If we didn’t use parentheses in primary school, because “the math doesn’t need it”, then it would be quite unnecessarily hard on the students’ learning. Maybe it’s a joke someone made for a class?
I understand your point, and agree when it comes to programming with things like scope, typing, semicolons, etc, etc… Many concepts are easier to learn when enforced through syntax.
Though if someone gets cofused on the transitive nature of multiplication with a single simple equation … They aren’t learning math.
How old are you? Do you remember how stupid we were when we were like, 12? How learning new shit really required over clarification ad nauseam seen through our eyes now? Teachers are really patient people.
Anyway, this is just a joke post. Get over it. 🙂 Laugh at the funny. Instead of sucking it out of us. ❤️ The parentheses help make it look like the math is more advanced than it really is. It’s fine. Shhh. No no. Shhh. It’s supposed to be funny.
lol 🤣🤣🤣… me and my sister used to play dexter and didi. She did all sorts of stupid things in my modest electronics workshop and I would chase her all over the appartment 🤣. She even called me dexter and I called her didi. It was a blast to be honest, I miss those days…
I hope you and your sister are both doing well and happily still in contact spreading love! I love my sibling so much, so I hope you love each other too!
As an engineer I can say it can be a “hurry up and wait” kind of job. Around the 20% mark of a project timeline I’m 80% finished but then have to rely on a non-responsive authority to answer me back over some obscure part of the project. After that I just nag them and the project manager about it in email to cover my ass then do fuck all until they respond. At the 95% mark they answer back and I have to hurry up to finish. It can be stressful at times but it’s not bad otherwise.
I’m a designer that works with a bunch of engineers and yeah. I’ve got two projects that we had to rush in a two week deadline. Now we’ve been waiting for months on a reply about something. Just waiting.
Design a solution that solves or mitigated the problem.
Usually pay someone to make a prototype or do it ourselves
Test the prototype and see if it solves the problem. If no, go back to #2 until a workable solution is found
Get someone else to build the final thing.
Make sure thing works. Ship it.
This is a recursive and iterative process. Meaning you will find problems inside your solutions and need to fix them.
Eventually you finish the thing and get a new problem and do the whole game over again. It’s like a puzzle that requires absurd amounts of knowledge to play well, but anyone could try to solve the problem. That’s why good engineers are paid pretty well.
That’s a pretty good run down. There’s all sorts of soft skills required for that as well, and hard skills specific to the industry they’re in, but I think you’ve got the essence of it. Also in step 6, add: “take responsibility for everything that will go wrong with thing in the future” aka “sign off”.
Why? Because I want the timer to stop automatically during a phone call. To do this I need to request READ_PHONE_STATE (which bafflingly tells the user the permission is to “make and manage phone calls”). Unfortunately, there’s no way to alter the permission request to tell the user (at least in Android) why you want the permission. They really need to make the permissions more granular and provide some way for devs to communicate what the permission is for.
This is why, on the occasion of necessary permissions not being set, a lot of apps nowadays have a popup which tells the user something like “you need to grant permission for X because it actually lets this app do legitimate thing Y” like you just told us, with a button to click over to do the permissions grab and trigger the OS popup.
They took an existing airframe and slapped bigger engines on it. That’s what led to all the issues with the nose up tendency a few years back. I thought they took the existing 737 airframe, but it could have been a 757. Both are narrow bodies I think.
To add to the other comment. The airframe was different enough were it would have to be listed as a different type of plane. This means that any airline looking to buy the 737 max would have to train all of their pilots on this frame, which is comes at a huge cost and would reduce airlines incentive to buy it. So what did Boeing do? Somehow they managed to convince regulators that the 737 Max is no different than the 757, so pilots would not need new training, they just needed to watch a few videos on the new platform. However, this was a complete lie, the 737 Max had engines that were bigger and were sitting further back in the fuselage, this gave the 737 Max a tendency to pitch upward. To counteract this, and to help Boeing sell their lie, the program their software to counteract this issue (the MCAS, which is not the autopilot). So this software gave the illusion that the 737 flies like the 757 (hence why pilots wouldn’t need new training). However, Boeing installed only a single sensor to detect if the plane pitched upwards, in two cases the sensors failed and told the plane that it was pitching upwards when in fact it was flying straight. This caused the plane to go into a nosedive, and because MCAS was not autopilot the pilots had no idea what was happening, let alone how to turn it off. Which resulted in two airplane crashes in the span of a few months that killed everyone on board.
lemmyshitpost
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.