• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 1 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年6月27日

help-circle

  • I have been trying to figure out how to combat this bullshit argument succinctly. So far I am at this:

    If you vote for a person, it tips the ratio of votes they recieve (which is the only important thing in our system) in their favor. If you vote third party, not only does the ratio of votes between the two forerunners not change, but you completely throw away your representation.

    The way the system is set up right now means that only half of the voting population is even represented by the elected person.








  • the first point makes it sound like you either don’t want cities or you love vast amount of space being wasted. it would just be more reasons for developers to not build homes and new businesses, while also complete inflating parking lots everywhere.

    instead, scrap the bit in zoning laws where businesses have to allocate space and funds for parking lots in their designs. denser setting incentivizes walking or biking. in line with this, make mixed use development more apparent-- shops on bottom floor with apartments on top. capitalism will say to developers that they could fit another 2 or 3 stores in a lot that was previously going to be dedicated to parking

    reduce the number of road lanes and make them narrower in cities while opting for curb-raised and separated bike paths. ditch the grid based road map for a more natural one. the visual clutter on and around the road will make drivers go slow. ensure there is proper daylighting for points of conflict. get large trucks back onto rural roads, and incentivize, both to consumers and corporations, a return of small vehicles. we should be able to find a happy medium where if you need a car, be it for hauling furniture or going on a camping trip, it should still be convenient enough to do so.

    let there be a priority bus or emergency vehicle lane in the center of the road. that way busses and emergency vehicles don’t get stuck behind any car traffic






  • Correct, subtraction and division are not associative. However, what is subtraction if not adding the opposite of a number? Or division if not multiplying the inverse? And addition and multiplication are associative.

    2-2-2 can be written as 2 + (-2) + (-2) which would equal -2 no matter if you solve left to right, or right to left.

    In your example with the formula from right to left, distributing the negative sign reveals that the base equation was changed, so it makes sense that you saw a different answer.

    2 - (2 - 2) = 2 + ((-2) + 2) = 2


  • I’ve always heard it that way too but I think it is for consistency with students, imo Logically, if you are looking at division = multiplying by inverse and subtraction = adding the negative, you should be able to do it both ways. Addition and multiplication are both associative, so we can do 1+2+3 = (1+2)+3 = 1+(2+3) and get the same answer.


  • Not quite, pemdas can go either from the left or right (as long as you are consistent) and division is the same priority as multiplication because dividing by something is equal to multiplying by the inverse of that thing… same as subtraction being just addition but you flip the sign.

    8×1/2=8/2 1-1=1+(-1)

    The result is 16 if you rewrite the problem with this in mind: 8÷2(2+2)=8×(1/2)×(2+2)


  • The problem with this is that the division symbol is not an accurate representation of the intended meaning. Division is usually written in fractions which has an implied set of parenthesis, and is the same priority as multiplication. This is because dividing by a number is the same as multiplying by the inverse, same as subtracting is adding the negative of a number.

    8/2(2+2) could be rewritten as 8×1/2×(2+2) or (8×(2+2))/2 which both resolve into 16.