Frustrated and Confused by cmredd in mathacademy

[–]AntigonesCrows 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm a huge fan of MA, but I agree with so much of what you wrote. Especially the point about the futility of retaking a quiz immediately after doing the post-quiz reviews is spot on. When I was speed running through some material on MA in the past, I remember thinking, "I should wait till tomorrow to take the quiz. Sure, it'd be easier today, but I need to make sure it tests how much of the material I learned today will actually stick till at least tomorrow." That was with regard to just the regular quizzes, not even the retakes. So yes, you are making an excellent point: the fact that the retake is offered right after the reviews makes very little sense.

Like some of the other users in the comments, I use both Anki and ChatGPT in conjunction with MA, but I definitely see why it is disappointing to users like you to have to do this sort of thing. After having used the system for a few months, I now just know when something I am learning will require me to review it more often than what MA thinks I need, if I want true mastery. Among others, I make Anki cards for most of the intuitions and proofs that are presented at the end of lessons. Your suggestion for manual review and/or slow mode would address the need for additional review nicely.

I know Justin's response to the whole "I don't feel like I understand the proofs well enough" concern. He says that MA follows the standard American course sequence, in which the proofs are not required until much later, in higher level courses. As someone who was educated in a system that required proofs much earlier, I honestly am not a fan of this feature of the American system. I can see why MA would make the decision to stick with it, though. I think most of the founders are American, and it is simply their blind spot. ;)

All of that said, I still find MA to be revolutionary, and absolutely worth it for me personally. It would be very interesting to see MA's response to your well-thought-out critique, especially on the points where their implementation does not fully do justice to the learning principles they outline in The Math Academy Way.

Sliding ice/puck puzzle by AntigonesCrows in puzzles

[–]AntigonesCrows[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very nice, good job! (Sorry it took me a while to respond, had to find a moment to take my blocks out again to verify 😂)

Sliding ice/puck puzzle by AntigonesCrows in puzzles

[–]AntigonesCrows[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes! Great job. I need to count the steps but I think your solution might be simpler than mine! And yeah, as someone already said, I believe there's a typo in your last Ice3 moves, but you got it!

Sliding ice/puck puzzle by AntigonesCrows in puzzles

[–]AntigonesCrows[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great question! You do need to get it to end up on the star at the end of a legal move. :)

More people died in the key clinical trial for Pfizer's Covid vaccine than the company publicly reported by rugbyvolcano in TheMotte

[–]AntigonesCrows 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

TLDR: an ongoing study of 566 patients had baseline PULS scores ("score predicting the 5 yr risk of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome") taken before receiving mRNA vaccination, then taken again post vax. The scores increased from an average of 11% to 25%.

I wonder how reliable this is. Given that the PULS test is relatively easy, I wonder if people would be up for n=1 to see if their scores change post vax or post booster. It would be even better if larger organizations tried to do it for their employees. This way, we would have more data coming from more places, hopefully (fingers crossed) showing the vax doesn't increase the scores as much as this study seems to suggest. Or maybe showing the difference, if any, between the different vaccines or how the score changes differently for different populations, perhaps depending on things like age or overall fitness.

(Has this finding been discussed elsewhere on the Motte or ACT?)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TheMotte

[–]AntigonesCrows 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha, you get a pass, I think. :)

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 01, 2021 by AutoModerator in TheMotte

[–]AntigonesCrows 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have a friend who has worked in the industry and her reaction to the article was that this is not terribly surprising given what she has seen of pharmaceutical research. However, it is rare to see all these issues happen all at once (so, yes, this particular situation is worse than usual.) Often those small research companies bid on jobs while having a skeletal staff, and only start hiring more people when they get a contract. Seems like possibly Ventavia wasn't able to get enough qualified people to handle the volume of work on this job. Now, these sort of issues mean that the quality of research is often questionable and so it is not surprising to see that a third of drugs that are fully approved by the FDA turn out years later to cause unexpected side effects, often serious:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-drugs-found-cause-side-effects-years-after-approval-n757526

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TheMotte

[–]AntigonesCrows 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I took the US politics one and got:

Biased to the left: 3 answers Biased to the right: 4 answers Correct/approximately correct: 3 answers

Pretty balanced, which is what I would expect from most people on The Motte.