applejack @applejack@gameliberty.club

@beardalaxy Your roommates are going to call you a pedo… that is a child's cleavage…

@LukeAlmighty And then I tried agreeing with you but you would not have it

@LukeAlmighty I do not know why you did not just describe what you think it is to my first reply then

@LukeAlmighty

+ 8
6
­ 2

vs.

8 + 2 = 10
10 + 6 = 16

Is what I interpret that to mean, and what the article then describes

@LukeAlmighty Then we agree

@LukeAlmighty I have no opinions on common core, I don't even know what that is

I'm saying 8 + 2 + 6 is better than 8 + 6 + 2 and (41 - 1) + (29 + 1) is better than 41 + 29

@LukeAlmighty We agree then, right? Just a different definition of "new maths"

The image just shows a much worse way to do add and carry. While the article I found for "new maths" is not that

@LukeAlmighty (and what is happening in the image is double stupid)

@LukeAlmighty Using dots is stupid, but otherwise this seems much better

We were tought to add and carry in school, but I somehow mentally reached what this is trying to teach anyway. It was never taught to me

It's more abstract and less systematic because you're learning to rearrange complex problems into more but simpler problems. This is the right way to solve any kind of problem

@LukeAlmighty > Say you want to add two-digit numbers. The old-school way millennial parents were taught involved putting one on top of the other and carrying, if necessary. Now, students are encouraged to rethink how they arrange the numbers. Moldavan gives the example of 41 + 29. You could rewrite 29 as 30, which is a rounder, "friendly number." Then, you turn 41 into 40 (also "friendly"). You've subtracted 1 from 41, and added 1 to 29, so that cancels out. And now you have your product: 70.

> Another strategy is called "making 10s." "Say you want to add 8 + 6 + 2," says Moldavan. "You might rearrange the numbers so you can quickly make a 10. So, you'll add 8 + 2, and then add 6 to get 16."

https://www.parents.com/kids/education/math-and-science/new-math-method-explained-for-millennial-parents/

This is what I've always done in my head. What is wrong with it?

@xianc78 @beardalaxy Knowing what is going to be faster with todays hypercomplex hardware is a guessing game at best

In either case, it's the wrong point to make. Write sane, readable, maintainable code first. Optimise then only later if it is clear there is a reason to. The compiler will usually do a better job of it anyway

@xianc78 @beardalaxy Calculation is what CPUs do best. Jumping across code memory in a way that makes it hard for the compiler, the cache, and CPU to optimise around however isn't

@xianc78 The decompilation is not the original source. The compiler is allowed to unroll table iterations and inline function calls and whatever else. This file specifically also kinda looks like it might be generated

@LukeAlmighty When they do it it is for dumb and gay reasons, duh

@BlinkRape The whole thing is just following accounts and misinterpreting wording in the most disingenuous way possible?

@LukeAlmighty Noise canceling headphones combined with quiet music work pretty well for me

@bot @kirby Aren't you a clandestine male?

@bot @kirby This is why recipes should be under the GPL

@mikuphile What the fuck, I can

@mikuphile I did not even know this was an option… I've been missing out…