piefed.zeromedia.vipVelma can't math.
submitted by
fossilesquehttps://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/3820dc1e-c8d2-44d9-aadc-13dec2ce3e0e.png
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/3820dc1e-c8d2-44d9-aadc-13dec2ce3e0e.png
FWIW I heard the show was extremely bad, and I had to see for myself.
It is very, very bad.
One of the worst parts of it is that Scooby Doo has had tons of successful series and they’ve all been pretty good. Yet they somehow managed to fuck this up despite it being an incredibly simple formula for a show.
It was never about Scooby Doo. IIRC, this was supposed to be an original show, but latching it to a successful 90s franchise must have looked like a sure money maker.
Edit: did some fact checking, this was a theory. The show actually was an unfortunate reimagining of Scooby Doo since its inception.
Regardless of what the official story is, that’s probably what really happened. Same thing with the Halo tv show.
I don’t know. Seeing how modern shows like Foundation, The Witcher, or Star Trek Discovery, to name a few, have gratuitously walked over their own canon, I can understand how the producers thought Velma was a good idea for a new Scooby Doo show.
I think Discovery is a little different. They had way too many producers and writers on that show, all trying to get their little ideas in so when they moved onto a new project, they could get a sexy “By the creators of Star Trek” tagline on it. The situation Walter Mosley described when he left STD made the writer’s room sound like a viper pit.
Foundation was so strange because it felt like the writers split into two isolated groups.
The team that was trying and failing to “reimagine” the original story, and the team the totally abandoned the original story and was doing their own thing with the clone emperors story.
Unlike other examples where the show felt like an existing story twisted into the framework of an unrelated franchise, Foundation felt like the clone emperors story came out of the talented writers getting frustrated by the quality of the adaption.
Scooby-doo is a 90s franchise now?
Holy cow, it’s a 70s franchise, but I misremembered, even though I watched dubs in the 80s! Technically it’s a 60s franchise because it was born in 1969.
That’s fair lol I was convinced A Pup Named Scooby-Doo was a 2000s show until like 5 years ago.
it was designed as ragebait. but it failed even at that.
You’re talking about it
Not watching it tho
FWIW I heard the show was extremely bad, and I had to see for myself.
It was okay, better than the shitty Netflix adult animations. The worst part of it was the Velma character, if they got rid of or changed her it would be better.
Don’t you be talking smack on my beloved haunted hotel
Talking about the bad ones Big Mouth, The Prince, Paradise PD, etc.
Fair
they got rid of scooby doo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=inJUFqeJehE
A negative boy was unsure about a radical party.
The boy was a square, so he missed out on four awesome chicks.
And the whole thing was over by 2am…
This is beautiful, as a mathematics major it brought me to tears. I’ll be reading this at my wedding
I was just taught it to “pop goes the weasel”.
Thanks
Now we just need this in song form which is how I was taught lol
I’m terrible at making math jokes, but I don’t have any proofs.
Same here, but I’ll suck it up and make one if I halve two.
When stupid people try to make a show about smart people.
Coming from someone that memorized it in high school and hasn’t used it since, I am enraged.
It’s a formula very useful for a tone of engineering fields, electronic, mechanics, automatic control and probably a bunch more. I used it a tone in my early carrier, including the imaginary flavor.
Yeah if your field uses anything beyond basic math this bitch is hiding somewhere
My field (cryptography) is unlikely to run into this, despite having some advanced math. There’s just not that much use for anything in 2D, and abstract algebra doesn’t bother with things as mundane as “numbers”.
When I started Chem engineering in college, it blew me away that like 80% of lab math and analisis was just using the linear equation everyone bitched and moaned about how useless it was in high-school.
The fucking what flavor.
Tonne not tone < tonne is the measurement/a lot, whilst tone is sound
Flavour not flavor, you don’t want people thinking you’re a gross American.
didn’t get an animation job for the math skills
Yeah. Those guys all work on Futurama.
Such an strange error. I’m not saying it’s AI but here’s my prompt:
Here’s the pic:
I suspect it’s an OCR error.
I’m guessing a typesetter was too lazy to add another textbox and although they knew how to type “√”, didn’t realize “²” is in Unicode too. They added a horizontal line as separate graphics to extend the square root symbol but only realized too late the whole thing is in a fraction: maybe someone reminded them and they misinterpreted the advice, or just decided not to split the text box to put the nominator higher.
Can you even do that “proper” square root with unicode? Or is it always just that single character?
Unicode isn’t meant to replace all typesetting like LaTeX. For example, I can’t make proper horizontal fractions (as opposed to slashed like ⅝ or ⁹⁄₁₆) that are normal in my part of the world because that would be too much scope creep. Even the TeX logo is not really doable (Markdown with ASCII: TEX, Unicode ᵀᴇˣ).
An imperfect solution is adding
̅ U+0305 COMBINING OVERLINEabove everything. For example, it does not sit at consistent height (√4̅a̅c̅) and Windows renders it incorrectly (centered to the right edge of the character, not its center).This is how I’d render the numerator using Unicode only:
𝑏² ± √4̅𝑎̅𝑐̅
A correct Markdown interpreter can improve the look ogf the superscript:
𝑏2 ± √4̅𝑎̅𝑐̅
So they had to use something “fancier” like TeX so they must’ve known about suoerscriots and the like
Nope, it looks like a basic vector graphics editor, think Inkscape, PowerPoint or whatever is built into their animation/effects software. They just used straight horizontal lines for the fraction and the bar of the square root.
That makes about a million times more sense
I stared at the square of the square root of the squared square root for far too long…
that I almost missed the obvious E = / * A. Where would the field of mathematics be without that good old E = / * A? :-D
Check out this bad boy.
It just gets better and better-er(-est?/-ish?)
… Why not just copy the meme they’re referencing? It’s like they’re intentionally trying to screw this up.
Did they use AI to generate that?
Neural Network (bad one)
I feel for Velma. I am so bad at math that sometimes I go into a corner by myself so I can hide what I’m working on from my coworkers while I scribble down very complex maladaptive strategies I’ve learned to solve simple calculations.
I have textbook dyscalculia. I am a geospatial wizard, but I cannot remember my pin or calculate a tip.
I was making grits the other day. The can had instructions for 1 serving, and 4 servings. I didn’t want 1 or 4, I wanted 2. So, I wrote a quick interpolation program on my Casio. Once I ran it, I realized 2 is just double of 1.
I feel like a number of the concepts in this infographic are loosely (if at all) defined. As in - they don’t represent established concepts in education and they could have been made by a single party talking out their ass. Or maybe I just have dyscalculia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia
https://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/dyscalculia
I had to have a lot of maths tutors to get by.
I don’t mean to discredit Dyscalculia as a thing. As a matter of fact, I transposed a bunch of numbers that I shouldn’t have in high school math in spite of sound logic for how I went about the questions. I just have issue with the rest of the infographic being things you can identify with without them having a foundation in science. It tastes a little horoscopey.
Haha, no worries! It is hard to find a good one. X)
why is she even thinking about this?
She’s in high school in the show.
never had that kinda math at my high school
In year 2 of secondary we did it.
obviously not american public high school
Wrong formula aside, what is the meaning of dividing an entire equation? (x = b) / a
quotient equivalence under an equivalence relation “a” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotient_type
Okay, but even if we assumed (x=b) to be a very small equivalence relation, it should appear in the denominator position to form an equivalence quotient.
Oh yeah was a bit sleepy and thought you could just put arbitrary expressions in the numerator instead of just the type.
But consider this: heterogeneous propositional equality type of types x and b under equivalence relation a, which is bound somewhere else in the aether that we can’t see in the screenshot
Constructors of this equality type? No fucking clue but I’m sure there exist some to make the need for an equivalence relation make sense
You’re probably on the right track. Every hunk of symbols is probably a valid type expression in some system. Including a square root type.
If you told me the creator of that show didn’t get the equation right because they had no idea what it was even called to look it up, I would believe you.
You know, I remember the formula, but I don’t remember what a, b, and c are
They’re the coefficients of a quadratic equation! Y = ax^2 + bx + c
0 = ax^2 + bx + c
Oh true!
They are all superfluous if you know how to do quadratic expansion.
Do you have a truly universal method for quadratic expansion that is easier to remember and compute than the formula? Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy quadratic expansion and always give it a few shots before resorting to the formula.
Animation software didn’t have superscript, so no power ofs.
Why so… Negative? /s
You ignoramus. This is what allows us artistic geniuses to freely unleash our gifts to the world, what we call “creative liberty”.
An insignificant thing like being wrong should not stop our creative juices from flowing unabashed.
You’re not getting your deposit back if those creative juices soak in.
On a sidenote, the rule 34 of her is top notch👌
I mean maybe it’s just some other formula
I’ve never seen an equals sign inside a term
It makes the term into a boolean ☝️🤓
I was trying to think what the funniest part was. I think it’s the b2 - like just take your b2 vitamins bro, it’s worth like squared a regular b.
As someone terrible at math, I appreciate the explanation for what’s so wrong here.
Deleted by author
Well I didn’t spot that
Are both sides being divided by 2a?
Those are questions that mere mortals would ask. Be better: just “vibe solve” it. :-P
You start by dividing both sides by 2a, and then you can multiply both sides by 2a to get rid of the 2a’s from both sides. Doing this will give you a sense of accomplishment whenever you don’t know how to proceed.