I don't know what that means; everyone's cursive is different, unless they're using some formalised script such as copperplate.
[Edit] Have you ever watched someone writing copperplate with a nib? It takes forever. It seems to take about a minute PER WORD. It's beautiful, artistic script, and rather easy to read; but it's not much good for my shopping list, or my telephone notes, or my resignation letter.
Yes, but I almost never have to use that skill. It is pretty pointless unless you are doing historical research and then there are more scripts that are useful to know.
I don't really think that it is too difficult. It's like that saying that is around - if you can't explain something simply, then you really don't know the topic well. As Einstein explained relativity to the general public: “When you sit with a nice girl for two hours you think it’s only a minute, but when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two hours. That’s relativity.”
Just use an analogies. Analogies are best, even if they are not 100% accurate, which I guess is the point of analogies - to use something one knows to illustrate a new concept.
To explain, I would tell them that the analogy I'm giving is not exact, but a way to get a general idea. So for quantum fields, one possible way is to explain it like an ocean. I would say that a quantum field can be understood as an ocean that covers the entire universe but too small to see, just like atoms. But it's still there. And, there are 24 of these oceans all overlapping each other, for each type of field, like one for electrons, one for the photons, etc. A photon comes into existence in this ocean when it is excited, similar to a wave on an ocean. This means that there is no such thing as "empty space" or a complete vacuum, it is impossible, the quantum fields permeate everything everywhere.
That's pretty simple to understand, even for a 10-year-old.
Maybe there are better analogies. I'm just using this as one such example, showing how to explain a topic, rather than the topic of quantum fields specifically, although the explanation above does that, too.
On youtube, there are great videos that show how this is done, just search on "explain in 5 different levels of complexity". I think you will be fascinated! :)
Should VC and other businesses rate those who go to the lowest cost public universities highest?
From a business perspective, who is more intelligent, the person who pays $350,000 to get a degree from Harvard or Colombia (regardless of if they get grants or don't pay because of income levels), or if someone purposefully goes to something like in California public universities where residents can go to a local community college for 2 years to get the general education out of the way either for free (parents make less than about $40K/year) up costs to about $2000 or so for 2 years, then go to California State University where tuition is $11,500 for 2 years, and get a degree for about $13,000-ish for 4 years. Room and board - you can go to a university in your area for free if you live with parents. If not, there are many super inexpensive areas in California, believe it or not. You can get a share rentals for $400/month. Not the big metro areas, of course, but places like Bakersfield, Humbolt, Fresno, Stanislaus, Chico state universities.
Didn't someone who got a business degree for $13,000 show better business skills than someone who paid $350,000 for essentially the same exact thing? Same thing, because take macro-economics, for example. Let's get real. How much better is an macro-ecomics class going to be at Harvard than any other low-cost public university, or a community college? There's no way Harvard students in that class are going to learn that much more. A community college can even use the same exact textbook as Harvard for their students.
Getting a degree for the lowest amount possible should be the very first criteria to evaluate anyone you are going to hire, or person whose company a VC is going to fund. If someone pays $350,000 for a 4 year degree when they could have gone to a public university where the public pays for part of the educational costs, those $350,000 tuition people are not qualified for making business decisions. Stanford grads...good bye. Harvard or other ivy leagues...see ya.
Also, everyone knows you go to those schools for "contacts" so that's not an argument. I'm talking about when a business evaluates a prospective hire or a VC company funding a person, not "contacts".
What do you think? Is the person paying $350,000 for a business degree, or $13,000 for a business degree - which decision is a better business decision, given that two people are about the same in talent?
You make a lot of good points. I’d wager that obtaining the lower costing degree makes better sense. I had to make a similar decision about 10 years ago.
I originally moved back to the states to pursue a Building Science degree because that was the big hot thing that all my peers in commercial construction management had and it was the one thing keeping me from moving to the top of the ladder.
However I quickly stopped pursuing that degree when I realized that this area was over saturated with Building Science graduates and the graduates weren’t earning as much as I earned as a tradesman before I went the commercial management route.
I didn’t see the sense in spending ~$60k plus losing 3-4 years of income only to be able to earn $70k-$100k per year when I made more than that with just a high school education and a tool belt.
So I went back into service and repair work on my own and left the commercial world behind.
I always wish that I was able to do construction/trades stuff.
The few times I've tried, even on the easiest of easy stuff, it's a disaster. Know one's strengths, know one's weaknesses. One has to play to one's strengths.
But if I could, I most surely would do something in the trades.
I always notice that "hate speech" is how people want it defined.
For example, I personally think "toxic masculinity," "mansplaining," "patriarchy," showing men as stupid foolish and incapable in movies and tv shows, and all the rest of the anti-male bashing is hate speech. However, I'm shouted down every time I say one word about this on any online forums. That's because the matriarchy that we live in does not allow me to define those terms as hate speech. There's no corresponding "toxic femininity," "woman-nagging," "matriarchy," or showing women as stupid and inept. Well, there might be a few on either side, but the vast majority of hate speech is piled upon men.
You want to frame mockery of and complaints about men as hate speech. It may be many things, but it's not hate speech.
The whole point about caring about hate speech is that it effectively fosters violence against a class of people. Hurting people because they belong to a certain class is generally agreed upon as being wrong.
Pointing out the foibles, follies, and fuckups of men is not fostering violence. Either those points are true and should be "manned up" or they're not and should be laughed off as a good ribbing. This is has been a man's world, after all.
Dressing up hostility itself as "just a joke" doesn't count, but I'm not seeing that in the modern culture you deplore.
So my last response here, with all due respect, is:
>You want to frame mockery of and complaints about men as hate speech. It may be many things, but it's not hate speech.
The United Nations defines it as: "In common language, “hate speech” loosely refer to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics - such as race, religion or gender - and that may threaten social peace."
So...hate speech is offensive discourse targeting based on inherent characteristics, such as gender/sex.
Speech is violence, and this type of speech is violence against men, who are a class of people. And for sure the speech against men is offensive at the least.
If I were to say similar things to any group, except for men, I would be universally condemned.
Donald Trump was all about mockery and complaints and he has whipped up a whirlwind of scary stuff. It was all based on mockery and complaints. From that, he did bring it to the next level, but it started at the beginning as mockery - like when he mocked the man in a wheelchair, or mocked John McCain for being captured in Vietnam, and a hundred other examples.
>Pointing out the foibles, follies, and fuckups of men is not fostering violence.
That is your opinion. And furthermore, I compare that against why the same thing does not happen against women. Why not "woman-nagging" and "toxic femininity" and "women's-purse-and-other-junk-they-carry-spreading"? If the media and men started labeling women like this with diparaging terms, the world would screech to a halt and there would be weeks of articles and the entire media would have to go into a self-flagellating penance for years.
>This is has been a man's world, after all.
This has nothing to do with anything. You are changing the subject. If you want to argue that point, I will do that, but let's finish up with the point at hand first.
>Dressing up hostility itself as "just a joke" doesn't count, but I'm not seeing that in the modern culture you deplore.
Yes, the people who are the perpetrators often don't see things that the victims see.
Men are dropping out of society because of social disparagement of men. Men are dropping out. 60% of university graduates are women and I've read that is supposed to to to 70-75% in 15 years or so. Women have earned 10,000,000 more degrees than men.
Anyways, I just wanted to point out all these things. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying. No disrespect or being argumentative intended, it is just my viewpoint, and I'm going to stop here. If you don't agree, we'll just have to agree to disagree. And maybe some time in the future what I say might "click in" and you will gain some understanding for the other side.
Four years ago I worked at a company in the Fortune 500 that still used DOS for their main system.
As you say, the switching cost is way too high and dangerous. They moved billions and billions of dollars daily through a highly complex structures and complex laws in different jurisdictions across the USA. The business logic was built over the 40 years when the world was DOS. It's not like they are dumb and don't know linux or Windows exist and all that.
They brought in huge consulting companies all the time to see if they could get it upgraded, but no programming house, no consulting company would touch it. These consulotants turned down hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, because 1) it was just too f-ing complex, and 2) if they messed up, the liability would be immense because of the dollars daily transactions, and what the dollars were used for. It would be an absolute shit-show of the first order if things were to go sideways. I'm positive that these consulting companies E & O (errors and ommissions) insurance company would refuse to insure them. Doing it wrong would be catastrophic on a corporate, but also national level. It would not be a matter of some stick-it notes from 3M not getting to the stores on time, or shoes getting to the shoe stores.
>I'm always amazed that anyone thought cryptocurrencies would somehow be the one form of currency that wouldn't be regulated.
Right. Me too. If a government bans it, like USA or Australia or whatever, then that's that. Sure you can still use it, but you can also not stop for stop signs or you can sell meth or you can not pay income taxes. And maybe never get caught. But if you DO get caught....
How are you banned forever? Can't you just buy another computer, get another connection to the internet, and get around the ban? Or do they ban by credit card? Or does that just mean the particular domain name is banned?
I've got around many a ban by just switching out my computer and getting a new internet connection.
Dude, I'm American and even more anti-monarchy. Hell, I'm anti-president, anti-congress, everything.
But I feel the exactly same as you do, and it's not even my damn country to boot.
But, we all know why, or at least it seems to me...a lifetime of dedicated service, consistent and steady service to UK and the world both. Calm, cool. Loyal to country, husband, the whole shooting match.
There's a LOT to admire about the woman that has nothing to do with monarchy. But, almost everyone likes tradition. The 60 second minute and 60 minute hour have been around since Sumerian epoch 5,000 years ago. Tradition. We still use the name of the months from Rome 2,000 years ago. When a head of government has been around for 70 years, the person is not a monarch, that person an institution.
So I had a lump in my throat, and felt some tears well up. Especially as I read that there was a double-rainbow as it was announced. I am not superstitious in the least, and still not about that, but still...
