Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

i wanted to calculate how much 1 "unit" of dwarven power corresponds to watts

here you go

Wait, did you use the tool I used to use to cheat in math class to....do actual science?   Bizzare.

So if I'm understanding these numbers correctly, a single dwarven waterwheel produces 2.3 kilowatts of power.  Assuming a direct connection to the wheel itself.  Apparently enough to run a Samsung Galaxy for 2 years if stored properly. Nifty.

Out of curiosity - What are the factors of 0.6 and 1/100 doing in that computation? Otherwise it looks like a pressure head of 3 meters and a (surprisingly huge) flow rate of 1500 liters/second.

[TheBiggerFish]

I haven't had a math class in which I could use a calculator yet.  Like, not even a piddly little 4-function thing, you do all your math by hand or you don't do it at all.

I have never really understood why math classes insist on not using calculators.

Most math classes of any real merit aren't aided much by calculators anyway*. You need a proper analytical package like WolframAlpha, and using those instead of understanding how to do the maths severely hurts your ability to understand further work built on the same foundation.

*In Maths 1043 at my university, it was a bit of a running gag that the lecturer didn't know what numbers were because we never covered specific cases in lectures. It was almost entirely general solutions. It was almost entirely general solutions in tutorials and tests, too, but there were actually numbers involved occasionally. Unless your calculator can solve DEs...

Understanding how to do the math is kinda important, yes. 

[Frumple]

Sometimes? Most actual practical uses of math don't require much understanding at all, just the ability to use a particular formula and get a usable answer out of it.

Would personally say that any teacher that's teaching math without also teaching how to use the tools we've invented to manipulate the stuff is failing the students on about a dozen different levels, particularly so far as mathematics outside of academia goes. Also depends a hell of a lot on the students. I personally learned more about math in a month or two once I started actually leveraging the tools available than I did in years of the bloody by-hand nonsense. And spreadsheets led to goddamn epiphanies, if for no other reason than being about a thousand times better than scratch paper or mental math for the efforts involved.

Good to be able to do things by hand or head. Massively fuckstupid to limit yourself to them. Even from a learning angle, the more ways you involve a student with a lesson, the more likely something sticks.

[overseer05-15]

I first got a calculator in 7th grade and have used it for everything ever since.

[Dunamisdeos]

Agreed! I think that for small children the ability to do it by hand is essential. I think it's important to build that fundamental base before becoming dependent on tools.

Probably around 7/8th grade (in the US) is when we should start emphasizing things like that. My 8th grade teacher refused to let us use calculators, but the instant I hit high school (9th-12th) they were 100% required.

[helmacon]

well, lower level math classes aren't so much about the ability to apply the actual math as they are about developing the skills of logical progression and critical thinking. Most people who go through school take up to cal 1 at the least, but unless you go into something like engineering, computer science, or pure mathematics you won't really use it all that regularly.

Teaching the class with the goal of being able to apply that math is relatively pointless for a lot of people. Instead, they teach the class with the aim of developing the skills and thought processes used in math. The best way to do that is by forcing you to think through the entirety of each and every problem. Higher level math courses typically allow you to your resources because at that point, if you're learning it at all you probably intend to use it in your work or day to day life somehow.

TLDR: lower level math is taught towards prowess, while higher level math is taught towards application.

[Frumple]

Eh, like said, I'd be recommending involving as many different ways as possible, as early as possible. Lets you figure out what actually works for a student without forcing some to spend years slamming their head into a wall that isn't going to budge. Guess if I were doing some kind of ideal, resources and time unconsidered, I'd be splitting curriculum up, have part of the time dedicated to using and becoming familiar with a spread of methods (hand, mental, calculator enabled, spreadsheet enabled*, etc.) and the rest let the student choose two or three methods they prefer. Still probably require the use of more than one, but don't hinge most or all of a student's material on a single style, and make sure there's room for them to work and learn in a manner they're comfortable with, instead of assuming things need to be done a certain way for it to be "right".

Seen a number of times over the years where folks were insisting on pure hand written stuff for students it was very obviously massively frustrating for. Not only did they at best no learn well, often enough they didn't learn at all, or found the experience so stressful and fruitless it actively degraded their ability to engage in mathematics. Regardless of whether math needs to be taught like that, if it's not working it's not working, and it's time to try other things until something does. If missing out on some of the underlying concepts is what it takes to avoid turning someone off math entirely, methinks it's time to shove the concepts under the bus and come back later, y'know?

* Which would take a bit of work to get intuitive for younger users, but I'm pretty damn sure it's possible and being able to physically manipulate a formula and change numbers on the fly without getting (as much) human error involved can be bloody tremendously helpful. If I had had that about a decade before I did, it wouldn't have taken that decade to stop being substantially hostile to the field.

[Flying Dice]

You know... with people defining anime as a animation style and not "Animation from Japan"

Does that mean Akira is no longer anime?

Those people are wrong. There's your dead simple answer. Just like they'd have been wrong if they insisted that early Japanese animation was Disney/KFM/whatever.

Especially because their entire argument rests on contemporary visual similarities. The underlying assumptions, cultural norms, body of previous work, &c. is what makes anime anime, not a particular quirk of the way in which it is drawn or animated. Arguing otherwise is like arguing that power metal, blues, punk, and jazz are all the same sort of music because they use a lot of the same instruments, but that modern orchestral music has nothing to do with classical orchestral music from a given period because different things are emphasized and popular. That a Cubist is the same thing as an Impressionist if they both work in oils, but that, say, Manet and Degas are totally different types of painter because of small differences in how they worked.

The definition rests on the details, on the underlying themes and culture, on how the stories are structured-and what types of story are popular! It's equally absurd to claim that there is no connection or continuity in the West, that modern comics and wartime comics have nothing to do with each other because of changes in style and habit, because the artists aren't the same people.

I honestly don't even know where this obsession with making western comics and cartoons "qualify" as manga and anime comes from, unless it's weebs who feel guilty if they partake in something that isn't glorious nippon drawing. Like holy shit, are artists not allowed to take inspiration from other traditions and incorporate them into their own work?

[helmacon]

nippon

When spelled like this, I feel like it should be a brand of cat food.

[Putnam]

i wanted to calculate how much 1 "unit" of dwarven power corresponds to watts

here you go

Wait, did you use the tool I used to use to cheat in math class to....do actual science?   Bizzare.

So if I'm understanding these numbers correctly, a single dwarven waterwheel produces 2.3 kilowatts of power.  Assuming a direct connection to the wheel itself.  Apparently enough to run a Samsung Galaxy for 2 years if stored properly. Nifty.

Out of curiosity - What are the factors of 0.6 and 1/100 doing in that computation? Otherwise it looks like a pressure head of 3 meters and a (surprisingly huge) flow rate of 1500 liters/second.

60% efficiency, a water wheel provides 100 power. Assuming 7/7 water is 12 cubic meters of water and... oh, boy, i should probably have divided that by 56 instead of 7 given my assumptions regarding the surface area of the water wheel, hmm.

[Tawa]

Weird/bad Japanese covers of the A Song of Ice and Fire books

My ironic favorites are Edgy Jon and World of Warcraft Jamie, although I legitimately like the final two covers.

[NJW2000]

Donnie Darko.

Phew...

[TempAcc]

Weird/bad Japanese covers of the A Song of Ice and Fire books

My ironic favorites are Edgy Jon and World of Warcraft Jamie, although I legitimately like the final two covers.

Sweet Jesus, that reminds me of final fantasy tactics art for some reason (which doesn't make much sense, since those guys have noses)

Now if only someone would make a game of thrones tactics game :U

[Neonivek]

I don't understand what is with these Disney remakes... and their desire to "Fix" the original movie...

Yet... By doing so they kind of... I dunno... Forget the point and several important details.

Malefascent, for example, needed to "fix" that Aurora isn't really a character and is "Boring" but forgot that is because the Three Fairies are the main characters (Why do people keep thinking Aurora is the main character? She is the title character)... and in doing so created three incredibly annoying and unbearable characters and Aurora is STILL boring.

Jungle Book... Well... It would be a spoiler... but the entire movie basically is the opposite of the Jungle Book. Basically it bent to the whims of the day and the whole "Fitting in" aspect.

Cinderella wanted to "fix" the fact that Cinderella had no agency... Forgetting that this is a story about someone who has been robbed of their agency... and in removing all barriers it makes the character an idiot. (and that isn't the only "fix")

And Beauty and the Beast fixed...

Well you get the idea.

I can't wait until we get a remake of Frozen where they fix the fact that Anna doesn't fight by making her a Warrior Princess.

Yet it isn't like there is nothing to fix in the original OR that there is no way to update them to the overly faux-progressive diatribe we are getting.

[Draignean]

Jungle Book... Well... It would be a spoiler... but the entire movie basically is the opposite of the Jungle Book. Basically it bent to the whims of the day and the whole "Fitting in" aspect.

To be fair, The (New) Jungle Book movie is a lot truer to The Jungle Book book than The (Old) Jungle Book movie.

Granted, that's not terribly hard.