# Eternity Async Tutoring
**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932
**Category:** Tutoring
**Created:** [April 17, 2024, 11:22pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932 "2024-04-17T23:22:52Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 58
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [January 3, 2026, 5:54pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1142 "2026-01-03T17:54:20Z")
Rand wasn’t talking about the ancient world. She was talking about the fairly recent growth of atheism and of milder forms of religions. Yes, that has been important to science. It works better than the inquisition’s attitude to Galileo.
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2026, 6:14am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1143 "2026-01-04T06:14:42Z")
1.) Got it right.
> **My Work**
>
> There is a bouquet with four different types of flowers. Pink roses, red roses, pink carnas and red carnas. 1/3 of the _pink_ flowers are roses, so the other 2/3 of the pink flowers are pink carnas. 3/4 of the _red_ flowers are carnas, 1/4 of the red flowers are roses. 6/10 of the _total_ flowers are pink.
>
> What percent are carnas?
>
> 6/10 are pink, out of those 6/10 2/3 are carnas. 40 % are carnas so far. out of the remaining red 4/10 3/4 are carnas so 30%, so 70% are carnas.
> **Solution**
>
> 
2.) Got it right.
> **My Work**
>
> 2000/72 = 72 (1) 144 (2) 288 (4) 576 (8) 1152 (16) 2304 (32) 27
>
> 72 \* 27 = 504 + 1440 = 1944
> **Solution**
>
> 
3.) Got it right.
> **My Work**
>
> 2 cats = 5 alpacas
>
> 3 pandas = 7 cats
>
> find x pandas = 70 alpacas
>
> 70/5 = 14
>
> 28 cats
>
> 12 pandas
> **Solution**
>
> 
4.) Got it right.
> **My Work**
>
> 9.9 pounds of wool annually
>
> 175 yards of yarn each thing
>
> one pound of wool makes 10.95 miles of yarn
>
> 200 polypay sheep x (9.9 pounds of wool/1 polypay sheep) x (10.95 x 1760 yard of yarn/1 pound of wool) x (1 skein/175 yards of yarn) = (i used a calculator)
> **Solution**
>
> 
5.) Need a bit of help on this one (I am going to try the one I asked for help on before tomorrow, along with this again). I submitted an answer but I knew it was probably wrong. My thought process was too simply got a speed by dividing 710 by 70 and then use that speed and multiply it by 20. It didn’t work.
> **My Work**
>
> x = the size of the jumbo jet
>
> the jumbo jet can travel x distance in 20 second going at a particular speed
>
> at that same particular speed it can go through 710 ft long hanger in 70 seconds
>
> 710/70 = x/20
>
> 710 (20) = 70x
>
> 14200/70 = x
>
> 1420/7
>
> 202.85
> **Solution**
>
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2026, 6:17am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1144 "2026-01-04T06:17:00Z")
Writing from today:
> “People somehow don’t tune in to the fact that such conditions are signals that they’re doing something wrong.” - [[Caffeine Blues Wake Up to the Hidden Dangers of Americas 1 Drug 1998]]
- I think people get used to tuning out their body signals out of necessity. Healthcare is expensive and not always great. You ignore that pain in your stomach because it goes away. Sure it keeps coming back, but your seemingly doing fine so why waste the time and money? Besides getting used to pain, I think people also can quickly forget about pain. You can become numb to a continuous pain or think you’re fine every time your pain goes away for a while.
- I think people are trained to ignore their signals to an extent. Sometimes ignoring it can be valid (or feel valid) therefore reinforcing the idea to keep ignoring pain.
> “Economics belongs alongside mathematics, natural science, history, philosophy, and the humanities as an integral part of a liberal education.” - [[Capitalism]]
- Does it? What is a liberal education? Is it that important to have a general knowledge of all these things? Idk. That seems like a hard question. I remember Peikoff talking about something similar in relation to education. He talked about the goals of education and listed (among other goals) some possible primary goals as: learning a bunch of knowledge of various fields or learning the ability to think better. What should school, as a primary, be occupied with?
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2026, 6:21am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1145 "2026-01-04T06:21:19Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Companies won’t negotiate a lot of their contracts, like terms of service or employe contracts, with most people.
>
> People have no realistic choice but to “agree” to this stuff, without informed consent or the opportunity to participate in drafting the contract or negotiating the terms, because it’s so widespread in society.
~yeah. I don’t know what to make of that. On one hand I have the vague conceptual idea that people should follow their contracts and abide by it. You signed and agreed to it you should go with it. Yet it feels odd to say that when there’s no real choice and no real way to negotiate. Especially when the terms can be super bad for you. I guess a more important principle in deciding contract validity would be making sure both parties actually knew what was in the agreement? That would be interesting, Though I guess very hard to work with. I think you’d run into a similar issue when it comes to not knowing law (like how you can’t/shouldn’t be able to use the excuse that you didn’t know the law). People may say they never knew what the contract said.
Hmm.
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2026, 6:24am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1146 "2026-01-04T06:24:59Z")
I’m a bit confused. Did I talk about the ancient world? Did the way I talked about seem like that? Did the quote from Reisman seem like that? I don’t know if this is all that important. I think the main takeaway was that a big reason society progressed so much was, in part, due to a culture of reason that wasn’t that prevalent before. Is that fair?
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [January 5, 2026, 7:13pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1147 "2026-01-05T19:13:55Z")
Review the conversation and see if you can figure out where and why “ancient world” came up, and then what you communicated about it.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [January 5, 2026, 7:16pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1148 "2026-01-05T19:16:06Z")
> [@Eternity](#):
>
> I guess a more important principle in deciding contract validity would be making sure both parties actually knew what was in the agreement?
Why? I don’t think it would make much difference in a lot of cases if people knew what was in it. They still wouldn’t feel like they had much choice but to “agree”. And not everything in the “contract” is currently used/weaponized; it’s hard to tell what will actually happen even if you know what the terms say.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [January 5, 2026, 7:20pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1149 "2026-01-05T19:20:19Z")
> [@Eternity](#):
>
> I submitted an answer but I knew it was probably wrong.
Please don’t do that. Then you get spoilers on the answer which makes it harder to learn about the problem.
> [@Eternity](#):
>
> 5.) Need a bit of help on this one
Look at the diagram. Define relevant variables and tell me how far the plane goes in the diagram. Don’t use any numbers.
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2026, 5:25am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1150 "2026-01-06T05:25:47Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Review the conversation and see if you can figure out where and why “ancient world” came up, and then what you communicated about it.
Sure. So I mean its not that long so imma go through it here:
> [@Eternity](#):
>
> > It was only when the philosophical conviction grew that the senses are valid and that sensory perception is the only legitimate basis of knowledge, that they could turn their full thought and attention to this world.” - [Capitalism]
>
> - I think that makes sense. So long as we doubted our senses and the information we gained from our senses, the longer we would fail to interact with the world. After all if I can’t trust the fact that the thing in front of me is what it is, that it has certain rules to it, then I can’t do anything. Or, put another way, I can’t reasonably expect myself to do anything.
So no direct mention of “ancient world” here. The quote from Reisman mentions “they” is that “they” referring to the ancient world here?
You responded with:
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Who, in ancient times, was doubting their senses besides some philosophers? I think most people were focused on the practical world.
>
> It’s not like most people were solipsists until some logician disproved solipsism.
>
> Maybe it’s about believing religious authorities when they claim God exists even though you can’t see him yourself? But billions of people today still do that.
So this is where ancient times was mentioned. When you said this were you responding to what I wrote or to what Reisman said? I think your response makes sense to my quote from Reisman, I’m a bit confused if it was in response to what I said.
Oh, uh, what I communicated about it? Idk. I think I communicated that Reisman point makes sense (well if I’m even understanding the point correctly) that if people think their senses are invalid then they won’t make much progress. I think thats what I said could be boiled down into.
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2026, 5:30am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1151 "2026-01-06T05:30:36Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> I see the issue. I think you could figure this out with close reading. Try doing grammar trees for the problem.
So I was about to do a grammar tree, but something came to mind: John spent 3/4 of some hours doing homework. If 1/4 _hours_ of that time was spent doing math homework, then out of those 3/4 some hours he used 1/4 to do math homework. So he spent a 1/3 of his time doing homework? I think thats right (I moved ahead and didn’t save the answer, so idk).
I can still do a grammar tree if you want.
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2026, 5:35am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1152 "2026-01-06T05:35:26Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Why? I don’t think it would make much difference in a lot of cases if people knew what was in it. They still wouldn’t feel like they had much choice but to “agree”. And not everything in the “contract” is currently used/weaponized; it’s hard to tell what will actually happen even if you know what the terms say.
Hmm. I guess its me trying to address one of the issues with these one-sided contracts which is people don’t even know what they’re signing. I guess they’d still probably get screwed over, but maybe if they more clearly knew there would be less of it? My idea kinda goes like this: I think a lot of bad stuff in contracts has been kinda intentionally done in a way without saying anything, people would hate it if they knew, I think some bad provisions would still happen, sure, but I think some employers would avoid putting stuff that people wouldn’t be a fan of. After all, I think just by exposing some stuff thins can get changed.
Also, part of me thinks it will help address somewhat of the issue with modern contracts with big companies which is not knowing whats in them. Idk how it would help the power dynamic but at least you hopefully would know what could happen to you.
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2026, 5:40am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1153 "2026-01-06T05:40:10Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Please don’t do that. Then you get spoilers on the answer which makes it harder to learn about the problem.
Well, I have two shots before they give me the answer. I just put in the probably wrong answer (based on my wrong assumptions above in trying to figure out ths speed) and then asked for help. I still don’t know the answer. :)
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Look at the diagram. Define relevant variables and tell me how far the plane goes in the diagram. Don’t use any numbers.
s = the paricular speed
j = jumbo jets length
Hmm. The plane goes the distance of the hangar and then, hmm, So. Ok. The plane nose starts off right near the beginning of the hangar. The plane nose then goes the distance of the hangar, but then it needs to also get the plane out of the hangar. So the diagrams shows the plane flying a total distance of the hangar + the plane length?
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2026, 6:49pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1154 "2026-01-06T18:49:58Z")
> [@Eternity](#):
>
> Well, I have two shots before they give me the answer. I just put in the probably wrong answer (based on my wrong assumptions above in trying to figure out ths speed) and then asked for help. I still don’t know the answer. :)
If you got it right, it would have told you, and that would have been a spoiler since you didn’t understand the answer.
> [@Eternity](#):
>
> So the diagrams shows the plane flying a total distance of the hangar + the plane length?
Yeah (side note: I think the plane is driving not flying). Can you use that to solve the problem?
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2026, 6:51pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1155 "2026-01-06T18:51:35Z")
Yes, it said 1/4 hours not 1/4 of the 3/4. You got it now. Previously you may have been ignoring the word “hours” after the 1/4 or done some other misreading or failed to include every word in your interpretation of the meaning. You can try a grammar tree next time you’re stuck.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2026, 6:53pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1156 "2026-01-06T18:53:55Z")
> So long as we doubted our senses and the information we gained from our senses, the longer we would fail to interact with the world.
Would this logically apply to ancient times or just to a few hundred years ago?
After I spoke of ancient times, how did you reply? Did you say “oh no, I didn’t mean ancient times?” Did you appear to accept or disagree with the ancient times interpretation?
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2026, 5:17am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1157 "2026-01-07T05:17:48Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Yeah (side note: I think the plane is driving not flying). Can you use that to solve the problem?
Let’s see:
A jet can travel its own length in 20 seconds at a certain speed.
A jet travelled through 710 ft + its own length in 70 seconds
find how long the jet is
hmm
so in 70 seconds it went 710 ft + jet length
so in 50 seconds it went the length of the hangar? and then 20 more seconds to go jet length, right?
710ft/50 seconds = 14,2ft/s
14.2ft/s \* 20s = 284ft
Got it right. Nice.
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2026, 5:25am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1158 "2026-01-07T05:25:04Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Would this logically apply to ancient times or just to a few hundred years ago?
I think ancient times and my though process did involve ancient times (idk how meaningful this is but I think my thought process on whats ancient has been kinda ruined, a lot of the chinese fantasy I’ve read has normalized to me the idea of ancient stuff being millions of years old, where, in the context of human history, ancient stuff is thousands of years old, if that?).
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> After I spoke of ancient times, how did you reply? Did you say “oh no, I didn’t mean ancient times?” Did you appear to accept or disagree with the ancient times interpretation?
Hmm. I didn’t say no I didn’t mean ancient times. I replied with an understanding(?) that we were talking about ancient times and that I think your sentiment(?) that really only philosophers doubted their senses was true.
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2026, 8:27pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1159 "2026-01-10T20:27:55Z")
1.) I need some help with this one. Haven’t submitted any answer. I’m confused on setting this up. I did do some work under the my work section.
> **My Work**
>
> Frank can mow his own yard in 45 minutes.
>
> Joe’s yard is 40% larger than Franks yard
>
> Joe can mow his lawn (which is 40% bigger than Franks) in an hour.
>
> Find the time it takes for both lawns to be mowed together. So I assume this means that Frank and Joe would work together on the same lawn, finish it. and move on to the next. So we’re trying to combine their mowing speeds together into one unit. That unit is represented as mm:ss. The ratios of minutes to seconds(?). Oh it’s not a unit? It’s a ratio with minutes on the left and seconds on the right?
> **Solution**
>
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2026, 8:33pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1160 "2026-01-10T20:33:53Z")
mm:ss is not a ratio. It’s just an amount of time like 30 minutes and 22 seconds = 30:22.
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2026, 8:36pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/1161 "2026-01-10T20:36:54Z")
I did five grammar trees today from Atlas Shrugged:
> It was the calendar that the mayor of New York had erected last year on the top of a building, so that citizens might tell the day of the month as they told the hours of the day, by glancing up at a public tower.
I’m a bit unsure on this one. (Also at this size would it be better just to share the file?).
I treated “so that” as a conjunction phrase(?). Didn’t see anything in apple’s dictionary but merriam-webster had it listed together as a conjunction. Oh you can ignore the told off to the left side I forgot to delete that. It was from when I was noting down all the verbs in the sentence. Though I am unsure, as indicated by the question mark, if told is being used as a verb here.
I’m also unsure what “by” is modifying.
> A white rectangle hung over the city, imparting the date to the men in the streets below.
Idk what to make of/do with the second part of the sentence.
> In the rusty light of this evening’s sunset, the rectangle said: September 2.
I’m pretty confident on this one. I was a bit confused on the order in which the words appeared in the sentence.
> Eddie Willers looked away.
\
> He had never liked the sight of that calendar.
[Previous page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932.md?page=57)
[Next page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932.md?page=59)