I’m about to start a job search and the stackoverflow jobs board seems to have a decent number of positions… most even advertise salary band, which is nice.
1,438 karma · joined January 8, 2019
The GP asked a question, obviously out of a place of wanting to learn.
How else are new scientists produced if we don’t let non-scientists engage in science?
“ The World Health Organization has confirmed that breaches of safety procedures on at least two occasions at one of Beijing's top virology laboratories were the probable cause of the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) there last month, which infected nine people, one of whom died.”
It even happened with a coronavirus in China before!
I try to spend a few bucks a month on Bandcamp.
If you believe in some libertarian ideal of everything being handled by contract law and individuals, then I’m not sure there’s more to discuss.
Perfect? No. But it seems like the alternative is to throw up our hands and let unelected billionaires hoover up all the senators.
The job market is hot and I have a nice project to show off. A month of studying and I could land a nice job, I feel.
I have successfully discussed this in an advanced calculus class.
And why is two dimensions enough for third and higher degree equations? Were there a simpler geometric connection, you’d probably have a nicer proof of the Jordan curve theorem… but you don’t.
Not sure what you mean by pair of pairs… the OP said that calling imaginary numbers “double numbers” would clear up a lot of issues but that is not clear at all to me.
How would you do this without developing the exponential first?
Again why would anyone posit that a pair of numbers suddenly appears when trying to solve x^2+k=0 as k goes from negative to positive?
There's a big conceptual leap here.
I'm not sure that's true.
Just think of solving x^2+k=0. It's clear that for k<0 you get two solutions and k=0 you get one solution. But when k>0 the graph doesn't touch the x-axis... so why should I expect a "double number" or "paired number" to be the solution?
I'm teaching college algebra right now and introduce 'i' algebraically as a solution to x^2+1=0... but then we talk about graphing quadratics and there's no simple connection between the geometry/graph and the algebra.
Even if I had the time to talk about the geometry of multiplication and such, it's still a big leap to the graph of z^2+1 and its roots in the complex plane.
And it's this leap which, IMO, makes them seem "not real".
Of course there should be a small part of the education system capable of identifying and guiding the geniuses... but it should be in the context of helping every student identify their internal motivation... which is really the only way to instill the critical thinking skills everyone seems so keen on.
> If kids from disadvantaged backgrounds are not shown how beautiful and useful math can be, what motivation would we expect there to be that could carry them far enough in the subject to get a phd in it?
Right, and the current homogenized curriculum is not great at inspiring very large swaths of the population. It is pretty good at 1) letting people not very interested in mathematics become teachers of mathematics and 2) lining textbook publisher's pockets.
I'm also a teacher and, although you can teach college without knowing any formal pedagogical methods, I've at least looked into the works of people like Louis Benezet (setup a middle school without formal arithmetic) and Ranciere (The Ignorant Schoolmaster). And I've come to the conclusion that backing away from homogenized curricula most hurts 1) bad teachers and 2) textbook companies.
"Black Americans receive about 7 percent of the doctoral degrees awarded each year across all disciplines, but they have received just 1 percent of those granted over the last decade in mathematics."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/us/edray-goins-black-math...
And this is the current production! You don't want to see the statistics regarding the number of African American faculty members in mathematics!
So what else is our current system perpetuating besides inequality? What exactly are we "weeding out" in calculus? Or college algebra?
We don't let kids trust themselves intellectually in the classroom.
What evidence is there that it will radiate outwards at a rate significantly above the Fed’s target for an extended period of time?
Or we could remove luck from the equation and decide as a society to support everyone: living wages, food, housing, health care.
I recognize my luck, which is why I find society so absurd at times. And I for sure have no problem paying higher taxes to extend the guarantees above to all citizens.
Of course I understand this is the answer.
It's more of a rhetorical question to the idiot quotes from the Facebook group about how fast food is a "teenage job". Even as a teenager 20 years ago I wouldn't work for less than $10/hour.
What I don't understand is how people don't see the wage pressure exerted by corporate America in the last few decades. NAFTA to remove a bunch of "real jobs", then move remaining manufacturing to "two-tier" systems where new employees can't attain wage rates that their parents would have made at those jobs, then all the shenanigans at low wage places (just-in-time scheduling, wage theft, toxic customers, no benefits, etc. etc. etc.).
Don't even get me started on how the American "safety net" forces people to work in these shitty jobs. Dare to make over some ridiculous poverty threshold and you get no assistance.
I saw a NY Times article about garbage men who make only $15/hr in southern states.
Who in the hell wants to do any of these jobs?
Why is Bezos allowed to squash a tax to address homelessness? Why do Bill and Melinda gates dictate health policy for millions of people? And so on...