the world would be an infinitely better place if those 170 million people were capable of that. unfortunately, i think, by virtue of consuming short form content in 2025, they are beyond help.
tornadoes and hail are actually a big driver of property insurance rates. they typically aren’t catastrophic but the frequency is increasing quickly and they do cause an aggregation of claims.
it’s to make sure your kids go to the best school possible, and are surrounded by as many future successful people as possible. considering schools are funded based on tax revenue, it’s not the worst idea
Tax revenue is spread across all schools, at least in California.
Poor schools actually get more government funding per student.
This is why good school districts California usually have ties to non-governmental chairty parents associations that parents contribute directly.
It is also a huge part of why California passed prop 13. After property taxes we're separated from funding local schools, homeowners were simply much less willing to pay for taxes that won't go to their kid or community.
i doubt the adage is california specific, and likely came about before prop 13.
as an outsider, i think cali’s schooling system is beyond fucked, mostly due to the focus on the bottom 25% of students. the middle and high achieving students are being neglected and leaving. positive feedback loop.
i’ve always found that mathematical thinkers do better, no matter the role. it’s difficult to express how, it’s kind of intangible, but it’s just a mental process that helps break down tasks and come up with unique solutions.
that being said, my marketing pitch for math was always, nothing else is even close to as intellectually stimulating as math.
yeah, I wish we could be more specific here. Like I appreciate the things you’re saying, and I don’t doubt the truth or sincerity of that opinion — but I feel like I’ve encountered some math PhD students who were surprisingly inflexible in the way they thought, and very parochial in their intellectual interests. I guess I just haven’t (anecdotally) found the transference of math training to other domains as much as others seem to.
i think that’s a characteristic of a lot of PhD’s though - they become so specialized they become inflexible. i’m more talking about applied math into industry types. in insurance, tech, etc, i always tend to find the mathy people are faster, come up with unique solutions, and are more self motivated.
math is low on the list then they bitch that they’re unemployable with a soft skill degree doing middle school level work. i get this is ironic as a pure math student is also fairly unemployable without extraneous skills, but they also tend to shine the brightest once they make it in.
?? i went to a montessori school and i learned how to read and write poetry, cursive, tie my shoes, use scissors, all 4 mathematical operations, how to read novels, hell, i used to read our encyclopedia for fun, did a project on the bernoulli principal, and more, all before 2nd grade. no one i have ever met had an identical experience
the inability the generalize the foil procedure to an expression with more than 2 variables speaks more to the non mathematically oriented population just sucking at generalizing things. i have found this to be a very “you have it or you don’t” type of thing, not really something that can be taught
I've always had a difficult time wrapping my head around this acronym. What counts as "outer"? What counts as "inner"? And yes, when there are more than two items (not necessarily variables!) to be multiplied, you suddenly have to ignore this little trick, because now it's confusing to know what to do about the middle stuff -- and it doesn't take into account non-commutativity either.
And yes, some of the problem may be due to my (very recently diagnosed! at least, formally) autistic mind. But I cannot help but think that if someone with a PhD in math struggles with and largely ignores "FOIL", then the problem may be with the technique, and not with the people who don't understand it.
i never found foil stupid, but i also only have a bachelors in math. maybe this was because i had already been exposed to multiplying polynomial expressions, beyond just a 2 term * 2 term by the time i had learned it in school, but i never found it particularly complicated to grasp. foil was never taught to me as the only way to multiply polynomials, rather, an easy algorithm to apply in a certain case. the goal is for you to make the connection that oh, in a 3x2 case, u have to multiply each term in the 3 with each term in the 2, etc.
i think your problems with foil can be extended to the general way math is taught. at least for me, it was always full of tricks, little rules that can be broken sometimes, and i was constantly learning new things that made me realize my old teachers had taught us tricks to shortcut solutions.
i agree with you but you do realize what you’re saying right? the vast majority of people will never have 150k+ in liquid capital they can tap in to if they don’t like their job
