Yes, between my T-Mobile 5G backup internet that's reasonable at $25 and my powerwalls I have pretty decent high availability at home especially considering how often the power goes out.
If you're really interested I have an expansion of rust-coreutils that includes Rust implementations of a drop-in bash clone, git, pico, and many others. You don't need GNU at all if you don't want anymore.
There isn't just ONE interesting facet of this. There isn't just ONE mathematical formalism of a lot of these things. GA is just one of those approaches and you should see it just once, just like you should see the group structure and all of that as well. For most applications, the standard vector calculus approach is fine. But the math underlying all of this is full of richness and no one approach is the skeleton key.
Same with programming languages. Some people are like RUST RUST RUST and some are like C C C! I'm like, you guys only use one language?
What interests a mathematician isn't 100% the same as what interests the physicist. All I'm saying is there is some math there that's interesting and people should see it once for the math.
From a mathematician's point of view, yes, you should write the Maxwell field equations, at least to see it once, that way because you're showing a very low-level symmetry that even the differential forms approach doesn't get all the way to. Differential forms is a standard approach for general relativity, e.g. MTW.
I guess the people pushing this are a little pushy, but this reminds me of the whole pie fight over the Rust community. OK, so they're pushy. Nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the language (or of C for that matter).
If you're a baby duck about linear algebra and geometry, there's no need to care about different formalisms. Do whatever works. But it's interesting to see how all of this stuff comes together at different levels, whether it's the geometric product, differential forms, or just linear algebra.
You know exactly what point I'm making and your fatuous attempt at playing coy makes my point for me.
Those "NY City Buildings" were what. What do you call them, exactly? Changing what they're called doesn't change what they are yet you want different rules. That's my point exactly and you've confirmed it.
The NY law, which has analogs everywhere no one had a problem with until it came up there, came up after a protest on Nov 19 (and May 5) at Park East __________.
Fill in that blank for me.
Careful arguing a carveout for what event is there, it won't work for mosques or islamic centers (or buddhist, christian, etc.) either. Surely you aren't arguing that the United States doesn't have enough Islamophobes to do some Westboro Church like shenanigans there, are you?
To be clear in case anyone else wants to do this rhetorical trick of playing innocent, the commenter above wants you to be able to protest outside of the religious buildings of only one religion. Apparently by just changing what they're called.
Surely the author would oppose a law banning a protest within 200 feet of the mosque that was just shot up in San Diego then. Or is that different than the NY law for some reason?
Again, you keep using that word. The standards haven't changed. It's not the standard, this isn't about California's math standards. You're talking about standards, but this is about the framework.
Wealth also correlates with higher test scores. Why? because they are ignoring the framework and doing well with the standards.
This isn't about common core and nothing I have said or you have said changes that.
Even San Francisco rejected the basic premise of that framework's approach to algebra. So it's not just your mom's school either.
Anyway, I'm tired of arguing with your mom indirectly. If any other teachers want to discuss this directly and tell me how I'm wrong, please do.
I am a teacher and I write education software for math as a side gig, which I must have because I'm a teacher.
It's rare for any teacher to just discard the standards. And anyone who says "common core" is talking about something from 20 years ago. The new math framework--already years old--has sparked the latest wave of UC revolts and NO standardized testing is part of it.
"Common core" is the exact opposite. When people say that they are referring to the standards and the tests that go with them. Standards are just standards you can teach them or not, but the framework, something entirely different, give schools guidance on what courses to offer and how to approach it.
The latest framework poo-pooed Calculus and Algebra for advanced middle schoolers in the name of "equity." And dissing admissions tests is part of this movement, that gave us the "Data Science" class that UCs rejected. That was supposed to replace Algebra 2 and therefore make students UC-ready. As someone who taught that class, I can tell you it was a joke. And it had zero, nothing to do with common core. Finding a way to link it to those existing standards was difficult at best.
And I promise your mom's school at least gives the CAASPP. Every school in the Bay Area is not not doing that for decades out in the open. Sorry.