Hmm. Ok. That makes sense. The problem topic is called “Speed and Other Rates” so it made me think that : was referring to ratios (because rate).
Tree what you can of it. Figure out what doesn’t have a parent within that part, so it must connect to the other part or be the overall root. Label parts of speech. Make sure your parent/child connections follow grammar rules based on parts of speech.
yeah that’s fine
Which of these is “by glancing up at a public tower” talking about (you can pick more than one):
- It was the calendar
- the mayor of New York had erected last year
- on the top of a building
- citizens might tell the day of the month
- they told the hours of the day
- some specific sub-parts of any of the above
What else might it be? Write out your list of possibilities you’re considering. And, when in doubt, label the parts of speech of some words around it and check what follows grammar rules (regarding what parent and children different parts of speech can have) in relation to nearby nodes.
1.) This is the problem I was working on a while ago. I’m replying to the original post where I first started attempting it. I got it wrong. Haven’t reviewed/looked at the solution. Will come back to it later. Wanted to move on and do other problems.
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?
EDIT: Doing this after Elliots comment below on what mm:ss refers to.
We have stuff in terms of Franks Yard.
Frank takes 45 minutes to mow one franks yard.
Joe takes 60 minutes to mow 1.40 franks yards.
Idk. Imma assume speed is constant here and lets look at it like a fraction or smth. So in 3/4 of the time (45 minutes) he can do 1.40 x 3/4 = 4.20/4 = 1.05 franks yard.
So in 45 minutes we can do 1.05 franks yard (due to Joe) and one whole franks yard (due to Frank). So 1.50 franks yards in 45 minutes. Hopefully this process is right. Going from here. Or 1.50yds/45minutes * x = 2.40yds
x = 2.40 * (45/1,5)
x = 72 minutes, clean?
1.50yds/2.40yds*45
hmm thats wrong. ok.
Frank mows his own yard in 45 minutes.
Joe’s yard is 40% bigger than Franks, but he can mow his yard in 1 hour.
How get speed? speed = distance/time. We use franks yard as the distance unit. Frank can do 1yd/45 minutes, Joe can do 1.40yd/60 minutes.
Find how long for them to do 2.40yds.
maybe smth like this? 1.40 * 3/4 = 1.05. so 2.05yds/60minutes.
we need to 2.40yds
2.40/2.05 = 1.17 * 60 minutes = 60 minutes and 10 minutes and 2/10 of 60 seconds 12 seconds
70 minutes and 12 seconds
2.) Got it right.
My Work
81 cars in the parking lot
half as many Acuras as Beetles. so if there were 4 beetles, there would be 2 acuras
B = 2A
C = .8 (A + B)
A = B/2
C = .8 ( B/2 + B)
Camrys = 80% (Acuras + Beetles)
Find the number of beetles
81 = A + B + C
81 = B/2 + B + 4/5 (B/2 + B)
81 = 3B/2 + 4B/10 + 4B/5
81 = 15B + 4B + 8B
810 = 27B
B = 30
A = 15
81 = 15 + 30 + C
81 - 45 = 36
36 is also 80% of 45 (which is A + B)
3.) Got it right.
My Work
three different bags of beans. one has 26, the other 28, and the final 30.
50% of the 26 bag is Yellow Beans, 25% of the 28 bag is yellow beans, 20% of the 30 bag is yellow beans
find percentage of yellow beans of all beans
13 yb + 7yb + 6yb = 26yb
26/84 = 13/42
4.) Got it kinda right? Well I got it wrong, but I had the right idea. 5s/4s gave me 1.25. 5s is 125% bigger than 4s, but thats not how much it increased by I guess? It only increased by 25%?
My Work
we have a square.
we add an equilateral triangle on top
what is percentage increase in the perimeter?
perimeter of a square is 4 * length of each side
an equilateral triangles perimeter is equal to 3 * length of each side. oh. i see.
we went from 4s as the perimeter to 6s
150% increase?
oh woops shoud have counted the sides we went from 4s to 5s
5/4 = 1 1/4 or 1.25 or 125%
5.) Got it right
My Work
8 to 10 sleep, 10 to 10:15 awale, 10:15 to 12:15 sleep, 12: 15 to 12: 30 awake, 12: 30 to 2:30 sleep, 2:30 to 2:45 awake, 2:45 to 4:45 sleep, 445 to 500 awake, 5 to 6 alseep
8 to 6 is 10 hours. of those 10 hours. we slept 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 9
9/10 hours alsspe
90% asleep
So I googled what imparting could be. Well. I knew it could be either a gerund or present participle. I don’t think its acting as a noun and when I googled “what is a present participle” gemini mentioned this that I thought could work:
t can also function as part of a participial phrase, adding descriptive detail (e.g., “Running quickly, he caught the ball”).
So I tree’d it like this:
by is a preposition. i think this definition is whats going on here (from apple):
indicating the means of achieving something
what can they achieve by glancing up at a public tower? “citizens might tell the day of the month” and “they told the hours of the day”
Hmm. I’m unsure of what possibilities I was considering. It can’t be an infinitive. it would be tell and to tell doesn’t work. its not a gerund. I don’t think its a participle. I think what bothered me was I was unsure as to what “as” was doing there. so I think my use of as as a conjunction is fine. using this definition (apple):
used to indicate that something happens during the time when something is taking place
hmm. i think that works and then “they told the hours of the day” is fine then how I tree’d it.
Started classes again. I got set up and I’m trying to now make sure I make time for philosophy and stuff.
One thing I found funny(?)/sad(?) is my accounting class. I have to take two classes on the basics of accounting. The first class covered financial accounting. The second class is covering what they call managerial accounting. I have the same professor for both classes.
What I find funny is how he teaches his class. I’ve made a similar complaint before but idk if I mentioned with my accounting class. I think his financial accounting class was a bit better, or, at least, a bit more honest? During financial accounting he at least used his own recorded lectures and used his own exams. for managerial accounting he is using third party resources for everything. pearsons textbook programs run our homework and quizzes. all the lectures have been by other professors. the exams are done through pearson. he isn’t even available to help you. there’s a TA(?) for that. idc really but it feels kinda wack. i cant imagine going into debt for this. especially considering the textbook (which is doing a lot of the teaching) is like ~150.
1 Like
One reason people do it is because they want the degree more than the learning.
yes its a modifier. “imparting” modifies either “hung” or a group of multiple words which “hung” is the root of.
yes. so those are what “by glancing up at a public tower” modifies (it tells you the manner in which they achieve those things). now revisit your tree and see if you’re happy with how it presents this.
You understood part of it, but you also got it wrong twice. There are two errors to learn from here.
First, how did you come up with 6s?
Second, you should know offhand and intuitively that a 150% or 125% increase is more than doubling, and know that’s wrong here (going from 4 to 5 or 6 is less than double). You should know a 10% increase is a small increase while a 110% increase is a big increase. That’s part of understanding percents.
Also, how did you calculate the percentage increase? Did you guess intuitively or use arithmetic? What do you think the right formula is to figure out the percentage increase?
Do you know a formula for percentage increase? If yes, did you use it, or what happened? If no, try to figure out the right formula, then look it up and compare.
ok
~that’s true. I guess where I thought it unimaginable is kinda from the perspective from the college? Idk, Like how do you justify the price tag of ~2000 for the class, when the textbook does all the teaching?
So I had it originally modifying “so that”. Idk how I feel about this, because the sentence is saying that we erected something so that citizens could do something by glancing up.
I’m a bit unsure here:
I said it’s modifying tell. by tells us how we do something. we tell the days of the month by glancing up at a public tower.
can prepositions modify conjunctions/the stuff that is grouped by the conjunctions?
Idk how to put it but I kinda half consciously half subconsciously counted this wrong:
Like I went out of my to count the sides one by one and then still ended with 6 somehow. I think the line there is making me think of an extra side being there.
~mmm yeah if I thought about and someone told me that something went up 100% i’d assume it like doubling. my intuition is kinda poor outside of that.
uhh arithmetic? 6/4 = 1.5 * 100 = 150
5/4 = 1.25 * 100 = 125
So I don’t think is right anymore (I saw the correct formula in the explanation), but what I was the right way was: (increased number/base number) x 100
So the right formula is the (final number - starting number)/starting number.
Ok. That makes sense I think. We’re talking about how much something increased by. You went from 100 to 110. There was an increase of 10, or 10%. We went up 10% of the original value. Ok that makes sense.
Hmm. What does it mean to say I want 100% of something or 150%? I want 100% of 10. So you want 10. I want 150% of 10, so 15. I think thats how I was thinking of it?
Some writing I did today:
“They were called “robbers”—because they had the ability to generate their own wealth. This confusion between production and robbery is necessary in order to sell men on statism.” - [[Objectively Speaking]]
- I’m generally just more skeptical of corporations now, so this makes me wonder: maybe they had a point?
- I think there were definitive bad businesses back in Miss Rands day (I assume they helped in the forming the characters of Orren Boyle for example and Jim Taggart).
- Were they called “robbers” because they were trying to pull one over on people? They called the good businesses, along with the bad businesses, robbers, so that they could put one over on people to push an agenda? I can see that sure. Of course maybe that’s not the nature of why they (anti-capitalist intellectuals), at the time, conflated production and robbery. It could have been a “genuine” error. Idk. The point I’m trying to make is:
- Maybe those good robber barons actually had massive flaws that Miss Rand ignored (I don’t think that’s what happened) or she was convinced that things aren’t that bad by those companies propaganda.
- Relatedly: Obviously theres a limit but I’m much more skeptical of historical claims and stuff. History and truth can seemingly be easily molded and stuff like history is written by the victors seems to be more and more true. It makes me wonder about certain conspiracies. I think some are lost on me due to the ridiculousness. I wonder if this is how/why people fall into conspiracy rabbit holes.
- What if there was some kind of intellectual laziness going on? Not a great reason, but I wonder if there were just a lot of shitty businesses and then every business got lumped together by the intellectuals at the time.
- Maybe those good robber barons actually had massive flaws that Miss Rand ignored (I don’t think that’s what happened) or she was convinced that things aren’t that bad by those companies propaganda.
- I just realized: I haven’t really read from any direct sources why they called robber barons, robber barons. I just kinda took peoples word for it and assumed the reasons were bad.
“Hegel is the true godfather of the nanny state, or welfare state—with Plato standing beside him at the baptismal font. Unemployment insurance, health and safety regulations, minimum wage laws and aid to dependent children, the income tax and federal deposit insurance: All these become justified as the State acting to protect us from ourselves, because the State is our Better and Higher Self.” - [[The Cave and the Light]]
- Thought this was quote was interesting since it references philosophy playing a part in why things are the way they are from someone other than Rand. Maybe this is common in philosophy (I haven’t read much) and this isn’t rare at all. Still neat though.
1 Like
I think you should more often stop and think “does this make sense?” and try to understand what the numbers mean. If you can get an answer – even a very approximate answer – based on understanding the problem rather than calculation, it’ll give you a way to double check what you’re doing.
1 Like
what do you think?
can adjectives or adverbs modify conjunctions/groups?
Been busy w/ school but its back to normal now. Though I feel like that was half of the reason (I wasn’t that busy necessarily)? The forum seems relatively active rn (which is a good thing 
) but I think that stressed me out a little because I’ve been busy and then trying to read/keep track of all the new posts stressed me out. It’s not like I had to. At the very least this tutoring thread is seperate from the rest of that. I don’t know why. I think because I’ve been very active at times I felt obligated in my head to keep up with stuff? When I noticed that today I just decided to go ahead and just post and just read whatever I can.
Some general life updates:
I’ve had less vision issues in the past few weeks and I think they’ve helped me with being more comfortable being productive. I think I’ve had less issues because of these contact product: https://tangiblescience.com/.
With my most recent pair I decided to look into solutions to making it more comfortable. I then remembered that the contacts always came with a brochure(?) that talks about my “tangible coating” on the lens. I decided to look that up and found the company that apparently does all the stuff for the coating on my contacts. I used their products and for the first time in ~4 years I’ve had very consistent comfort with my contacts.
I do find it a bit odd that my optometrist never recommended the brand for me. Their the ones who made the coating after all. Though tbf she gets told what to do with my contacts by the company that makes them. My conspiracy on this is that they don’t want people using the tangible products because then it’ll degrade and then you need a new pair of contact lenses. Most of the time I went to the optometrist was when they got super uncomfortable anyway.
I think so, yeah.
Last month I wrote on 24/31 days.
Here’s some writing from a few days that I didn’t get around to sharing:
-
“General Motors, General Electric, and United Airlines would laugh if Joe proposed to renegotiate the terms one by one.” - [[Liability The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences]]
- I think laugh is strong, but possible. I think their attitude is more so one of indifference. Unless there is a mass consumer demand or whatever who cares if there is just one customer (or a couple) who wants to renegotiate the terms.
- Also I think it is reasonable from the companies point-of-view to not be as helpful. While I do think their contracts that are good for them and bad for the consumers is a bad practice, I can understand not taking the time to work out just the right contract for one customer. If they have a high volume of customers than maybe that time spent on getting a good contract with that customer is a waste of time. I think that’s why they are more willing, to an extent, to work with big corporations/big customers. A company may not care to tailor a contract for one customer for a slight increase in profits, but they may be willing to tailor their contracts for a customer that will really increase their profits.
-
“Part of how the abuser escapes confronting himself is by convincing you that you are the cause of his behavior, or that you at least share the blame. But abuse is not a product of bad relationship dynamics, and you cannot make things better by changing your own behavior or by attempting to manage your partner better. Abuse is a problem that lies entirely within the abuser.” - [[Why Does He Do That?]]
- I think part of the thing to note here is the difference between an abusive relationship and a bad relationship. Plenty of times I think the two go together, but other times I think they don’t. A bad relationship could consist of stuff like poor communication, lack of intimacy, or hatred of each other or something. Those are bad things. Getting angry at each other is bad. That does not mean physical abuse is called for. Or stuff like manipulation is called for. Screaming at each other, I think, is reasonably just regular bad stuff in a relationship. Actual threats of violence or manipulative language is abusive.
-
“Telling us that there is only so much matter and energy to create resources from is like telling us that there is only so much galaxy to visit for the first time. True, but irrelevant.” - [[The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels]]
- Not really related to fossil fuels per se, but something that came to mind:
- I’m trying to be more charitable to stuff I disagree with before.
- Who knows maybe there were some people in that process who actually were worried about the limited amount of energy we have in our resources. I do think Alex is right about his whole impact framework stuff (though I don’t know how right anymore). However, I do think there could be just honest bad thinking.
- Related to that: I remember seeing a clip from Ludwig where he crashes out about how people kept thinking he was ragebaiting with how bad he was at a game. His crash out was about how he genuinely just sucks at the game. That’s it. He was like, “What happened to being good old fashioned dog shit at a game?”. Along with that I wonder how much of the problems in the world are not out of malice, but out of just pure intellectual laziness.
- Not really related to fossil fuels per se, but something that came to mind:
-
“If you are seriously interested in fighting for a better world, begin by identifying the nature of the problem. The battle is primarily intellectual (philosophical), not political. Politics is the last consequence, the practical implementation, of the fundamental (metaphysical-epistemological-ethical) ideas that dominate a given nation’s culture. You cannot fight or change the consequences without fighting and changing the cause; nor can you attempt any practical implementation without knowing what you want to implement.” - [[Philosophy]]
- What are the philosophical ideas behind Trump? I think he wants power. Is it the stuff Miss Rand described as Attila that could give me some guidance?
-
‘Instead of encouraging people to change themselves, the Left tells vulnerable people that they should instead change the environment around them to protect themselves from having their feelings hurt. “It’s not your fault,” the Left soothingly coos. “It’s society.”’ - [[Dangerous]]
- I’m now more skeptical of stuff like this and I think it’s mean and wrong.
- I do think a lot of people don’t take responsibility for themselves and, at the end of the day, regardless of how shitty the world actually is you just have to deal with it.
- In saying that however I think a lot of people with the above mentality tend to end up denying the big problems in the first place. Society sucks. The book was written during the time when Ben Shapiro started getting really big. I remember commentary on how the left is lazy. Idk.
- One thing with the left being lazy: I’ve found a lot of creators I like that are leftist than creators I like that are conservative in their values. My favorite podcast is left-leaning. I love the content Dropout makes. They are all leftist (the CEOs father is one of the biggest leftists in the political sphere afaik). Idk. I’ve found that a lot of these leftists do a pretty good job of separating their regular media from political stuff, while the conservatives just make openly political stuff. Put another way, I usually learn that someone leans left. I usually know right away that someone leans right.
- In saying that however I think a lot of people with the above mentality tend to end up denying the big problems in the first place. Society sucks. The book was written during the time when Ben Shapiro started getting really big. I remember commentary on how the left is lazy. Idk.
so can prepositions do that? try to analyze the whole issue.
Yeah but the more you offer one-size-fits-all terms without flexibility to a large audience, the more the terms should be simple, minimal, modest, reasonable, acceptable to almost everyone. You can’t reasonably expect the unsophisticated layman customer to follow complex, exacting, or unintuitive terms that you don’t spend any time explaining to them or discussing with them. Plus it’s unreasonable to ask for such things without being willing to explain them, negotiate them, answer clarifying questions, etc
Screaming itself often threatens and manipulates. The line between bad behavior and abuse is complex.
He’s straw manning his opponents here and he rarely debates anyone. That is not what they tell us. That’s not their framing of the issue.
Also, I think writing that while refusing to read any of BoI is unreasonable. It’s clearly relevant and Epstein didn’t have plenty of other relevant things to read.
What stuff? Why do you disagree with it? Did you read anything and disagree with what you read, or did you just hear about people as explained by someone who told you they’re bad? Did you trust Epstein to help you find out about what environmentalists say?
That’s a propaganda book.
1 Like
~that makes sense. I wonder if it started out that way. From what I’ve seen of how things seem to go, it may have gone like this: standardized contracts that were pretty simple, minimal, modest, etc., at some point someone may have realized that people just sign and assume the contracts are reasonable/good, after that they may have realized they can put more favorable terms in the contracts to benefit themselves. plus I think it helps/is bad that companies portray their contracts as simple and stuff. I think there’s a common view that the stuff in a lot of contracts is a lot of legalese for stuff you would reasonably agree to. “Oh that’s just a bunch of verbiage but all it essentially means is you can’t do this one thing.”
~yeah. I was trying to create some kind of clear line their when I wrote it but it felt kinda hard. Is there anything that could be considered just purely bad in a relationship but not possibly abusive? I feel like a lot of bad things can be used in an abusive manner.
All kinds of things I guess. Like I talked about before how I ended up liking Silent Spring (well, the bits I did listen to on audiobook, I forget if I finished it) and I gave it a chance after seeing what you wrote. I’m trying to do that with a lot of things I just kinda ended up disagreeing with. Why I ended up disagreeing with those things? I guess just chance, really. I came across arguments that appealed to me at a time and those formed my thoughts. Looking back were those arguments that great? Not really. They were just the ones I came to like for whatever reason and I disliked anything that went against them.
As explained by someone who told me they were bad and yeah I did trust Epstein to help me find out about what environmentalists say.
yeah it is. i read it at a time when i was really getting into politics. i think around when ben shapiro started getting big and all that gamergate(?) stuff happened.