the United States). This trend extends across the whole chart, with the bottom 80% of Americans owning just 15% of the wealth.
By the way, in your example with 100 people, your answer (50) is wrong by either method you described. By your first method, since the total wealth is $75,000, 1% of that is $750, and the number of people who own $750 is zero. By your other method, the wealthiest person owns $1,000 and the poorest owns $500 and that covers everyone (it will, every single time), that's 100 people. 1% of that is 1.
So you're saying the guy in Gattaca could have had his faulty heart gene repaired and lived his dream legally?
Yes, but his parents chose to have him naturally, without screening or augmentation. (IIRC, it's been a while since i last saw it.)
Put your phone in a zip-lock bag and pour a load of rice in with it. Seal the bag and leave it for a couple of days. Alternatively, if you're a nerd like me, slip in four or five silica gel pouches you've hidden away.
Is this before or after you microwave it?
interlard - vt., to intersperse; diversify -- Webster's New World Dictionary Of The American Language