yeah Ronda Rousey is not impressing me on TUF at all
I love her as a fighter and I thought Misha is a dick (she launched off her opponent with her hand when the round ended in the match I saw)
but
my respect for Ronda is just bleeding, mostly because of how she dealt with Shayna
What happened?
So Shayna is apparently a pioneer of woman's MMA, she talks about doing warehouse fights a decade ago
This has given her a huge attitude. Ronda picked her to go up in the first fight against one of Misha's students and friends, a boxer.
Shayna talked major shit.
"She doesn't deserve to be in the same ring as me."
"I'm offended that they think they deserve to go against me."
"I've fought the best girls in the business what chance does she have"
"This will be a 10 minute workout I can end any time I want"
During the weigh in, Shayna even tucked a Queen of Spades card into the other chick's bra as some sort of signature move thing based off her nickname
Just super obnoxious, and Ronda was backing her up and amplifying her the entire time with stuff like "She doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as you."
Shayna lost by submission in the second round from a rear naked choke. She got outwrestled by a boxer. It was obvious that when the other chick didn't just give up and roll over that she became frustrated and gassed and lost because of it, and then she cried like a little bitch. She ended up sobbing, "I'm three times the fighter she is!" while Ronda comforted her.
IMO that sort of ego is completely unacceptable and made me detest Shayna. It's not even a personality thing. She lost because she's carting around an ego the size of Jupiter. Ronda encouraging that and never saying a word otherwise was pretty gross to me.
Do you know... I've never heard a good argument for why I need to care about the suffering of animals in mass meat production environments, outside of the secondary impact on human consumers (ie. antibiotic overuse, sanitary conditions, etc).
You don't need to worry about it that you can ignore it easily, but you don't need to worry about a lot of things that people assign moral value to.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
People are oddly protective of their eating habits.
well when "Hardcore hedonists who dont care about the suffering of others" and "Walking argument against democracy" come into the picture
You really think more than like one percent of the population has put any thought into their beliefs about eating animals other than that it tastes good and maybe "fuck anybody who tries to get me to eat less delicious stuff."
I actually have more patience for those people than somebody who recognizes the problem and then *waggles cheesburg*
ok someone explain this to me because i think i don't understand significant figures
i'm given that a race length is 2.6 furlongs (two significant figures)
it wants the that in rods and chains
it tells me that 1 furlong is 201.168m and it tells me that 1 rod is 5.0292m and it tells me that 1 chain is 20.117m
so to calculate rods i do 2.6 * 201.168 / 5.0292
the answer is exactly 104 rods, which is correct
then to get chains i do 2.6 * 201.168 / 20.117
the answer comes out to 25.9997blahblah
i thought significant figures were determined via the figure with the smallest number of significant figures? which is 2.6, with two significant figures
but it doesn't accept 25 chains (using truncation) or 26 chains (using rounding)
it accepts 26.9 chains (using truncation)
why am i using three significant figures
pls explain
Most likely the thing you are feeding this into is just wrong, both on what the answer should be since it get 26.9 instead of 25.9 and because it doesn't follow the rule for significant figures when using multiplication which as you pointed out would have the approximate value as 26.
If you were given 2.6 furlongs as your starting measure and you're supposed to be taking significant figures into account (which you always should), then the answers can only have 2 significant figures.
104 isn't even right, it should be 100, (or to make it easier to tell, 1.0 * 102)
yeah!
what the heck!
The "tolerance" is the range of numbers that WebAssign will mark as correct. The tolerance can be set by the problem coder to just about anything. But by default, the tolerance is 2% of the "key". The "key" is the exactly correct value. For example, if the key were "9.81 m/s^2", with a tolerance of 2%, then any entry between "9.6138 m/s^2" and "10.0062 m/s^2" would be counted as correct. This is if there is no sig figs checking.
If sig figs are being checked, then in the question coding there is a variable called $SIGFIGS that is set to a number greater than 0. That number determines how many significant figures there must be in order for the question to be marked correct. By default, any entry that does not have exactly that number of sig figs will be marked totally wrong (0 points awarded), regardless of the value of the number.
If sig figs checking is used, the default tolerance is not a certain percent of the key but is instead usually 1 of the least significant digits. For example, if, in the previous problem, $SIGFIGS was set to 3, then the tolerance would be set to allow answers between 9.80 m/s^2 and 9.83 m/s^2.
However, both the value of $SIGFIGS and the tolerance can be altered by the question coding; this means it can change within a single problem depending on how the question was written. In many lab-related questions, $SIGFIGS is allowed to be set to a range of values, say between 1 and 4. The point is to make the question accept up to a certain maximum number of figures. As the $SIGFIGS value changes depending on what is entered, the tolerance also changes.
hmmm
Email your prof. Get screens shots of it not working and such and email him
i mean, my submissions are being graded correctly
i am just guessing randomly at sig figs is all o.o
i definitely will ask him tho to make sure he isn't using some weird standard for when i answer problems on the exam
Do you know... I've never heard a good argument for why I need to care about the suffering of animals in mass meat production environments, outside of the secondary impact on human consumers (ie. antibiotic overuse, sanitary conditions, etc).
Because you're not a sociopath, and animal suffering has (negative) moral worth because they have varying levels of sapience?
Im in favor of taxing meat to increase its price and drive down consumption, as I believe I've gotten into an argument with spool in the past over (something about me wanting the poor to starve)
U r p heartless, let's face it.
:bz
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Do you know... I've never heard a good argument for why I need to care about the suffering of animals in mass meat production environments, outside of the secondary impact on human consumers (ie. antibiotic overuse, sanitary conditions, etc).
Personally I tend to gloss over the animal suffering arguments because people tend to be less receptive than to the sustainability and infectious disease arguments.
I mean, do you value animal suffering? If I have two levers, and one gives me a dollar while the other gives me a dollar and delivers a painful electric shock to a cow, is there any moral reason to prefer the non-shocky lever?
TL DR on
0
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
Do you know... I've never heard a good argument for why I need to care about the suffering of animals in mass meat production environments, outside of the secondary impact on human consumers (ie. antibiotic overuse, sanitary conditions, etc).
yeah Ronda Rousey is not impressing me on TUF at all
I love her as a fighter and I thought Misha is a dick (she launched off her opponent with her hand when the round ended in the match I saw)
but
my respect for Ronda is just bleeding, mostly because of how she dealt with Shayna
What happened?
So Shayna is apparently a pioneer of woman's MMA, she talks about doing warehouse fights a decade ago
This has given her a huge attitude. Ronda picked her to go up in the first fight against one of Misha's students and friends, a boxer.
Shayna talked major shit.
"She doesn't deserve to be in the same ring as me."
"I'm offended that they think they deserve to go against me."
"I've fought the best girls in the business what chance does she have"
"This will be a 10 minute workout I can end any time I want"
During the weigh in, Shayna even tucked a Queen of Spades card into the other chick's bra as some sort of signature move thing based off her nickname
Just super obnoxious, and Ronda was backing her up and amplifying her the entire time with stuff like "She doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as you."
Shayna lost by submission in the second round from a rear naked choke. She got outwrestled by a boxer. It was obvious that when the other chick didn't just give up and roll over that she became frustrated and gassed and lost because of it, and then she cried like a little bitch. She ended up sobbing, "I'm three times the fighter she is!" while Ronda comforted her.
IMO that sort of ego is completely unacceptable and made me detest Shayna. It's not even a personality thing. She lost because she's carting around an ego the size of Jupiter. Ronda encouraging that and never saying a word otherwise was pretty gross to me.
I'm not really sure what the idea with "America's obsession with meat products" comes from. Like, it's not like America just sprung out of the ground overnight and was like "MEEeeeeaaat."
Pretty sure most Western countries have habits like we do in regards to dinner. Hell, Americans probably are more diverse than say England or France. The only difference being French people eat snails.
Americans eat more beef and chicken, on average, than other countries, and we are second in the world for pork consumption
I am in extreme doubt of your statements at this point in time.
I literally just gave a lecture on this to my students
So your solution to factory farming is "eat less meat"?
I don't see how that stops factory farming, it would just be somewhat less factory farming
I don't really get the opposition to cultured meat, eventually it could be a far more eco friendly (and healthier) alternative that doesnt kill any actual animals
Lab-meat might be better than factory-meat, but it will still never be better than plants. Ergo we return to the original and best solution of reducing meat consumption.
I don't see why it couldn't?
Anyway, regular farming kills millions of rabbits and voles and shit and is slowly becoming less viable because of large scale dependance on fossil fuels to create fertilizer
The raw materials for lab-meat are still going to be plant derived. Or I guess some advances could be made with fungi.
The agriculture problem is a real one and I'm a huge advocate for permaculture practices, local/urban farming, rooftop gardens, etc. I'll not go so far as to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, however, because a "conventionally-farmed" salad is still orders of magnitude better than a comparable hamburger in terms of both fossil fuel use and animal cruelty.
*nods*
*continues eating cheeseburger*
You're a walking argument against democracy.
why are you singling me out when almost everybody in this thread eats meat
You happen to be waggling your unwillingness to change your lifestyle in the thread, in the midst of a conversation about the problems with that lifestyle.
ah okay
so because I acknowledge it has problems I'm worse
than, I guess, the unthinking idiots in the rest of this thread who eat meat but obviously haven't put thought into the consequences of their lifestyle? see Im turbo hitler because I KNOW that animals suffer and I still eat meat
I wasn't making a joke I was literally eating a hamburger when I wrote that, which I felt was kind of ironic
I'm trying to find like, basic shit to cook, like recipes that have nutrition and you can go to the grocery store and get all the stuff for them and they're healthy
all these recipes are like A VEGAN TWIST ON AN OLD FAVORITE or THIS IS A CHEAP WAY TO GET THIS FAMILY CLASSIC
i dont really have a problem with homeschooling for the same reason i dont really have a problem with private schooling
I think there should be a core curriculum that all kids need to learn / be tested on. So many hours / week of the basics - math, science, reading / writing, etc.
Some sort of testing / monitoring to make sure the kids are actually being taught and not just left to fuck off, or spending eight hours a day studying Genesis, or doing piecework for their parents 'home business'.
There should be freedom for parents or schools to provide an alternative curriculum, but I'm not opposed to requiring some sort of accredited oversight of every student - home, private, or public. When I home schooled, I received a complete curriculum from an accredited home-schooling place and had to submit work bi-weekly for review / grading and take regular tests. My parents are literate and fairly well educated, but even if they knew nothing I had the resources to receive an education comparable to a 'real' classroom.
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
Im in favor of taxing meat to increase its price and drive down consumption, as I believe I've gotten into an argument with spool in the past over (something about me wanting the poor to starve)
U r p heartless, let's face it.
:bz
Probably
My reasoning wasn't so much to do with the animals as it was to do with the health of the populace and long term sustainability
Do you know... I've never heard a good argument for why I need to care about the suffering of animals in mass meat production environments, outside of the secondary impact on human consumers (ie. antibiotic overuse, sanitary conditions, etc).
Have you ever heard a good argument for why you need to care about the suffering of human beings?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+1
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
no seriously
meat 5ever
its the best.
(next to bread and cheese.)
I don't think "reducing animal suffering" is a good rhetorical tool to promote a vegetarian, vegan, meat-reductionist lifestyle, nor is it a good one to promote better farming practices
The award in that area goes to "ecological impact" and "impacts on human health"
BUT this doesn't invalidate "reducing animal suffering" as a personal reason to follow any of these practices in your own life
its just not a good tool to argue for other people to agree with you
Maybe it is just because I live in the South and see people that pretty much take pride in the suffering of the animals they eat as some bizarre form of anti-vegetarianism.
i dont really have a problem with homeschooling for the same reason i dont really have a problem with private schooling
I think there should be a core curriculum that all kids need to learn / be tested on. So many hours / week of the basics - math, science, reading / writing, etc.
Some sort of testing / monitoring to make sure the kids are actually being taught and not just left to fuck off, or spending eight hours a day studying Genesis, or doing piecework for their parents 'home business'.
There should be freedom for parents or schools to provide an alternative curriculum, but I'm not opposed to requiring some sort of accredited oversight of every student - home, private, or public. When I home schooled, I received a complete curriculum from an accredited home-schooling place and had to submit work bi-weekly for review / grading and take regular tests. My parents are literate and fairly well educated, but even if they knew nothing I had the resources to receive an education comparable to a 'real' classroom.
That's probably a good compromise
I know that Texas has one or two mandatory tests that all kids have to take (I think?) but it would probably be good to have stuff more often than that for homeschooled kids.
All kids, regardless of how they're being taught, need to know how to math, how to english, how to american history, that sort of stuff. I don't think that you trample on parent's freedoms by making sure their kids know basic knowledge required to function in our society.
Pedagogical theory is 50% useless navel gazing and 50% super incredibly useful information about learning methods, information retention, and effective communication strategies
I'm really against focused education degrees, in general
I'm really for an increase in pedagogical theory as a core requirement of any college degree, across the board
I disagree with the requirement, but I like where you're going with it. I think it should be an elective or like a 9 credit minor for minors subspecialization or something.
+2
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
a big ego is fine if you have the skill to back it up
Man, I know it got abused but I wish we had the "disagree" button back
or just something that puts your avatar, with a sad face, underneath someone's post to show that you empathize with their shitty situation or that their post made you feel sad
A good degree teaches one how to infer from data and formulate a hypothesis. A bad degree expects you to teach other people. Why? Because there are just some people who really cannot teach. Or, they can, but it's not very effective. Like using physical attacks against a ghost pokemans.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
So Shayna is apparently a pioneer of woman's MMA, she talks about doing warehouse fights a decade ago
This has given her a huge attitude. Ronda picked her to go up in the first fight against one of Misha's students and friends, a boxer.
Shayna talked major shit.
"She doesn't deserve to be in the same ring as me."
"I'm offended that they think they deserve to go against me."
"I've fought the best girls in the business what chance does she have"
"This will be a 10 minute workout I can end any time I want"
During the weigh in, Shayna even tucked a Queen of Spades card into the other chick's bra as some sort of signature move thing based off her nickname
Just super obnoxious, and Ronda was backing her up and amplifying her the entire time with stuff like "She doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as you."
Shayna lost by submission in the second round from a rear naked choke. She got outwrestled by a boxer. It was obvious that when the other chick didn't just give up and roll over that she became frustrated and gassed and lost because of it, and then she cried like a little bitch. She ended up sobbing, "I'm three times the fighter she is!" while Ronda comforted her.
IMO that sort of ego is completely unacceptable and made me detest Shayna. It's not even a personality thing. She lost because she's carting around an ego the size of Jupiter. Ronda encouraging that and never saying a word otherwise was pretty gross to me.
it is my favorite cooking blog, by far
So much delicious
Education makes you dumberer. FACT.
You don't need to worry about it that you can ignore it easily, but you don't need to worry about a lot of things that people assign moral value to.
I actually have more patience for those people than somebody who recognizes the problem and then *waggles cheesburg*
I'm really for an increase in pedagogical theory as a core requirement of any college degree, across the board
Most likely the thing you are feeding this into is just wrong, both on what the answer should be since it get 26.9 instead of 25.9 and because it doesn't follow the rule for significant figures when using multiplication which as you pointed out would have the approximate value as 26.
i mean, my submissions are being graded correctly
i am just guessing randomly at sig figs is all o.o
i definitely will ask him tho to make sure he isn't using some weird standard for when i answer problems on the exam
Because you're not a sociopath, and animal suffering has (negative) moral worth because they have varying levels of sapience?
U r p heartless, let's face it.
:bz
Personally I tend to gloss over the animal suffering arguments because people tend to be less receptive than to the sustainability and infectious disease arguments.
I mean, do you value animal suffering? If I have two levers, and one gives me a dollar while the other gives me a dollar and delivers a painful electric shock to a cow, is there any moral reason to prefer the non-shocky lever?
asshole.
Me fail English? That's unpossible!
but yeah
the sig figs are weird v.v
That's fucked up. : /
ah okay
so because I acknowledge it has problems I'm worse
than, I guess, the unthinking idiots in the rest of this thread who eat meat but obviously haven't put thought into the consequences of their lifestyle? see Im turbo hitler because I KNOW that animals suffer and I still eat meat
I wasn't making a joke I was literally eating a hamburger when I wrote that, which I felt was kind of ironic
Thanks a ton!
I think there should be a core curriculum that all kids need to learn / be tested on. So many hours / week of the basics - math, science, reading / writing, etc.
Some sort of testing / monitoring to make sure the kids are actually being taught and not just left to fuck off, or spending eight hours a day studying Genesis, or doing piecework for their parents 'home business'.
There should be freedom for parents or schools to provide an alternative curriculum, but I'm not opposed to requiring some sort of accredited oversight of every student - home, private, or public. When I home schooled, I received a complete curriculum from an accredited home-schooling place and had to submit work bi-weekly for review / grading and take regular tests. My parents are literate and fairly well educated, but even if they knew nothing I had the resources to receive an education comparable to a 'real' classroom.
Probably
My reasoning wasn't so much to do with the animals as it was to do with the health of the populace and long term sustainability
They could account for kids.
Have you ever heard a good argument for why you need to care about the suffering of human beings?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
meat 5ever
its the best.
(next to bread and cheese.)
The award in that area goes to "ecological impact" and "impacts on human health"
BUT this doesn't invalidate "reducing animal suffering" as a personal reason to follow any of these practices in your own life
its just not a good tool to argue for other people to agree with you
Hit 'em with the environmental sciences and also sit over here eatin' tofu cheezburg because those poor cows
Quite a lot. A lot of pedagogical theory is as much about learning how to teach others as it is learning how to learn, in general
So it just lazy about significant figures then, makes a certain amount of sense.
That's probably a good compromise
I know that Texas has one or two mandatory tests that all kids have to take (I think?) but it would probably be good to have stuff more often than that for homeschooled kids.
All kids, regardless of how they're being taught, need to know how to math, how to english, how to american history, that sort of stuff. I don't think that you trample on parent's freedoms by making sure their kids know basic knowledge required to function in our society.
i dunno
I don't think I can give up meat even if I tried, just lowering consumption for weight loss is difficult
I disagree with the requirement, but I like where you're going with it. I think it should be an elective or like a 9 credit minor for minors subspecialization or something.
because of the farts
or just something that puts your avatar, with a sad face, underneath someone's post to show that you empathize with their shitty situation or that their post made you feel sad
My depression is killing my efforts to be vegan. When I am depressed, I start eating a lot of shit like Chinese food.