Page 2 of 3

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:56 pm UTC
by sithpirateknight
I think that in high school I found it hard to challenge myself in math but then again high school was a joke for any subject. In college however I find that I can take courses that help push me and keep me thinking. Hopefully my best days aren't behind me because if they are then I must have slept through them....

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:13 pm UTC
by Sprocket
This is the most depressing comic ever.

And yet I'm not depressed by it...I must be having a manic episode.

Oh well. Just a warning to everyone: If I start getting kinda low-key later today, hide the knives. XKCD may claim it's first victim.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:13 pm UTC
by pegasos989
Learning to echo a hello world is not basics of a programming language. Learning to use simple variable, create a loop and use conditional statements are not yet basics of a programming language. That is like saying you know the basics of cooking gourmet food when you know what flour is and how an oven is switched on. :)

Some things that someone should really know about programming include efficient uses of classes, objects, understanding namespaces, using APIs of other programs... If you can't tell what were the major addition to C++ from C, why where they added and to what are they used, you don't really understand the basics. Understanding the basics means that you should be able to listen to two programmers talk and realize what they are talking about even if not being able to contribute to the conversation.

Saying that basics are easy to learn is almost as interesting claim as the often heard "If you know one programming language, you know them all.". A sentence nearly only used by those who haven't spent several years of full time working with a single programming language to realize how much there is to understand in their differences.

So, I would say that most of this "I learned basics of programming at 12" would be like me saying "I know the basics of math" even though I don't have any idea of what derivation actually means. Knowing how to add, decrease and multiply isn't enough. It is like me saying that "I understand women" though I really don't. Having poked one is not enough. -_-


EDIT: This all coming from someone who studies computer science but mostly does web development. I have done some programming with C++ (and naturally JAVA and PHP a bit more) but don't think I really understand C++ for example. Well, I could perhaps claim to know PHP pretty well and basics of Java...

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:39 pm UTC
by sysctl
pegasos989 wrote:Learning to echo a hello world is not basics of a programming language. Learning to use simple variable, create a loop and use conditional statements are not yet basics of a programming language. That is like saying you know the basics of cooking gourmet food when you know what flour is and how an oven is switched on. :)

So where is this magical boundary? Surely, writing a "Hello World" program is trivial, but understanding the notion of a variable, assignment and control flow means one has already grasped basics of procedural programming.


On math:
I'm a Computer Science graduate, and I deeply deeply regret that I have not done enough math in the university (especially discrete math and number theory). So if you are aiming for purely technical jobs, do yourself a favour and suffer through a decent amount of math and math-related material if you can. You will appreciate it years later :)

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:47 pm UTC
by Protector1
Hexadecimator wrote:in general, the curvier the symbols get, the more complicated and difficult life becomes.



quoted

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:51 pm UTC
by jeffk
spec8472 wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:IMathematicians have a sense of humor just like normal people! ...honest!


I've yet to see any proof of this statement.

I have a truly marvellous proof of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:53 pm UTC
by felltir
jeffk wrote:
spec8472 wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:IMathematicians have a sense of humor just like normal people! ...honest!


I've yet to see any proof of this statement.

I have a truly marvellous proof of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.


Oh dear. I laughed far too much at that.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:20 pm UTC
by space_raptor
In school I used to do as much in my head as I could. Gradually I used the calculator more and more... and now I almost reach for it instantly. I used to be able to impress the chicks with my "mad" skills.


Ok, not really.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:37 pm UTC
by kanavazk
If a thirteen-year-old is too old for math, then what the hell am I doing?

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:44 pm UTC
by melinrh21
Read an insightful article once that said that most who think they are good at math are actually just good at following the rules taught to them - and once into the higher math disciplines, find they have no talent at all.

I was one of those weird homeschooled kids, and at 11 I aced the SAT and ACT math sections and at 13 was in calculus (granted, only at community college). As a second year grad student at MIT now that I'm 20, I find this hilariously true. I never got any smarter than I was then. Or, come to think of it, any less weird <sigh>. :)

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:56 pm UTC
by spartan.ii.117
melinrh21 wrote:I was one of those weird homeschooled kids, and at 11 I aced the SAT and ACT math sections and at 13 was in calculus (granted, only at community college). As a second year grad student at MIT now that I'm 20, I find this hilariously true. I never got any smarter than I was then. Or, come to think of it, any less weird <sigh>. :)


I was also a home schooled student until high school. I now feel that I have lost all that intelligence my mom spent so much time working on.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:58 pm UTC
by Master Gunner
This comic is so true. Everything that I do now, I've done better in the past. Everything I stopped doing, I stopped because it was frustrating me more than it ever had before. In the past 5 years, I've lost a lot of my abilities. Except drinking. I didn't drink when I was 11. So I figure I still have that to keep me going.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:14 pm UTC
by freddyfish
wow so true... and im only 18

another great line "im too old to die"

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:19 pm UTC
by Berni
Protector1 wrote:
Hexadecimator wrote:in general, the curvier the symbols get, the more complicated and difficult life becomes.



quoted


The same is true for women too, I suppose.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:10 pm UTC
by midfield
Susan Landau
Notices of the American Mathematical Society Vol 44 No 10

The Myth of the Young Mathematician

When I was a budding scholar, my fellow students and I would pore over
biographies of the famous mathematicians, imbibing the rules by which
the game was played. We learned that mathematics was a young person's
game. Some set the limit for one's best research being done by 30 or 35;
others, as low as 25. To a young person this was quite intimidating;
we all faced several more years of college and graduate school, and it was doubtful that we
would be proving real theorems before we were 30. Our best years would be
close to over. Such was the daunting edifice of mathematics under which we
were (mathematically) raised.

Now, older and with some grey hairs of my own, I know that this tower was
erected on false principles. True it is that Galois did his first-rate
original work before he died at the age of 20, and Ramanujan made enormous contributions
before his death at 32. But while Newton invented the calculus and discovered
the theory of gravitation during his early 20s, the English mathematician was
in his mid 40s when he fully developed the theory that comprises the Principia.
Euler, despite the blindness that afflicted him, was prolific to the
end of his days. His introduction to analysis appeared during the comparative youth of his early
30s, his tome on differential calculus in his late 30s, and his three volumes on
integral calculus when he was in his 60s. Gauss published
Disquistiones Arithmeticae at 24; at 34 he developed the theory of analytic functions; at 48, the
arithmetic of Gaussian integers. In more recent times, Cartan,
Poincaré, Carl Ludwig Siegel, Kolmogorov, and Erdo˝s have all provided examples that age need
not be a barrier to mathematical creativity.

Nor need mathematical creativity blossom early. Fermat and Weierstrass are
examples of mathematicians whose talent first showed when they were well past
the bloom of youth. Fermat's initial mathematical work—on tangents, not number
theory—appeared when the lawyer was in his late 20s; Fermat's foray into
number theory did not occur until several years after that. Similarly, although
Weierstrass published a paper in his late 20s, his first important work, on
abelian integrals, did not appear till the mathematician was in his late 30s. He
was a schoolteacher at the time.

Examples do not prove a theorem, and anecdotes are not the sole evidence
that mathematical insight and ability can be part of later life. Nancy
Stern studied the relationship between age and mathematical productivity and observed
that while mathematicians aged 35–39 were most prolific, they were
closely followed by mathematicians 40–44, who edged out the under-35 group.1 As Stern
notes, such simple number counting can mistake quantity for quality, but other
measures (including a careful analysis of citation count) indicate
that older mathematicians rate well on the quality scale.

The myth of the young mathematician, like those of David and Goliath, and
St. George and the Dragon, has appeal, but it also has costs. This
myth discourages those whose mathematical ability blossoms late, and it creates a
barrier for those whose mathematical careers do not follow the pattern of youthful achievement.
Why does the myth endure? I believe it is because the tale is romantic: the
mathematician as young knight on a quest for truth. I think that we as
mathematicians should lay the false tale aside and acknowledge that mathematical
talent is not a blazing star that burns out at 29 or 39, but functions
on a variable scale, and for many endures even to the edge of time.

Acknowledgement
I am indebted to Claudia Henrion, who has written several compelling articles
on this subject, including a chapter in her book Women in Mathematics:
The Addition of Difference, Indiana University Press, 1997.

1 - Nancy Stern, Age and Achievement in Mathematics: A Case-Study in the Sociology
of Science, Social Studies of Science, SAGE, London and Beverly Hills,
vol. 8, 1978, pp 127–140.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:12 pm UTC
by ToLazyToThink
pegasos989 wrote:Learning to echo a hello world is not basics of a programming language. Learning to use simple variable, create a loop and use conditional statements are not yet basics of a programming language. That is like saying you know the basics of cooking gourmet food when you know what flour is and how an oven is switched on. :)

Some things that someone should really know about programming include efficient uses of classes, objects, understanding namespaces, using APIs of other programs... If you can't tell what were the major addition to C++ from C, why where they added and to what are they used, you don't really understand the basics. Understanding the basics means that you should be able to listen to two programmers talk and realize what they are talking about even if not being able to contribute to the conversation.
..........................


Many of us started with BASIC. Most of what you mentioned wasn't even available to us. Simple variables, conditionals and loops were pretty much as high as we could go.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:13 pm UTC
by AlejoHausner
How many "Gauss' theorem" and "Euler's theorem" have you heard of? If in doubt, go to wikipedia and look up "List of topics named after Carl Friedrich Gauss". Yes, it may be true that Gauss corrected his father's arithmetic while still in the crib, but the more dominant fact is that Gauss lived a very long life and was very productive until he died. Sure, there are romantic examples of brilliant and tragic young mathematicians like Galois and Ramanujan, but there's lots of them who lived into old age, and kept producing.

If you're older than 13, don't despair. There's hope. And, if you're under 13 and can write computer programs, don't let your head swell too large. It's been done.

As a Spanish proverb says, "mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo", literally "the devil knows more by being old than by being the devil", or "experience counts more than talent".

Alejo (an old fart).

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:45 pm UTC
by keithc
Markavian wrote:I jumped for joy the day I had no more math exams at university, that was 3 years ago. I am still a happy man.
QUIT WHEN YOUR EARLY. Good advice?


The pedant writes: "YOUR"? Did you quit English at the same time? ;-)

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:54 pm UTC
by keithc
Master Gunner wrote:In the past 5 years, I've lost a lot of my abilities. Except drinking. I didn't drink when I was 11. So I figure I still have that to keep me going.


Do you think there could be some sort of correlation?

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:25 pm UTC
by wolf_man
justaman wrote:
crp wrote:
Joshua wrote:Here's the image darkened so you can read the blackboard...

xkcd.png


I actually thought that this was photoshopped until i checked myself

Randall, you sneaky bass tard


It is photoshopped, Yeah, the reflections are all wrong. Definitely photoshopped


Did you think nobody was going to call you on that reference. It took me a second but just about made my day.

Thanks for that.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:02 pm UTC
by Aviatrix
aleflamedyud wrote:I learned to program at age 11.
Computers hadn't been invented when I was 11.

CrazyMathemagician wrote:But then there's Andrew Wiles proving Fermat's Last Theorem...
Darn. Last time I checked (1985) that one was up for grabs. Now I have no goal for which to strive. Damn you and your Wiles!

melinrh21 wrote:Read an insightful article once that said that most who think they are good at math are actually just good at following the rules taught to them - and once into the higher math disciplines, find they have no talent at all.
Sigh... yeah.

I'm officially older than dirt, and I'm taking basic math courses so I can take courses I didn't take the first time through college. This confuses people. They understand the elderly taking Art History or Conversational French, but the overwhelming question to me is "why?" And when I answer truthfully ("math is fun"), they think I'm joking. I'm no genius, I'm just bored and trying to have fun, and this works for me.

You all just keep on doing what you're doing. It's all good. Have fun with it.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:05 pm UTC
by simdude
Man. I think I'll be joining the pity party going on in this thread when I say how wonderfully scary that it all is. I'm studying to be an engineer at university (just finished my first year, but taking a summer course anyway cause hell learning is fun) so obviously we are put through the mathmatical paces, but only up to a certain point. I'm getting more and more nervous as that point approaches. I mean I'm still young enough that my ambigous college dreams have not yet been crushed. I want to do things better and in ways that have never before been though of, and to me the way to approach that is with an understanding of math that is on little less than on par with someone who has achieved a degree in pure mathmatics. It's....just wierd to confront that probably can't really happen.

On a more positive note, it's a little fun to place what I'm learning on a timeline. And it's kind of cool to see the dates getting closer and closer.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:05 pm UTC
by mitra
Heh. Actually the correlation is not with the age, but with the innocence :D

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:30 pm UTC
by Eugo
Ubiquitous wrote:...and I said 23. Without missing a beat she replied, "Well, at least you'll be in your prime."

See? Mathematicians have a sense of humor just like normal people! ...honest!


Better. They also have their own sense of humor on top of the normal one.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC
by Eugo
spec8472 wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:IMathematicians have a sense of humor just like normal people! ...honest!


I've yet to see any proof of this statement.


It's a statement, not a theorem... chillax, person!

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:51 am UTC
by krynd
gormster wrote:
aleflamedyud wrote:MUAUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I learned to program at age 11.


Who didn't? Hacking away in VB6 :P

I didn't. My family didn't even own a computer until I was 16. My introduction to programming was in high school, starting with BASIC and moving up to VB6 (thought that was "the bestest language evarr!!". Reality came down hard on me in college, just like your mom (obligatory)).

Anyway, Randall's joke loses it's hilarity when you view it from the perspective I took it from. I viewed it more of a loss of ambition more than as a loss of skills. I saw the 13-year old kid just giving up before he discovered the greatness that is advanced mathematics.

Unfortunately, an attitude such as this is far too common in our (Western) society. This is doubly true because we don't even bother encouraging children to go into the sciences as a socially-accepted (in the large-scale, not the geek-scale) career path. Rather, we tell them "well, if that's how you see it", and hope they don't become druggies while re-applying to be the next contestant on Big Brother for the 30th time.

Carl Sagan was right: how do we expect to funciton as a society dependent on science (and it's child, technology) when we don't even bother to properly teach the sciences now? (again, on the large-scale, not the geek-scale)

I'd be overjoyed (in a geeky way) if there was a science (and history, realistically) component to the SAT/ACT (heard rumors they tried it befure, but too many people failed it, so they pulled it) and an actual exit exam (similar to the UK system, if I understand it correctly) composed of science, math, writing/reading, and history; that everybody had to take before they could graduate high school (it'd cover the basic stuff, nothing higher than what most of us had in 9th grade, but higher than what is the current standard (nothing)). Without basic literacy in those subjects by all citizens (those who are mentally incapable would, of course, be exempted. However, to discourage stragglers who take the easy way out, they'd be "marked" "mentally slow" or something more Basically Decent), I fail to see how America plans to come close to competing with China and Russia in the next few generations.

An early start doesn't guarantee a first-place finish.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:19 am UTC
by linguistic
pegasos989 wrote:Learning to echo a hello world is not basics of a programming language. Learning to use simple variable, create a loop and use conditional statements are not yet basics of a programming language. That is like saying you know the basics of cooking gourmet food when you know what flour is and how an oven is switched on. :)


Ugh. Why don't you use an analogy that compare electricity to water while you're at it?

Classes, namespaces, even C++ are all advanced concepts.

Just because iteration, selection and control flow are relatively "simple" concepts that much higher level languages trivialise doesn't mean these aren't the basic foundations upon which programming is set.

It doesn't mean they necessarily are, either, depending on who you talk to.

If someone knows how to loop, select and handle variables with input/output, they can program. They know the basics, and they can make more or less whatever they like.

By the same token, some kid who picks up VB6 or .nit can also program, and make whatever they like, without understanding half the junk they're doing.

You want to talk about basics, then start telling me about pseudocode, documentation, design and analysis, test beds, thorough testing, error control and handling, abstraction - none of these things are tied to a particular technology.
In the context of the above, yes, knowledge of any given language isn't particularly useful, and learning one or the other is a trivial task (or: if you know none, you know them all).

I'd take a developer who's been in a coma the last 30 years and has a firm grasp of the concepts I mentioned over some wet-behind-the-ears undergrad who's just learned about objects and thinks he's God's gift.

Not that I'm suggesting that's what you are. I'm gently implying it. :-)

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:26 am UTC
by Minchandre
krynd wrote:
gormster wrote:-snip-


Turns out that the ACT does, in fact, have a science section, covering simple experimental procedure and data analysis - 9th grade level stuff, maybe.

It's not as much as I'd like, but it's more than nothing.

As for matriculation exams...I'm not sure. I mean, I approve mandating a standard, but from what I've noticed with foreign friends and the American implementation of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate that the problem with matriculation exams is that schools start teaching precisely to the level of the test, and no higher - you bring everyone up to the same level, but you bring them all down as well. That's not universally true, of course, but it's the tendency I've noticed.

As for whether or not that's a good bargain to make, well...American scientists are known as the most creative, and it's not just 'cause there's more of them than anyone else.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:35 am UTC
by ConMan
linguistic wrote:You want to talk about basics, then start telling me about pseudocode, documentation, design and analysis, test beds, thorough testing, error control and handling, abstraction - none of these things are tied to a particular technology.
In the context of the above, yes, knowledge of any given language isn't particularly useful, and learning one or the other is a trivial task (or: if you know none, you know them all).


There's basics, and then there's fundamentals. I'd agree that variable assignment, conditional processing, input-output and flow control are basics, but those things you mention are fundamentals. In maths, things like arithmetic are the basics, but stuff like set theory, logic, and the construction of a proof are more fundemental. You can write LET A = 5 or 1 + 1 = 2 from pretty much step 1, but it's not until much later that you start getting into the important bits, where you learn *why* you're allowed to write those things, and why you can be certain they always mean the same thing (or why they don't always mean the same thing, and how to make sure they mean what you want them to mean).

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:44 am UTC
by linguistic
ConMan wrote:There's basics, and then there's fundamentals. I'd agree that variable assignment, conditional processing, input-output and flow control are basics, but those things you mention are fundamentals.


Oooh, I like what you wrote better than what I wrote.

Henceforth, I shall go around pretending that was my idea in the first place:

linguistic wrote:There's basics, and then there's fundamentals. I'd agree that variable assignment, conditional processing, input-output and flow control are basics, but those things I mentioned are fundamentals.


Aww yehhh.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:55 am UTC
by Boxcar Aldous Huxley
As an aside, I've heard it said that biologists don't get their best work done until their 40s, that is, when they've got a lab up and running that is able to produce useful knowledge. Also, there's so godawful much stuff to know in the field (or any sub-sub-field) that you can't really form a useful picture of the concepts until you've studied it at a high level for many years. There are exceptions (see Watson and Crick), but I think this is generally true. Of course, this didn't stop me from freaking out in college due to a perceived lack of ability (or lack of will, or whatever) to do good work, so this particular one hit close to home for me...

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:10 am UTC
by scarletmanuka
AlejoHausner wrote:"mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo", literally "the devil knows more by being old than by being the devil"

Synchronicity points: I first came across this quote two days ago in a novel I was reading.

Aviatrix wrote:
CrazyMathemagician wrote:But then there's Andrew Wiles proving Fermat's Last Theorem...

Darn. Last time I checked (1985) that one was up for grabs. Now I have no goal for which to strive. Damn you and your Wiles!

You can always have a go at Goldbach's conjecture...

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:06 am UTC
by BlueNight
I did a quick comparison of age and grade, and Randall is absolutely right! I was indeed eleven when I discovered a new way to test for prime numbers.

Of course, it wasn't until 10th grade (age 16) that I realized that the "cool thing" could be used that way. Until then, it was just a nifty graph that I had modified into a monogram. I got to the regional science fair twice with it, once in Computer Science and once in Mathematics.

But it wasn't until a few weeks ago (age 29) that I thought of differentiating the results for semiprimes from the results for other composites.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:49 am UTC
by Lunch Meat
melinrh21 wrote:Read an insightful article once that said that most who think they are good at math are actually just good at following the rules taught to them - and once into the higher math disciplines, find they have no talent at all.


Sorta see what you mean. I was always "good" at math; it used to be one of my favorite classes when I still had to take it. I was "good" basically because a) I only needed things explained to me once, and then I got it, b) I remembered everything I got, c) sometimes I would need things explained to me halfway and then my mind made the jump itself, and d) I was just always quick at putting things together and thinking fast.

I've still retained pretty much everything I learned, but I'm hopelessly behind people my age who still do math. I can't do it fast anymore. I'm scared of trying to get back into it because I don't know how well I would do.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:24 am UTC
by SEE
pegasos989 wrote:Some things that someone should really know about programming include efficient uses of classes, objects, understanding namespaces, using APIs of other programs... If you can't tell what were the major addition to C++ from C, why where they added and to what are they used, you don't really understand the basics.

Amazing.

Apparently, when Donald Knuth started writing The Art of Computer Programming? He didn't even understand the basics of the discipline.

I mean, wow.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:05 am UTC
by Seriniyity
Wow, I thought for sure someone would have gotten to this before me, but no one did...

So I registered just to make this post! Hello fellow xkcd fanzoids!! :D

Anyway that which I have registered to post is this: The suggestion of the TOFTS!

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:46 am UTC
by nekolux
But mommy! i dont wanna do differential equations and logarithms :( what happened to good old multiplication tables :lol:

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:20 am UTC
by linguistic
Seriniyity wrote:Anyway that which I have registered to post is this: The suggestion of the TOFTS!


?

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:57 am UTC
by DarkKnightJared
I had two sudden realizations reading this and seeing the discussion:

1. People here are far too smart than me.

2. I'm probably the only person who reads this comic that is absolutely fucking terrible at math.

It's very depressing.

Re: "Too Old For This Shit" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:02 am UTC
by sje46
DarkKnightJared wrote:I had two sudden realizations reading this and seeing the discussion:

1. People here are far too smart than me.

2. I'm probably the only person who reads this comic that is absolutely fucking terrible at math.

It's very depressing.

I'm not good at math.

No, that's a lie. I'm good at math, but I don't know a lot of the concepts, and it holds very little interest for me. I don't know what an intergral is, which is apparently shameful.

I don't understand a lot of the comics.