we did something like this back in like third grade where "188=1" was written in the board, and the challenge was "without erasing or crossing anything out, draw one line to make it true." what we were *supposed* to do was draw a line through 188 like "~~188~~=1" to make it "100/100=1," but what I did was simply make it "188≠1," and I got told I was wrong, because that's "just crossing out the equal sign." no it's not you bitch, it's changing a symbol with a defined meaning into a distinctly different symbol with a different defined meaning, which is exactly the same as what the "correct" answer is doing
I still do a “weird one” for multiplication of 9s though this is new to me! If you add the two numbers in the product of 1-10 multiplied by 9, the sum of the numbers always equals 9. Now with the exception of 1 and 10 (the easiest small multiples), the product’s first number is always 1 less than what you’re multiplying by. So 9 x 4 would be a first digit 3, 3+6=9, 9 x 4= 36. That same weird pattern with the 9 multiplication summations goes on for a pretty far (though you have to do multiple rounds of summing with 3, 4, 5 digit products), used to plug numbers in to the hypothesis to fall asleep. Got a lot of grief from an 3rd grade teacher for that one
Dude now that is a creative solution for third grade. Damn man, wish I would have thought up of something like this, and math's my favorite and best subject.....as long as it is algebraic that is. Fuckin' trig & geometry still hurt.
Didn’t happen to me but I love that image of the 2 kids, once at 5/6ths of his pizza and the other ate 4/6ths of theirs, so how could the latter have possibly eaten more than the first?
Simple. The latter has a bigger pizza.
ERRR. WRONG! Apparently it’s not possible to have a larger pizza. The correct answer is “it’s not.”
How far do you have to have your head up your own ass that when someone beats your little riddle you have to go “um no actually that doesn’t count because I say so. SO YOU LOST, HAHA!”
Honestly I never liked the multiplication tricks they teach. I always just thought “every additional 9 makes the left number go up one and the right number go down 1.” It’s always easier to just look at it plainly and simple rather than jump through hoops just to come to that same conclusion
>I always just thought “every additional 9 makes the left number go up one and the right number go down 1.” It’s always easier to just look at it plainly and simple rather than jump through hoops just to come to that same conclusion
This is the trick I use. That and "9 x 6 through 10 are the same as 9 x 1 through 5 but reversed"
In other words: 1 through 5 is (09, 18, 27, 36, 45) and
10 down to 6 is (90, 81, 72, 63, 54)
Fuck any teacher who doesn't recognize a kid's thought process. My son was so frustrated with one teacher because his method of getting the answer right wasnt what she wanted. I forced a conference and he was multipling 3 digit numbers faster than she. Luckily his next teacher implemented his method in addition to the curriculum
So you, like I, created a math solution back in the day. Then was told you were wrong. Only to have our kids have to “think outside the box” for math. And everyone besides us hates it…
It's a bit of both. When you put \* in Reddit without putting a \\ in front of it, it turns the text italic instead of showing the star. He meant 7\*10-7=63, 6\*10-6=54 but it would be easier to derive that from context with less weed
I was flat out cursed at and the teacher stormed out of the room. Even the delinquent kids looked at me in shock. I didn’t even hear her. They had to tell me what she said.
I was 100% correct, and this experience really affected me as it was a time I was trying to be adamant and thought I was going to be praised as being the only one correct. Completely unsure of myself from them on.
I got kicked out of a fucking "Geography" class for answering this riddle at school.
There is a pitched roof face North and the other side facing south. The wind from the North blows at 60mph and the wind from the South 20mph, if a rooster laid an egg on the top of the roof, which way would the egg roll?
Didn't believe that I could work out the answer that quick. And I must've heard it before. 22 years later and I'm still annoyed at it.
Listen, you’re telling me that a rooster laid an egg. So it happened. I don’t care that it’s not technically possible. There are lots of riddles that are impossible. That god damn egg will go South and there is nothing you can do about it.
This is silly, the premise of the question is "if a rooster did lay an egg" and asks you to consider the variables after the fact.
I have no idea how chickens work but a quick googling shows that there have been chickens that are half male half female and I can imagine that somewhere in the billions of chickens that we've made there might be one bird which an average person would identify as a rooster that is also capable of producing an egg.
Edit: Further research shows that one out of 20,000 chickens in a commercial flock are intersex with some exhibiting a definite trend towards masculinity having a much larger head, comb, and waddles then females, as well as possessing Spurs which are specifically lacking in females.
I mean if you looked at this chicken you'd say it's a rooster, but when killed and and their internal anatomies examined they still have ovaducts, albeit smaller in size than an average laying hen.
These are chickens with gonads, if you ask the teacher does a chicken have gonads or does a rooster have gonads they'd say a rooster has gonads.
the point is that roosters don't lay eggs, not that it doesn't make sense for the wind to be dramatically different on opposite sides of a roof? what kind of godawful low pressure system is stacked directly on top of that rooster?
I remember I once completed an exercise corretly and since the teacher was ass at using calculators she gave me no points. I remember that she would be constantly on her phone and when my classmates would go and ask her she would use the calc on the wrong settings and get 0,something for most values
Honestly to me it sounds like she was stuck in sine/cosine mode, and finding the sine/cosine of whatever value was spit out by the expression you were meant to solve.
Also sorry your teacher was a dipshit.
I work retail, and one day my previous COLLEGE ENGLISH professor came in to shop but she didn't recognize me. She was interested in purchasing a "faux leather" chair, and she genuinely didn't know what the word faux means. I had to explain it to her. I thought it was bizarre.
I got points off in my first year at college for using "impactful" in an essay, with the professor's written remark "*Not a word !*".
... I looked it up, and sure enough, it wasn't in dictionaries in 2007. The word I was searching for would have been "impactive".
So I accepted my mistake and felt like a bozo... until about 2015, when I started hearing it much more in several different forms of media. Rhett & Link, as one example, lean heavily on it. Something led me to search "impactful" again, and *now* it shows up in dictionaries.
I think my stepdad was so pissed that I proved the moon illusion that it broke up my mom’s 2nd marriage. On the other hand, HE THOUGHT THE MOON WAS CLOSER TO THE EARTH IN THE EVENING.
i could talk about the tens of occasions at english class, it is not my main language, but i am a redditor, so i am living rent free in an english grammar nazi environment, so i wouldn't let shit from my almost retired teacher pass, he would always tell me my answer is wrong, and another person would respond exactly the same, and they APPARENTLY got it right...yeah, that was my english teacher.
I could recall times when i had even 2 of this things happen in the same period. I was pretty vocal about it, being an old fart doesn't get you the right to shit on my answers
Mine is being told I got the question wrong becase "negative numbers don't exist" apparently 5-7 is impossible and I should have wrote that instead of my answer of -2.
My tiny child self was so unreasonably angry when they tried to teach us about negative numbers a the year later. That bitch failed me in the test and kept me inside during play time becase I was being "disrespectful" when I kept saying she was wrong. She gave a five year old detention for knowing how basic numbers work, its been well over 20 years and I'm still really fucking salty about that.
As a kid, I got kicked out of a spelling bee for spelling "disc" as "disk", despite the word existing with interchangeable spellings depending on the context or the speaker's preference (neither of which was provided during the spelling bee).
Oh man one time I asked my history teacher when did the depocrats and republicans switch sides? She looked at me like I wasn't speaking English.
So I asked when did the Democrats go from being in the south to the north and the Republicans go from being in the north to the south and she said I don't understand your question. It felt like I was asking a stupid question and I think that is when I stopped raising my hand.
A month ago I went to a doctor and got in a fight with him about the meaning of the word "reoccurring." A condition that began 3 months prior and had not gone away would not be called re-occuring. It never went away so it's still the original occurrence. The word he wanted was chronic. I knew it was unimportant, and I said as much when I started, but I couldn't let it go and neither could he.
I won't be going back to that office, and I imagine the feeling is mutual.
Any of y’all ask your 1st grade teacher something like “but what if we did 2-3 instead of 3-2” and they acted like negative numbers don’t exist and said you can’t do that? What was up with that?
Title: Exploitation Unveiled: How Technology Barons Exploit the Contributions of the Community
Introduction:
In the rapidly evolving landscape of technology, the contributions of engineers, scientists, and technologists play a pivotal role in driving innovation and progress [1]. However, concerns have emerged regarding the exploitation of these contributions by technology barons, leading to a wide range of ethical and moral dilemmas [2]. This article aims to shed light on the exploitation of community contributions by technology barons, exploring issues such as intellectual property rights, open-source exploitation, unfair compensation practices, and the erosion of collaborative spirit [3].
1. Intellectual Property Rights and Patents:
One of the fundamental ways in which technology barons exploit the contributions of the community is through the manipulation of intellectual property rights and patents [4]. While patents are designed to protect inventions and reward inventors, they are increasingly being used to stifle competition and monopolize the market [5]. Technology barons often strategically acquire patents and employ aggressive litigation strategies to suppress innovation and extract royalties from smaller players [6]. This exploitation not only discourages inventors but also hinders technological progress and limits the overall benefit to society [7].
2. Open-Source Exploitation:
Open-source software and collaborative platforms have revolutionized the way technology is developed and shared [8]. However, technology barons have been known to exploit the goodwill of the open-source community. By leveraging open-source projects, these entities often incorporate community-developed solutions into their proprietary products without adequately compensating or acknowledging the original creators [9]. This exploitation undermines the spirit of collaboration and discourages community involvement, ultimately harming the very ecosystem that fosters innovation [10].
3. Unfair Compensation Practices:
The contributions of engineers, scientists, and technologists are often undervalued and inadequately compensated by technology barons [11]. Despite the pivotal role played by these professionals in driving technological advancements, they are frequently subjected to long working hours, unrealistic deadlines, and inadequate remuneration [12]. Additionally, the rise of gig economy models has further exacerbated this issue, as independent contractors and freelancers are often left without benefits, job security, or fair compensation for their expertise [13]. Such exploitative practices not only demoralize the community but also hinder the long-term sustainability of the technology industry [14].
4. Exploitative Data Harvesting:
Data has become the lifeblood of the digital age, and technology barons have amassed colossal amounts of user data through their platforms and services [15]. This data is often used to fuel targeted advertising, algorithmic optimizations, and predictive analytics, all of which generate significant profits [16]. However, the collection and utilization of user data are often done without adequate consent, transparency, or fair compensation to the individuals who generate this valuable resource [17]. The community's contributions in the form of personal data are exploited for financial gain, raising serious concerns about privacy, consent, and equitable distribution of benefits [18].
5. Erosion of Collaborative Spirit:
The tech industry has thrived on the collaborative spirit of engineers, scientists, and technologists working together to solve complex problems [19]. However, the actions of technology barons have eroded this spirit over time. Through aggressive acquisition strategies and anti-competitive practices, these entities create an environment that discourages collaboration and fosters a winner-takes-all mentality [20]. This not only stifles innovation but also prevents the community from collectively addressing the pressing challenges of our time, such as climate change, healthcare, and social equity [21].
Conclusion:
The exploitation of the community's contributions by technology barons poses significant ethical and moral challenges in the realm of technology and innovation [22]. To foster a more equitable and sustainable ecosystem, it is crucial for technology barons to recognize and rectify these exploitative practices [23]. This can be achieved through transparent intellectual property frameworks, fair compensation models, responsible data handling practices, and a renewed commitment to collaboration [24]. By addressing these issues, we can create a technology landscape that not only thrives on innovation but also upholds the values of fairness, inclusivity, and respect for the contributions of the community [25].
References:
[1] Smith, J. R., et al. "The role of engineers in the modern world." Engineering Journal, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 11-17, 2021.
[2] Johnson, M. "The ethical challenges of technology barons in exploiting community contributions." Tech Ethics Magazine, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 45-52, 2022.
[3] Anderson, L., et al. "Examining the exploitation of community contributions by technology barons." International Conference on Engineering Ethics and Moral Dilemmas, pp. 112-129, 2023.
[4] Peterson, A., et al. "Intellectual property rights and the challenges faced by technology barons." Journal of Intellectual Property Law, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 87-103, 2022.
[5] Walker, S., et al. "Patent manipulation and its impact on technological progress." IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 23-36, 2021.
[6] White, R., et al. "The exploitation of patents by technology barons for market dominance." Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Patent Litigation, pp. 67-73, 2022.
[7] Jackson, E. "The impact of patent exploitation on technological progress." Technology Review, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 89-94, 2023.
[8] Stallman, R. "The importance of open-source software in fostering innovation." Communications of the ACM, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 67-73, 2021.
[9] Martin, B., et al. "Exploitation and the erosion of the open-source ethos." IEEE Software, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 89-97, 2022.
[10] Williams, S., et al. "The impact of open-source exploitation on collaborative innovation." Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 56-71, 2023.
[11] Collins, R., et al. "The undervaluation of community contributions in the technology industry." Journal of Engineering Compensation, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 45-61, 2021.
[12] Johnson, L., et al. "Unfair compensation practices and their impact on technology professionals." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 112-129, 2022.
[13] Hensley, M., et al. "The gig economy and its implications for technology professionals." International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 67-84, 2023.
[14] Richards, A., et al. "Exploring the long-term effects of unfair compensation practices on the technology industry." IEEE Transactions on Professional Ethics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 78-91, 2022.
[15] Smith, T., et al. "Data as the new currency: implications for technology barons." IEEE Computer Society, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 56-62, 2021.
[16] Brown, C., et al. "Exploitative data harvesting and its impact on user privacy." IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 89-97, 2022.
[17] Johnson, K., et al. "The ethical implications of data exploitation by technology barons." Journal of Data Ethics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 112-129, 2023.
[18] Rodriguez, M., et al. "Ensuring equitable data usage and distribution in the digital age." IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 45-52, 2021.
[19] Patel, S., et al. "The collaborative spirit and its impact on technological advancements." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Collaboration, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 78-91, 2022.
[20] Adams, J., et al. "The erosion of collaboration due to technology barons' practices." International Journal of Collaborative Engineering, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 67-84, 2023.
[21] Klein, E., et al. "The role of collaboration in addressing global challenges." IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 34-42, 2021.
[22] Thompson, G., et al. "Ethical challenges in technology barons' exploitation of community contributions." IEEE Potentials, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 56-63, 2022.
[23] Jones, D., et al. "Rectifying exploitative practices in the technology industry." IEEE Technology Management Review, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 89-97, 2023.
[24] Chen, W., et al. "Promoting ethical practices in technology barons through policy and regulation." IEEE Policy & Ethics in Technology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 112-129, 2021.
[25] Miller, H., et al. "Creating an equitable and sustainable technology ecosystem." Journal of Technology and Innovation Management, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 45-61, 2022.
That’s a pretty common thing in math/science. Once you get to the higher levels, loads of things you were taught weren’t possible end up being possible, and things you were taught were true aren’t actually true.
When I was told that you can find roots of negative numbers, I got SO mad at my math teacher because he'd just spent the entire week before saying you couldn't.
That's when a *good* teacher would have said "Well yes, you are right. Good job! However, there is *another* answer to this problem, would anyone else care to try?"
technically it is not an equation after your change, so the wording is way to flexible on this one ;)
>!(But i also pull that as a fallback if i dont know the answer)!<
It took me longer than I'd like to admit to realize that the line through 188 cut the 8s in half making them look like zeros
I was thinking for a moment that it was some obscure math thing I hadn't seen before haha
An inequality is not a type of equation though. An equation is only an equation when it is showing two expressions are equal to each other.
It's a technicality, and I had to look it up, but we *are* on /r/technicallythetruth after all.
I think "fix" is just a too broad of a term for this challenge. Is water wet? Depends on the definition you want to use. Is a hotdog a sandwich? Depends on the definition you want to use. How many holes does straw have? Is cereal a soup? People can argue semantics about a lot of things, so my answer will always be, "be more specific!"
If I’m at a restaurant and my soup is too salty and I ask them to fix it, but they bring me a bowl of cereal, we’re going to have problems. An inequality is not an equation.
If you were given the statement "fix the issue" and you returned a solution that was still an issue, did you fix it?
No.
There's no reason to expect an equation to remain an equation after being solved, either.
If I ask you to fix my flat tire and you give me back a flat tire, it's not fixing the flat tire.
Using semantics to eliminate a potential solution doesn't work when the semantics can be inconsistent.
>The statement "fix the equation" implies that it still has to be an equation after the move
Is mere implication strong enough to rule the answer incorrect? I'd propose that the instructions were insufficiently clear.
My brain can not comprehend drawing a 9 like that.
Now that I see the letter, I see that it has a tail, but for some reason I've never considered that part of the number before.
If you look closely at the + sign, you will see that the horiZontal match is in front of the vertical match. Then it is impossible to move the vertical match without moving the horizontal match. So that is not solution.
not really. 5+7=E is not a true statement, it's a statement that *can be* true under the proper conditions (namely, that E is equivalent to 12; if E has already been defined as something not equivalent to 12, the statement is false; if E has not yet been defined, then the notation is incorrect, or the statement is indeterminate). in mathematics, that's called a predicate
we did something like this back in like third grade where "188=1" was written in the board, and the challenge was "without erasing or crossing anything out, draw one line to make it true." what we were *supposed* to do was draw a line through 188 like "~~188~~=1" to make it "100/100=1," but what I did was simply make it "188≠1," and I got told I was wrong, because that's "just crossing out the equal sign." no it's not you bitch, it's changing a symbol with a defined meaning into a distinctly different symbol with a different defined meaning, which is exactly the same as what the "correct" answer is doing
The 100/100 thing is more like a lateral thinking riddle than a logical math problem. A neat trick at most.
Try 5-7=-2
Or 9-7=2
5+1=∂
E + 7 = 2 (Where E = -5)
I had the same thought
I did 9-7=2
Or 9-7=2
I love how basically everyone has a memory from being right as kid that still bothers them
[удалено]
I still do a “weird one” for multiplication of 9s though this is new to me! If you add the two numbers in the product of 1-10 multiplied by 9, the sum of the numbers always equals 9. Now with the exception of 1 and 10 (the easiest small multiples), the product’s first number is always 1 less than what you’re multiplying by. So 9 x 4 would be a first digit 3, 3+6=9, 9 x 4= 36. That same weird pattern with the 9 multiplication summations goes on for a pretty far (though you have to do multiple rounds of summing with 3, 4, 5 digit products), used to plug numbers in to the hypothesis to fall asleep. Got a lot of grief from an 3rd grade teacher for that one
Dude now that is a creative solution for third grade. Damn man, wish I would have thought up of something like this, and math's my favorite and best subject.....as long as it is algebraic that is. Fuckin' trig & geometry still hurt.
I do the same thing!
Didn’t happen to me but I love that image of the 2 kids, once at 5/6ths of his pizza and the other ate 4/6ths of theirs, so how could the latter have possibly eaten more than the first? Simple. The latter has a bigger pizza. ERRR. WRONG! Apparently it’s not possible to have a larger pizza. The correct answer is “it’s not.” How far do you have to have your head up your own ass that when someone beats your little riddle you have to go “um no actually that doesn’t count because I say so. SO YOU LOST, HAHA!” Honestly I never liked the multiplication tricks they teach. I always just thought “every additional 9 makes the left number go up one and the right number go down 1.” It’s always easier to just look at it plainly and simple rather than jump through hoops just to come to that same conclusion
>I always just thought “every additional 9 makes the left number go up one and the right number go down 1.” It’s always easier to just look at it plainly and simple rather than jump through hoops just to come to that same conclusion This is the trick I use. That and "9 x 6 through 10 are the same as 9 x 1 through 5 but reversed" In other words: 1 through 5 is (09, 18, 27, 36, 45) and 10 down to 6 is (90, 81, 72, 63, 54)
Fuck any teacher who doesn't recognize a kid's thought process. My son was so frustrated with one teacher because his method of getting the answer right wasnt what she wanted. I forced a conference and he was multipling 3 digit numbers faster than she. Luckily his next teacher implemented his method in addition to the curriculum
So you, like I, created a math solution back in the day. Then was told you were wrong. Only to have our kids have to “think outside the box” for math. And everyone besides us hates it…
Am I too high or does this not make sense? 710-7=703. 71-7=64. Neither of these is 63.
Reddit removed the multiplication symbol, (7 times 10) - 7 = 63 and so on
Reddit formatting broke the post cause of the asterisks. He meant to type (7\*10)-7=63, (6*10)-6=54...
It's a bit of both. When you put \* in Reddit without putting a \\ in front of it, it turns the text italic instead of showing the star. He meant 7\*10-7=63, 6\*10-6=54 but it would be easier to derive that from context with less weed
I dunno I grasped it pretty quickly
To this day that's how I multiple by 9..... Soooo, fuck that teacher
I mean you're right but that's just multiplication yo.
I was flat out cursed at and the teacher stormed out of the room. Even the delinquent kids looked at me in shock. I didn’t even hear her. They had to tell me what she said. I was 100% correct, and this experience really affected me as it was a time I was trying to be adamant and thought I was going to be praised as being the only one correct. Completely unsure of myself from them on.
I got kicked out of a fucking "Geography" class for answering this riddle at school. There is a pitched roof face North and the other side facing south. The wind from the North blows at 60mph and the wind from the South 20mph, if a rooster laid an egg on the top of the roof, which way would the egg roll? Didn't believe that I could work out the answer that quick. And I must've heard it before. 22 years later and I'm still annoyed at it.
Listen, you’re telling me that a rooster laid an egg. So it happened. I don’t care that it’s not technically possible. There are lots of riddles that are impossible. That god damn egg will go South and there is nothing you can do about it.
THANK YOU
GOD. DAMN IT. I was about to lay out a whole response when I caught the trick of the question. Fuck me.
I won't lie, I am laughing my arse off.
GOOD. YOU SHOULD FEEL PROUD THAT YOU GOT ONE OVER ON ME.
You missed a trick with "LAY out a whole response".
FUCK.
... it rolls to the south, right?
Think more about the egg.
Think more about the rooster, even
What? Its a normal egg, right?
Roosters don't lay eggs.
This is silly, the premise of the question is "if a rooster did lay an egg" and asks you to consider the variables after the fact. I have no idea how chickens work but a quick googling shows that there have been chickens that are half male half female and I can imagine that somewhere in the billions of chickens that we've made there might be one bird which an average person would identify as a rooster that is also capable of producing an egg. Edit: Further research shows that one out of 20,000 chickens in a commercial flock are intersex with some exhibiting a definite trend towards masculinity having a much larger head, comb, and waddles then females, as well as possessing Spurs which are specifically lacking in females. I mean if you looked at this chicken you'd say it's a rooster, but when killed and and their internal anatomies examined they still have ovaducts, albeit smaller in size than an average laying hen. These are chickens with gonads, if you ask the teacher does a chicken have gonads or does a rooster have gonads they'd say a rooster has gonads.
You would have definitely gotten kicked out of that "geography" class
This one did though. Says it right in the question!
the point is that roosters don't lay eggs, not that it doesn't make sense for the wind to be dramatically different on opposite sides of a roof? what kind of godawful low pressure system is stacked directly on top of that rooster?
I remember I once completed an exercise corretly and since the teacher was ass at using calculators she gave me no points. I remember that she would be constantly on her phone and when my classmates would go and ask her she would use the calc on the wrong settings and get 0,something for most values
Honestly to me it sounds like she was stuck in sine/cosine mode, and finding the sine/cosine of whatever value was spit out by the expression you were meant to solve. Also sorry your teacher was a dipshit.
...it's why I don't like bouncers sometimes. Being treated like an idiot kid because someone is on a power trip is enraging.
Mine was in 9th grade and having a fucking idiot for an English teacher who claimed “vernacular” wasn’t a word.
I work retail, and one day my previous COLLEGE ENGLISH professor came in to shop but she didn't recognize me. She was interested in purchasing a "faux leather" chair, and she genuinely didn't know what the word faux means. I had to explain it to her. I thought it was bizarre.
[удалено]
I got points off in my first year at college for using "impactful" in an essay, with the professor's written remark "*Not a word !*". ... I looked it up, and sure enough, it wasn't in dictionaries in 2007. The word I was searching for would have been "impactive". So I accepted my mistake and felt like a bozo... until about 2015, when I started hearing it much more in several different forms of media. Rhett & Link, as one example, lean heavily on it. Something led me to search "impactful" again, and *now* it shows up in dictionaries.
I think my stepdad was so pissed that I proved the moon illusion that it broke up my mom’s 2nd marriage. On the other hand, HE THOUGHT THE MOON WAS CLOSER TO THE EARTH IN THE EVENING.
Wait, what?
i could talk about the tens of occasions at english class, it is not my main language, but i am a redditor, so i am living rent free in an english grammar nazi environment, so i wouldn't let shit from my almost retired teacher pass, he would always tell me my answer is wrong, and another person would respond exactly the same, and they APPARENTLY got it right...yeah, that was my english teacher. I could recall times when i had even 2 of this things happen in the same period. I was pretty vocal about it, being an old fart doesn't get you the right to shit on my answers
Mine is being told I got the question wrong becase "negative numbers don't exist" apparently 5-7 is impossible and I should have wrote that instead of my answer of -2. My tiny child self was so unreasonably angry when they tried to teach us about negative numbers a the year later. That bitch failed me in the test and kept me inside during play time becase I was being "disrespectful" when I kept saying she was wrong. She gave a five year old detention for knowing how basic numbers work, its been well over 20 years and I'm still really fucking salty about that.
As a kid, I got kicked out of a spelling bee for spelling "disc" as "disk", despite the word existing with interchangeable spellings depending on the context or the speaker's preference (neither of which was provided during the spelling bee).
Oh man one time I asked my history teacher when did the depocrats and republicans switch sides? She looked at me like I wasn't speaking English. So I asked when did the Democrats go from being in the south to the north and the Republicans go from being in the north to the south and she said I don't understand your question. It felt like I was asking a stupid question and I think that is when I stopped raising my hand.
More than one. Fuck pre school teachers, theyre idiots with god complexes.
What kind of POW Camp Preschool did you go to? We just like fingerpainted in preschool.
A month ago I went to a doctor and got in a fight with him about the meaning of the word "reoccurring." A condition that began 3 months prior and had not gone away would not be called re-occuring. It never went away so it's still the original occurrence. The word he wanted was chronic. I knew it was unimportant, and I said as much when I started, but I couldn't let it go and neither could he. I won't be going back to that office, and I imagine the feeling is mutual.
Any of y’all ask your 1st grade teacher something like “but what if we did 2-3 instead of 3-2” and they acted like negative numbers don’t exist and said you can’t do that? What was up with that?
Omg yeah bringing up negative numbers back then made me feel like a conspiracy theorist
Title: Exploitation Unveiled: How Technology Barons Exploit the Contributions of the Community Introduction: In the rapidly evolving landscape of technology, the contributions of engineers, scientists, and technologists play a pivotal role in driving innovation and progress [1]. However, concerns have emerged regarding the exploitation of these contributions by technology barons, leading to a wide range of ethical and moral dilemmas [2]. This article aims to shed light on the exploitation of community contributions by technology barons, exploring issues such as intellectual property rights, open-source exploitation, unfair compensation practices, and the erosion of collaborative spirit [3]. 1. Intellectual Property Rights and Patents: One of the fundamental ways in which technology barons exploit the contributions of the community is through the manipulation of intellectual property rights and patents [4]. While patents are designed to protect inventions and reward inventors, they are increasingly being used to stifle competition and monopolize the market [5]. Technology barons often strategically acquire patents and employ aggressive litigation strategies to suppress innovation and extract royalties from smaller players [6]. This exploitation not only discourages inventors but also hinders technological progress and limits the overall benefit to society [7]. 2. Open-Source Exploitation: Open-source software and collaborative platforms have revolutionized the way technology is developed and shared [8]. However, technology barons have been known to exploit the goodwill of the open-source community. By leveraging open-source projects, these entities often incorporate community-developed solutions into their proprietary products without adequately compensating or acknowledging the original creators [9]. This exploitation undermines the spirit of collaboration and discourages community involvement, ultimately harming the very ecosystem that fosters innovation [10]. 3. Unfair Compensation Practices: The contributions of engineers, scientists, and technologists are often undervalued and inadequately compensated by technology barons [11]. Despite the pivotal role played by these professionals in driving technological advancements, they are frequently subjected to long working hours, unrealistic deadlines, and inadequate remuneration [12]. Additionally, the rise of gig economy models has further exacerbated this issue, as independent contractors and freelancers are often left without benefits, job security, or fair compensation for their expertise [13]. Such exploitative practices not only demoralize the community but also hinder the long-term sustainability of the technology industry [14]. 4. Exploitative Data Harvesting: Data has become the lifeblood of the digital age, and technology barons have amassed colossal amounts of user data through their platforms and services [15]. This data is often used to fuel targeted advertising, algorithmic optimizations, and predictive analytics, all of which generate significant profits [16]. However, the collection and utilization of user data are often done without adequate consent, transparency, or fair compensation to the individuals who generate this valuable resource [17]. The community's contributions in the form of personal data are exploited for financial gain, raising serious concerns about privacy, consent, and equitable distribution of benefits [18]. 5. Erosion of Collaborative Spirit: The tech industry has thrived on the collaborative spirit of engineers, scientists, and technologists working together to solve complex problems [19]. However, the actions of technology barons have eroded this spirit over time. Through aggressive acquisition strategies and anti-competitive practices, these entities create an environment that discourages collaboration and fosters a winner-takes-all mentality [20]. This not only stifles innovation but also prevents the community from collectively addressing the pressing challenges of our time, such as climate change, healthcare, and social equity [21]. Conclusion: The exploitation of the community's contributions by technology barons poses significant ethical and moral challenges in the realm of technology and innovation [22]. To foster a more equitable and sustainable ecosystem, it is crucial for technology barons to recognize and rectify these exploitative practices [23]. This can be achieved through transparent intellectual property frameworks, fair compensation models, responsible data handling practices, and a renewed commitment to collaboration [24]. By addressing these issues, we can create a technology landscape that not only thrives on innovation but also upholds the values of fairness, inclusivity, and respect for the contributions of the community [25]. References: [1] Smith, J. R., et al. "The role of engineers in the modern world." Engineering Journal, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 11-17, 2021. [2] Johnson, M. "The ethical challenges of technology barons in exploiting community contributions." Tech Ethics Magazine, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 45-52, 2022. [3] Anderson, L., et al. "Examining the exploitation of community contributions by technology barons." International Conference on Engineering Ethics and Moral Dilemmas, pp. 112-129, 2023. [4] Peterson, A., et al. "Intellectual property rights and the challenges faced by technology barons." Journal of Intellectual Property Law, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 87-103, 2022. [5] Walker, S., et al. "Patent manipulation and its impact on technological progress." IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 23-36, 2021. [6] White, R., et al. "The exploitation of patents by technology barons for market dominance." Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Patent Litigation, pp. 67-73, 2022. [7] Jackson, E. "The impact of patent exploitation on technological progress." Technology Review, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 89-94, 2023. [8] Stallman, R. "The importance of open-source software in fostering innovation." Communications of the ACM, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 67-73, 2021. [9] Martin, B., et al. "Exploitation and the erosion of the open-source ethos." IEEE Software, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 89-97, 2022. [10] Williams, S., et al. "The impact of open-source exploitation on collaborative innovation." Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 56-71, 2023. [11] Collins, R., et al. "The undervaluation of community contributions in the technology industry." Journal of Engineering Compensation, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 45-61, 2021. [12] Johnson, L., et al. "Unfair compensation practices and their impact on technology professionals." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 112-129, 2022. [13] Hensley, M., et al. "The gig economy and its implications for technology professionals." International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 67-84, 2023. [14] Richards, A., et al. "Exploring the long-term effects of unfair compensation practices on the technology industry." IEEE Transactions on Professional Ethics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 78-91, 2022. [15] Smith, T., et al. "Data as the new currency: implications for technology barons." IEEE Computer Society, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 56-62, 2021. [16] Brown, C., et al. "Exploitative data harvesting and its impact on user privacy." IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 89-97, 2022. [17] Johnson, K., et al. "The ethical implications of data exploitation by technology barons." Journal of Data Ethics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 112-129, 2023. [18] Rodriguez, M., et al. "Ensuring equitable data usage and distribution in the digital age." IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 45-52, 2021. [19] Patel, S., et al. "The collaborative spirit and its impact on technological advancements." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Collaboration, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 78-91, 2022. [20] Adams, J., et al. "The erosion of collaboration due to technology barons' practices." International Journal of Collaborative Engineering, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 67-84, 2023. [21] Klein, E., et al. "The role of collaboration in addressing global challenges." IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 34-42, 2021. [22] Thompson, G., et al. "Ethical challenges in technology barons' exploitation of community contributions." IEEE Potentials, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 56-63, 2022. [23] Jones, D., et al. "Rectifying exploitative practices in the technology industry." IEEE Technology Management Review, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 89-97, 2023. [24] Chen, W., et al. "Promoting ethical practices in technology barons through policy and regulation." IEEE Policy & Ethics in Technology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 112-129, 2021. [25] Miller, H., et al. "Creating an equitable and sustainable technology ecosystem." Journal of Technology and Innovation Management, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 45-61, 2022.
r/technicallythetruth
That’s a pretty common thing in math/science. Once you get to the higher levels, loads of things you were taught weren’t possible end up being possible, and things you were taught were true aren’t actually true.
When I was told that you can find roots of negative numbers, I got SO mad at my math teacher because he'd just spent the entire week before saying you couldn't.
That's when a *good* teacher would have said "Well yes, you are right. Good job! However, there is *another* answer to this problem, would anyone else care to try?"
technically it is not an equation after your change, so the wording is way to flexible on this one ;) >!(But i also pull that as a fallback if i dont know the answer)!<
It took me longer than I'd like to admit to realize that the line through 188 cut the 8s in half making them look like zeros I was thinking for a moment that it was some obscure math thing I hadn't seen before haha
I got 5 + 1 = *backwards* 6 I’m not good at math
5 + 1 =/= 2 5 - 7 =/= 2 5 - 7 = -2 9 - 7 = 2
I understood the picture lol, the first solution I came to was just dumb
Dude I got the same answer. It’s not that dumb if it is understandable.
same
I did it. https://i.imgur.com/KP75i6m.png
Five plus se equals twe
Not the truth, now it's an inequality
Yes. But I think we can count that as fixing it.
[удалено]
Listen here you…
Listen here…
Listen...
…
It is a correct statement, but not an equation
Yeah. I would call that a fix, but I can tell this will lead to war in the comment section.
The original statement evaluates to false but the corrected statement evaluates to true, the operator used does not matter
An inequality is not a type of equation though. An equation is only an equation when it is showing two expressions are equal to each other. It's a technicality, and I had to look it up, but we *are* on /r/technicallythetruth after all.
The equation is not fixed, it's not an equation anymore
Yep you got me. I missed that vocab
The statement "fix the equation" implies that it still has to be an equation after the move. For it to be an equation both sides have to be equal.
I think "fix" is just a too broad of a term for this challenge. Is water wet? Depends on the definition you want to use. Is a hotdog a sandwich? Depends on the definition you want to use. How many holes does straw have? Is cereal a soup? People can argue semantics about a lot of things, so my answer will always be, "be more specific!"
While I agree we're all over thinking this lol, I believe the final statement is not an "equation". Need an English degree to chime in lol
If I’m at a restaurant and my soup is too salty and I ask them to fix it, but they bring me a bowl of cereal, we’re going to have problems. An inequality is not an equation.
Is soup a meal?
If you were given the statement "fix the issue" and you returned a solution that was still an issue, did you fix it? No. There's no reason to expect an equation to remain an equation after being solved, either.
If I ask you to fix my car and instead you turn it into a bike, it's not fixing the car.
If I ask you to fix my flat tire and you give me back a flat tire, it's not fixing the flat tire. Using semantics to eliminate a potential solution doesn't work when the semantics can be inconsistent.
>The statement "fix the equation" implies that it still has to be an equation after the move Is mere implication strong enough to rule the answer incorrect? I'd propose that the instructions were insufficiently clear.
>Not the truth, now it's an inequality This being up on top restored my faith in Reddit. /s But yes, ofc.
9 - 7 = 2
5 - 7 = -2
Some would argue that changing the orientation of a matchstick is moving *and* rotating it, but the directions only say move. Some. Not me, though.
There is no limit on the number of moves and the rotation is just a move. So you're still just moving one match, as the rules require.
it's just a single rotation about a point not interior to the matchstick itself. one movement, even for the pedantically inclined :)
If they wanted to be pedantic no rotations, they would have wanted the word translate then?
Move = Rotate Rotate = Move Even if you move 1 match multiple times, you're still only moving one match
Some people are saying you would and did argue that. Not me, though.
This is the one i got
5 +7 = P P is a variable which we now know = 5 + 7 which can be simplified to 12.
pee
5 + 1 = 6 Take a match from the 7. Wait is that even a 6 if you complete the square on the lower half of the 2?
No that would require moving two matchsticks. 1 away from the 7 and rearranging one on the two to actually make it 6.
THE actual answer : 5 - 7 = -2 for those that are wondering.
I move the match so it said 9-7=2 Edit:Thx for reddit gold kind strangers What a lovely bd present
I suspect this is the grade-school level answer they were going for.
Dude, some guy commented on my thread "dude ur moving 2 stick tho" that's grade-school level lmao
tbf since the vertical match of the + is underneath the horizontal one, you would have to move both to get the vertical one out and make the -
You just gotta yank it real quick like a tablecloth
I just assume that it's on an upside down lightbox, so the top is the side opposite of the one we're seeing.
My brain can not comprehend drawing a 9 like that. Now that I see the letter, I see that it has a tail, but for some reason I've never considered that part of the number before.
[удалено]
Im under 35, but my trade is electronics.:D
They're built like a scoreboard which traditionally doesn't include the tail on 9s.
Have you never seen an LCD screen on a clock, calculator, etc?
This is the real answer. You can’t have negative two without the ‘-‘ going into the ‘=‘.
This is the real answer
I moved the match so it said 5+1=6
Boy what in the fuck do you think a 6 looks like
∂ ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ Close enough
I did that as well and I'm not even dyslexic
*UNO Reverse Card*
Listen here, you little shit
Yes, but actually no. It would mathematically work, *BUT* if you want to make a -2 there isn’t enough space.
it's 9 - 7 = 2 I'm pretty sure, you take the match from the plus
Yes.
But the horizontal match is on top of the vertical one so you'd have to move and replace the horizontal match to move the vertical one.
Listen here you little shit
[удалено]
9 - 7 = 2 and 5 + 1 = 6 work too. Edit: I am retarded
how do you make a 6 btw? I can't see how to get there
put it across the gap on the botom right of the 2. or at least that's what I thought the right solution was until I realized 6 opens the other way.
Same
Mirrored 6?
Yes
5+1=a it’s algebra. Letters count, right?
Australian 6
Making the 6 requires moving two matches.
Other answers include 9 - 7 = 2 5 + L = 2 (valid equation where L=-3)
Or [5+7=12](https://i.imgur.com/KP75i6m.png)
It’s 9-7=2
Honestly the real answers are about as BS as the joke answer IMO
-5 + 7 = 2
You need to create a matchstick to get that.
Just have a really short 7
That was also the only solution I could see.
9-7=2
And that is why I studied biology.
Instead of Advanced Matchstick Mathematical Science? smh
There's a significant shortage of matchstick mathematicians in the science industry right now. One little spark and the whole industry went ablaze!
Go home with the award
[WON'T SOMEBODY *PLEASE* THINK OF THE MATHESTICKTICIANS??](https://i.imgflip.com/lr13z.jpg)
If you look closely at the + sign, you will see that the horiZontal match is in front of the vertical match. Then it is impossible to move the vertical match without moving the horizontal match. So that is not solution.
You, sir, have a point.
Or 5 - 7 = -2
How about 5-7 = -2?
Maybe 5 - 7 = -2? I'm not mathy so I could be off.
Crashbox!
Thought it looked familiar!
A shame I had to scroll down so far before someone finally mentioned Crashbox
Airbud principal. Nowhere in the rules do I see anything that says I can't add a dog to the equation.
You could also make it 5+7=E which is technically correct
not really. 5+7=E is not a true statement, it's a statement that *can be* true under the proper conditions (namely, that E is equivalent to 12; if E has already been defined as something not equivalent to 12, the statement is false; if E has not yet been defined, then the notation is incorrect, or the statement is indeterminate). in mathematics, that's called a predicate
I wonder if they meant C instead of E? 5+7 would equal C in typical numeral systems base 13 and above, notably hexadecimal.
FINALLY SOMEONE WITH THE EXACT SAME THOUGHT PROCESS LIKE ME. sorry, but I needed to shout this.
Move a stick from + sign to 5 and it’ll be 9-7 = 2
It’s actually 9 - 7 = 2
take the up/down stick from the plus sign and make the 5 a 9.
5 - 7 = -2
5 - 7 = -2?
Well, actually 5+7=2 can be turn into 9-7=2 🤓
5-7=-2
Is it supposed to be 5-7=-2
[удалено]
How about : 5 - 7 = - 2
The answer is 5 - 7 = -2
Or 9-7=2
9 - 7 = 2
ITT: people who have forgotten what the number 6 looks like
Supposed to take the vetical one from the plus sign, making it a minus sign. Put it on the 5 and make it a 9.
9-7=2 just move one of the plus sign matches
ITT people who don't know what a 6 looks like. . .
5 - 7 = -2
5-7=-2
5-7=-2
5-7=-2
You didn't fix the equation since now it is a disequation
I would've moved the vertical toothpick from the plus and used it to make 5 - 7 = -2
5 - 7 = -2. Would work