New Math

!reactionmemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
I have seen this or a variation of this too many times now, saving this for my own meme responses, its too fucking useful.

Some bureaucrats in Mexico City tried this years ago.

An important ring road had two lanes in each direction. To increase its capacity, they didn't actually widen the road; they just repainted the lane markings to turn two lanes into three, and claimed a 50% capacity increase!

Everyone immediately screamed about being crammed together just centimetres apart, accidents increased and the city officials quickly u-turned; they repainted to have just 2 lanes in each direction again.

But they then tried to claim that as that was a 33% decrease, and that because they had earlier increased it 50%, that meant they had achieved a net 17% increase in the road's capacity!

Brought to you by the same people that can’t explain tides

Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can't explain it!
- Bread goes in. Toast comes out. It’s a mystery!
Ah yes I hate those
- And hate windmills
yeah they think the MOON does it lmfao, everyone knows it's the CIA's totally epic wave machine for selling more surfboards 🌊🏄‍♀️🐟

I thought this was c/funny not c/deeplyconcerning

pegglegg back in fifth grade: 'why i need to learn this math stuff. i aint never gunna use it'

It's not that you will regularly have a calculator in your pocket
Checkmate
- you still need to know what buttons to push on the magic box, and in what order...
That kind of math didn't start for me until letters started showing up in it. This is basic shit though!

I might as well throw the same comment in here. You learn this pretty quickly when you bet on meme stocks. Down 90% then up 100% I can assure you, you are no where near where you started.

Same with crypto. You'll get a notification something went down 10%, then up again 10%, but if you zoom out you see it's just been slowly going down on average since the last huge spike.

Both sides are right in a way. It just depends on what you're comparing the +/-10% to

This is clearly about the US stock market crashing. In that case it's always the days gain/loss, in which case Yang is the only person who is right.
This is important because a lot of people saw "down 10%" and now "up 10%" without realizing that's still day over day loss.
- While the idea put forward by him is correct, stating that 100-10=90+9=99 is just entirely incorrect, hence why I'm saying they're both somewhat correct
That is the difference between percent and percentage points.

Not even close to that anyway, the dow jones for example went from 44k to 37k back up to 40k. Still hasn't even regained half the value it lost.

It's only the same if it's up 10% compared to the original number. It all depends on your time period, you could be up 30% compared to 7 years ago.

Tesla stock prices are good example of this. They are down ~50% since december and up ~70% since lowest point in april last year.

Don't they teach math in the US anymore? Or do you get a pass on basic subjects if you are on the football team?

You get a pass on pretty much every subject because the school's interested in churning out worker drones rather than thinkers. Do this long enough and you get Trump supporters.
- Heck, for a while, we insisted on passing kids no matter what so they weren’t “left behind”.
- Knowing basic math (and sometimes a bit more) is quite useful in life. I am currently having a beef with my bank who tried to cheat me out of a larger sum. But I know the correct methods and the correct rates, and, of course, the contract. And obviously, it really pisses them off that someone even does the calculations...
They teach math from like 6th grade up as if every middle schooler in the land is going to grow up to be a sweater wearing chalkboard writing mathematician when they grow up. It's taught as a series of arbitrary rules to follow. Here's some squiggles, and now you do this to the squiggles. NO you don't do that to the squiggles, do you want to be a ditch digger you fucking waste of sperm. You do THIS to the squiggles. Can't you FUCKING tell the difference you little cuntpuke? You use the Crendicative property of intiplicity. No, it's not five, it's negative three. It's obviously negative three, What idiot would get five? I know you got five and not some other number because this is designed to be a trick question. There's only one point in this big long procedure that matters, if you decide correctly you get negative three, if you decide incorrectly you get five. And you got five.
They do this to you for your entire adolescence.
- So you're bad at maths and extremely bitter about it. Ok.
- Yeah you're right that they act like everyone's gonna be a pure mathematician with only abstract applications. I think test standards have kinda fucked with their expectations. I'm sorry you had bad math teachers. Many of them suck at explaining the subject and act like dicks. Get enough of them in school and it's easy to lose interest in something that's extremely practical to know later in life.
No, they don't.

Multiplication is commutative dipshits.

A x B = B x A

So 1.1 x .9 is always going to be .99, regardless of the order. Didn’t we learn this in like middle school?

(Edit … to be clear I’m calling the people in the image dipshits, not the people commenting here).

Huh? We're talking about percentages not multiplication. Where'd the 1.1 and .9 come from?
- If you increase something by 10% you’re doing this:
  (10% • X) + X
  (.1 • X) + X
  1.1 • X
  So you’re just multiplying the original value by 1.1. Similarly for subtracting 10% you’re multiplying by .9
  So the order in which you add or subtract 10% doesn’t matter. You always get the same number.
who said the order matters?

This is why in forecasting and time series analysis is used the log difference, a 10% increase or decrease on the log scale gives you the same value being added or removed.

Yes, that requires a reference value to be decided upon beforehand.
- Not really, you do t=n and t=n+1, for n= 1, 2, 3 for a quick view on volatility.
  Then ypu look up for correlations between e[t=n | t= 0, t= 1...] for different Ns. For more I would need to check out my notes

Yeah he totally cooked Yang. That guy has NO IDEA where the 9 came from.

I wonder why he has a peg leg

Bunch of methamagicians up in here

Just noticed if you also decrease something by 10%, then increase by 10%, you also get a net loss of 1. Math itself is biased towards loss.

Anyone convinced in the malevolent creator theory yet?