averypickford.bsky.social
In my [REDACTED] year of #iteachmath. The way I teach ≠ the way I was taught. Wondering if #mtbos should now be #mbbos.
May also find me talking about photography, the outdoors, traveling, sports, SF, & hanging with my kids. Not necessarily in that order.
411 posts
931 followers
747 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
And to be clear, I was much less annoyed with this old colleague's gripes than I was/am with drivers who try to kill me.
comment in response to
post
And cyclists aren't immune to this othering. I found it slightly annoying that an old colleague cyclist felt the need to share with me every instance of someone on an e-bike not behaving well, or his annoyance with being passed by someone on an e-bike. Like, we're on the same team here my friend.
comment in response to
post
Similarly fascinating to me is when these people extend this disdain of sports cyclists to my middle-aged-dad-bod self hauling my two kids to school on the back of a cargo e-bike. 🤷♂️
comment in response to
post
We used public transit a lot during our trip to Banff & Glacier NP last summer, and the experience was...meh. Too many people and too few buses led to lots of waiting around. And those systems were far more developed than what Tahoe is proposing—and parking in Banff was much pricier too ($40-$50).
comment in response to
post
One of the most frustrating things about these half-baked plans is the majority of riders will be people vacationing who have minimal public transit experience. When they inevitably have negative experiences, it will just reinforce their beliefs that public transit doesn't work.
comment in response to
post
We should build public transit systems that are cheaper, faster, and more convenient than driving, where it's a no-brainer for people to leave their giant 7-passenger SUVs with their "Keep Tahoe Blue" bumper stickers back in town. The environmental benefits are just icing on the cake.
comment in response to
post
When it's significantly cheaper, faster, and more convenient to drive (the shuttle vans will be sitting in the same traffic as everyone else), why would you *choose* to take the shuttle? You won't. It'll just be people who are *forced* into this option when the parking lots are full.
comment in response to
post
If officials are hoping for this to mitigate "a phenomenal traffic crisis," what happens when the shuttle is full? When a summer hike goes a little longer than expected and you get back at 5:15? When you just miss a van and have to wait 55 minutes for the next one? When the last shuttle is full?
comment in response to
post
The problem? Too many cars. The plan? A passenger van shuttle that will cost a family of four $30 and run once an hour, only from 9-5. BTW, some parking is free, and parking in the state park is $3 for an hour or $10 for the day (or also free if you have a CA state park pass).
comment in response to
post
I also wore this shirt today. ❤️
comment in response to
post
Very cool. But Chris, it's *two* parabolas, one portrait and one landscape. 🤣
comment in response to
post
Who's, Fuse, Clues, Goos
comment in response to
post
Actually, this is such a powerful spell that you only have to say it once.
comment in response to
post
@tgoesh.bsky.social Now I think you were right about Desmos adding a whole bunch of inference tools to set themselves up for the Stats AP.
comment in response to
post
No idea. My stats class isn't an AP test, but I know there are changes coming to the AP test (maybe next year?) where I think some of these inference tests are on the chopping block, so my guess is they just saw this as a feature gap and this isn't related to the AP.
comment in response to
post
Non-paywalled link to the study: bsky.app/profile/rach...
comment in response to
post
These features just dropped today I see. Learn more at help.desmos.com/hc/en-us/art... ♾️
comment in response to
post
This is a cool one! It comes from the list centered at 1, with initially 2025 numbers in the list. So this gives you the list -1011, -1010, ..., 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013.
comment in response to
post
5) So, 2025 has 15 factors. They are all odd. But careful! When k=1, we get a list of just 2025, which we don't want to include. So 14, or 1 less than the number of odd factors, is the final answer!
comment in response to
post
4) Now we just need to prove that we aren't missing anything. If we were missing an odd length list, the center would have to be a factor of 2025. ❌ Could we be missing some even length list? Lol, I can't remember how I proved this. 😭
comment in response to
post
3) None of these lists can be the same. Why? The lists without negatives will all be different odd lengths (k), and the lists that start with negatives will all have an even number of terms because we will eliminate all of the negative pairs and 0. So all these lists are unique! 🤯
comment in response to
post
2) BUT, some of the lists will have negative #s. Eg, 2025/675=3, which would correspond with a 675 length list centered at 3. 😡 This list goes from 3-337 to 3+337 or -334, -333,...,333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340. BUT, lots of opposites so this is just 335, 336,...,339, 340. New solution! ☺️
comment in response to
post
Here's how I solved this (a long time ago and without all the dead ends):
1) Recognize that all odd factors k will generate a unique list. 2025/k will be the center of the list and the length will be k. Eg, 2025/3=675, so there will be a list of length 3 with 675 at the center. 674+675+676=2025 🎉
comment in response to
post
The safe route is just to wait for someone (in their eyes) much cooler than you to introduce the movie to them.
comment in response to
post
There is sort-of-a-closed formula, depending on how you write your starting number.
comment in response to
post
I think you're close! I have a guess to the one mistake you made.
comment in response to
post
Btw, this problem lives in the domain of what I call "staircase numbers", one of my favorite problem spaces, and was part of a multi-day project back in the day when I taught 6th grade (the "big" problem we explored then was around what numbers can't be written as consecutive sums).
comment in response to
post
I'm so sorry this happened to you.
comment in response to
post
Another maybe helpful perspective to think about is, in the context of statistics, how after finding an association between A and B you might design a study to test if A causes B vs a study to test if B causes A.
comment in response to
post
To me, the interactions of the world include our setups of experiments, so they *do* change.
comment in response to
post
I get the philosophical sense of time being a foundational variable (so it feels like it should always be independent), but our understanding of gravity was uncovered by treating distance as the independent variable while experimenting with dropping and rolling stuff.
comment in response to
post
Might be worth going back to the fundamental question: why do we care about this independent/dependent distinction?
comment in response to
post
I see it more as
given : independent :: result : dependent
Wanting to travel a longer distance (cause) is going to lead to a longer time (effect).
Wanting to travel for a longer period of time (cause) is going to lead to a greater distance (effect).
comment in response to
post
To me, the following two questions are equally natural:
1) How far will I go if I travel for a certain amount of time at 60mph?
2) How long will it take me to go a certain # of miles at 60mph?
And then focus on writing equations without needing any algebraic manipulation:
1) d=60t
2) t=d/60
comment in response to
post
I read the post, but didn't see an explanation that made sense to me why there'd be a greater disparity for people who selected 18-29 (lots of people not even reading the q's & just selecting the first option?) or Hispanic. Also not clear whether this is due to response or selection bias.
comment in response to
post
I read "How many ways can 2025..." and thought this was going in a different direction. 😂
comment in response to
post
IMHO, how to mitigate wasn't the focus of the article. The authors assert that climate change isn't a priority for most people & this is a problem. They don't address the fact that we need large-scale policy change (ie change in voting behavior), not just personal change (ie I started recycling).
comment in response to
post
Here's the Google form for those of you who, like most teachers, just want to skip to the part where you say "Sure, I'll help."
docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...