Is English your first language? If it isn't, I completely agree with you.
However if it is, then I would make the argument that it's exactly the right way to teach it, particularly to young people. As you point out, it's a very fluid language with a lot of rules that are completely arbitrary. As a native speaker, it's more important getting to grips with the, I dunno what we'd call it on here, pseudocode rather than formulaic structure? Concepts over syntax maybe.
I'm from the UK. My immediate family is from Dundee and Sunderland. I had inlaws from Liverpool and Bristol. When we all got together, especially after a few drinks, at no point would an outsider think we were even speaking the same language, but we all had the same common grounding.
I agree with you that it's probably a bad way to teach formal grammar. It depends on the context though
English is my first language. However, I had an undiagnosed learning disability until college.
That said, to name one example, I do not think an understanding of adverbs versus adjectives can develop effectively if one is constantly exposed to people using adjectives as adverbs. It causes a loss of nuance that comes back to bite people, especially when it causes friction with those who know better. I remember in the 8th grade, we saw the play 1776, they were singing adverbs ending in -ly and I had no idea what the nuance was aside from the rhyming. I do not think many of my classmates did either.
The common defense of the status quo seems to be blind to the underlying problems in English education. The status quo is untenable since the issues with English literacy are now measurable.
To be generous, what this meant is either that you were below the reading level for the book or you misunderstand the core skill of reading and using style in the English language. Reading and understanding when rules are broken leads to knowing when they can be. We don't skip Shakespeare because the language is funny and archaic. Reading these authors is both a part of style and content literacy for the English language. Disclaimer: I'm not comparing them.
There is a difference between understanding a book’s contents and being able to read the book without having it rewrite your understanding of the English language such that you have no idea what is correct and incorrect because your grasp on that was tenuous in the first place. Children are expected to avoid being rewritten at stages where they are extremely impressionable and are easily rewritten and then they are blamed for it. It is fairly sadistic thing to do to children.
No, it's all a part of learning to read and understand language.
If a child is having that much trouble with it, which would be unusual at grade-level, then the book is above their level. At that point, the child should probably be screened for a delay.
How this generally works is that young people ingest these books, and by doing so their language ability increases to be able to flexibly understand (and use, if stylistically appropriate), non-standard grammatical forms.
I don't know if I would agree that how we teach it now is really the best way, but I overall agree with you that in order to really learn english you need an extremely wide and varied exposure to english in order to learn all the "rule breaking" and make english across the world and through time intelligible.
People can learn this outside of school. People who learn English as a second language do. Forcing it on me as a child meant that I did not learn English properly, until well into my adulthood. I am a native speaker in my 30s and I am still finding faults in my English education that need correction. One of the most recent ones I have found is using “pet” as a past tense. The correct past tense is “petted”. If school had properly taught English without forcing me to read incorrectly written literature that confused me, I would not have been saying this wrongly for decades. Another issue in my English that I found in recent years was use of the word “wrong” where I should use “wrongly”. Adjectives are not adverbs. :/
Well colloquially "pet" itself is a past tense. Depends on the register of the language. And "wrong" is also an adverb. It would help if the educators explain when to use "wrong" vs "wrongly" vs "wrongfully" since all could be adverbs; or you could read enough to figure out the subtle differences.
I had recently looked up “wrong” to check out of curiosity, and DuckDuckGo only said it was an adjective, so I had stopped using it as an adverb. It turns out that the dictionary states it is an adverb, but you need to click to go to an actual dictionary to see that since the definition given by DuckDuckGo is only a partial definition. Thanks for making me double check.
That said, I read dozens of English books per year. I am well past the point of diminishing returns for benefits from more reading in English. Reading more books only increases my reading speed , which I have noticed is now 2 to 4 times faster than others around me.
I guess it depends. There's been a major issue in the UK for a while regarding quite a few very iconic, decades old, live music venues. Back in the day they were in less salubrious areas of town so no one really cared, but now they're prime property with very expensive flats being put up all around them.
Many of the new residents never even do so much as even visit the area before buying them, and then immediately (and sadly often successfully) put in noise complaints attempting to get the venues shut down, despite the already strict licensing laws (curfew at 10.30 at the absolute latest, no outside drinking etc).
That's the kind of situation where I think both sides are kinda right. I see what you're getting at here, but from the other side, it's reasonable for people to be bothered by loud noise where they live. If it was gonna be a problem, the real answer is that the government shouldn't have permitted housing right next to places that are gonna stay loud. Or maybe mandated stricter soundproofing requirements for flats.
In either case, people have a right to reasonable peace and quiet where they live. That this wasn't addressed when the neighborhood was more blue collar doesn't make it okay once it's not.
Slightly on topic - anyone remember LeapMotion and is anyone aware of any current support for that? Found an original one in a drawer when I was having a clearout the other day
Agreed, and many of mine do when I'm out with the dog or on the toilet. The thing is that those are unscripted. The point that I think the OP was making was that enforced breaks on a schedule will immediately kill any form of concentration or workflow
Absolutely, it's the regimented and very frequent schedule that is the problem. Breaks are necessary, and very useful - but if that frequency is what I have to do to stay healthy with a desk job, then I guess I'll be unhealthy
What works for me is that I only have a small glass of water or a coffee at my table. If I want to drink more, I have to get up and walk over to the kitchen. Early in the day this can be about about every 20-30 minutes, later it goes down to maybe 45-60 minutes. Then there are, of course, rest room breaks. So I'd say I get up and move 10-12 times a day in an unforced, natural way -- not always 8 minutes, mind, but it's about progress, not perfection.
Yeah, but people who grow or sell flowers are not on the same level as the very very good engineers who develop these dystopian systems. The people in the advertising industry who make these systems could absolutely do more good for society in a different field.
And I would argue that this very quickly becomes a race to the bottom, where the viewing of mass produced trash accelerates because "that's what people want to watch" becomes "we'll flood the market with cheap mass produced bullshit" which immediately becomes "people love watching bullshit and our stats say so!"
I also don't believe for a single second, based on their past records, that Sony, or LG, or whoever, are actually properly anonymising this data
So, given that I'm already aware that I almost certainly won't understand any answers to this question, can someone give me a idiot level baseline as to exactly what an AI chip is and how it would differ from a cpu/gpu?
The earliest Intel chips (8086) had an extra add-on to do floating point math in hardware, instead of software (8087). There’s a lot of “AI” workloads that include a lot of matrix multiplication, which the Google TPU and the Nvidia tensor cores implement in hardware instead of software.
Exactly, like how a “bitcoin mining” chip would implement the SHA in hardware.
And, CPUs prioritize hiding latency with all sorts of caches, and GPUs prioritize cores and bandwidth to hide latency, so there’s different tradeoffs about memory bandwidth versus latency.
Thank you. Think we've hit the level of my "run away scared at the first sight of machine code" understanding, but I now vaguely understand what's going on.
Even if it is a cheap one, it's still wrong. I have the same visceral gut reaction to seeing a musical instrument get destroyed as I do to seeing a book burnt. I own a lot of very expensive, very nice instruments. However, some of my favourite music I have created has been on dirt cheap charity shop instruments.
I've had a driving licence in the UK for 26 years, and have never once paid for my fuel before filling up. This is normal everywhere in Europe at least, to the point where I suspect the US is the outlier
I make it a point when driving through NJ to fill up with gas before crossing into NJ (or making sure I have enough to get through it).
I made the mistake once of needing gas on the NJ Turnpike, stopping at a rest area and having to wait for 45 (yes FORTY FIVE) minutes while the ONE attendant operating both sides of a single pump slowly worked his way through a massive line of agitated motorists. Never Again.
I’ve driven in the US and the UK (among other countries) and haven’t paid before filling up in either. Is this a result of paying with cash or other non-card methods, as pumps in the US seem to require inserting the card first probably as an authorisation?
I also don’t drive that much these days so may be misremembering things. The only issue I had with payments was in a station in a small town in Italy which refused to accept most foreign cards (ant least based on other people around me also struggling) and was the automated no-human type of station so there wasn’t an easy solution.
Putting a card in before pumping is considered "prepay". They'll put a hold on your account to make sure you have the money. There isn't much point to post-pay with cards.
10–15 years ago it was common in the US where you would pull up, hit "pay inside", pump all your gas, then go inside and pay at the register. Now because of theft, if you want to pay with cash, virtually all stations require you to go inside, pay for x gallons of gas, and they'll turn on the pump to give you that much. Which is annoying because unless you're really good at guessing, you can't just fill it up anymore.
Most of the stations around me actually offer a cash discount. When you're dealing with a single-digit margin, that 2.5% CC fee looks pretty tempting. More are trying to push their station cards now though.
In my experience this seems to be much less of a problem now with contactless payments, in both directions. US cards that used to require swipe-and-signature or chip-and-signature instead of chip-and-PIN seem to just work in when tapping (at least in the 3-4 countries I’ve traveled in extensively, although contactless isn’t widely accepted in some countries) and cards from a few European countries seem to work with contactless which is finally increasingly widely adopted in the US.
Back around 2008, I recall having problems because my Australian cards would be prompted for a 5-digit zip code. It only happened at gas stations for some reason. The closest we have is 4-digit postcodes, which it wouldn't accept. Eventually, I figured out I could prepend a 0, but I didn't want to trial-and-error that unless it set off a fraud flag with my bank. Probably a good thing it was pre-pay in the cases that didn't work.
However if it is, then I would make the argument that it's exactly the right way to teach it, particularly to young people. As you point out, it's a very fluid language with a lot of rules that are completely arbitrary. As a native speaker, it's more important getting to grips with the, I dunno what we'd call it on here, pseudocode rather than formulaic structure? Concepts over syntax maybe.
I'm from the UK. My immediate family is from Dundee and Sunderland. I had inlaws from Liverpool and Bristol. When we all got together, especially after a few drinks, at no point would an outsider think we were even speaking the same language, but we all had the same common grounding.
I agree with you that it's probably a bad way to teach formal grammar. It depends on the context though