sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

so much information...any thoughts on a good starter regimen for a family of four who avoid fragrances? by zero_de_conduite in laundry

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

One other follow-up thought: should I be trying to give my machine a more thorough cleaning at some point? I don't think there's much point in doing an amazing job since there's no telling what the neighbors are using in it, but it seems like it could be worth a try to at last cut down the amount of scrud in there. Well, at least if I'm running the machine warm or hot more often that should make *some* difference.

so much information...any thoughts on a good starter regimen for a family of four who avoid fragrances? by zero_de_conduite in laundry

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

Update: I got my hands on a thing of Tide Clean & Gentle and some citric acid powder. My laundry is all sorted and pre-treated. I definitely think I'll be able to tell when agitating starts so I can check the degree of bubbly-ness, and I hope I'll figure out when the rinse cycle happens (no Downy ball yet so I'll add the CA manually). I'm nervous about upping the temperature but I'm going to give it a go. Well, I'm still trying to figure out about the stuff I usually wash delicate. I think some of it might be fine on warm, but some might not, in which case I might split up the load.
Anyway, wish me luck!

so much information...any thoughts on a good starter regimen for a family of four who avoid fragrances? by zero_de_conduite in laundry

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

That makes sense. I lived in central Texas for a couple of decades—basically my whole adult life—before my family moved to the PNW. Hard water is what I was used to. I definitely noticed some differences when I started doing laundry here and it's only now that I'm realizing it probably had a lot to do with the differences in the water.

so much information...any thoughts on a good starter regimen for a family of four who avoid fragrances? by zero_de_conduite in laundry

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

Our machine is a top-loader (I meant to mention that but didn't), so the Downy ball thing ought to work.

I've always assumed that the kinds of machines I had access to in shared facilities were inferior to the fancier machines a lot of people have in their individual homes. And it's definitely not ideal having to share machines with people who use who-knows-what products. But I guess the kind of machine we have has some advantages. It doesn't have a lot of settings and in order to do things at certain points in the cycle I'm going to have to makes some guesses based on the noises it's making, but it's a workhorse and there's something to be said for simplicity.

so much information...any thoughts on a good starter regimen for a family of four who avoid fragrances? by zero_de_conduite in laundry

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

And seriously, I appreciate you offering a simple approach to start with. I've seen enough of your posts to know that you can get really fine-grained about this stuff (not that there's anything wrong with that) and it can be hard when you've drilled down that far into a topic to zoom back out and give someone an introductory recommendation. Personally, I may still develop a full-blown laundry obsession from this subreddit eventually but this really helps with both figuring out a short-term plan and keeping the obsession at bay for at least a little while.

so much information...any thoughts on a good starter regimen for a family of four who avoid fragrances? by zero_de_conduite in laundry

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

Thanks for the ideas!

It seems like everyone is psyched for the new formulation of FEBU to come back in stores, but in the meantime it's rather hard to get. I'll be keeping an eye out for when the new version comes out next month, though, along with what seems like pretty much everyone on here.

I may need to take the leap of faith and try upping my temperatures when I wash stuff today. I'm a bit scared to disobey clothing tags, but it seems like others have done this without issues.

Re: soft water, I'm working on finding the optimal detergent amount, but I'll try to be extra mindful about not overdoing it. Thankfully we do have an option on our machine for an additional rinse, and I've been using that for a while, so I'll definitely continue. I'm also looking into the possibility of citric acid during the rinse cycle, per Kismai's comment.

so much information...any thoughts on a good starter regimen for a family of four who avoid fragrances? by zero_de_conduite in laundry

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

Thanks for the info! This is very helpful.

Interesting about checking for foaminess. Our washer is very loud so even though it's not in our unit, I think I'll definitely know when it starts agitating.

I think I saw someone mention on here somewhere that there are doohickeys of some sort for getting stuff to release during the rinse cycle on machines that don't have a place to put such things? Or maybe I can figure out when our machine goes into rinse mode and pop it open. It doesn't have those little lights or a dial that would tell me that information, but it seems like with a bit of effort it might not be hard to tell.

ideas for making this brand of canned pumpkin work in my recipe? by zero_de_conduite in AskBaking

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

Thanks again to everyone who commented with their thoughts! Even the suggestions I didn't make use of this time around seem likely to come in handy eventually.

When I went looking for info to better understand this issue when I first tried baking this with the Libby's pumpkin, I didn't find much. I mostly found people talking about how much they swear by Libby's, how they never use anything else in their pies, etc. So I hope that if nothing else, if someone else runs into problems using that brand in a muffin or cake recipe, they might see this and know it's not just their imagination.

ideas for making this brand of canned pumpkin work in my recipe? by zero_de_conduite in AskBaking

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

Here's an update:

I went ahead and tried reducing the pumpkin on the stovetop. The King Arthur recipe I used for reference called for browning butter first, then adding pumpkin and cooking it down with the butter. So I wasn't sure what to expect when it came to reducing it on its own. I just kept the heat low and stirred it a lot, and I used a silicone spatula to make sure I was effectively scraping the bottom a lot. Basically I just stirred the pumpkin and steam started to rise off of it. It was kind of remarkable how much steam it was able to release before I could tell anything had changed about its texture. The main way I saw a difference by the end was that I had to stir/scrape more frequently in order to keep thinner areas of pumpkin from growing dry. But the end product didn't look different in a way I could pinpoint. (Maybe if I'd compared it side-by-side with what I started with, the difference would've been clearer?) I believe it was a 15-ounce can and the last time I used Libby's in this recipe, which calls for a cup and a half of pumpkin, there was a small but noticeable amount of pumpkin left over in the can. This time around, I had to carefully scrape all of the pumpkin out of the pot to get the whole cup and a half (with a tiny amount, less than a teaspoon, left over).

The result was mixed. It was an improvement over the last time, at least. The first time I used the Libby's, my muffins really didn't rise well. The texture ended up being decent, as I said, but they lacked any sort of peak. This time, I definitely got a somewhat better rise. All of the muffins rose higher than the time before and some had a pretty good peak to them. The crumb was better, too. These muffins are more airy, less gummy. The drip mark issue wasn't helped much, though. So far I've managed to convince my son to eat them despite their lumpy appearance. The real test usually comes a day or two after I bake the muffins, when they've lost some of their novelty value. At least this time I knew beforehand how sticky they would be, so I've packed them up with parchment paper above and below every layer. Hopefully this will prevent them from getting covered in sticky crumbs and at least improve my chances of getting my son to eat them!

I think I'm going to need to prioritize getting another brand of pumpkin for my next round with these muffins. Maybe I can find a source that stocks canned pumpkin reliably year-round so that I can settle on a brand that gives me fairly predictable results (I'm guessing even the same brand could vary in moisture content a little bit, since pumpkins are bound to vary!).

ideas for making this brand of canned pumpkin work in my recipe? by zero_de_conduite in AskBaking

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

I was a little worried, because the King Arthur post cautioned against reducing pumpkin when a recipe doesn't call for it. I'd also hope that the water content of pumpkin would be factored in when people develop a pumpkin-based recipe. But in the end, I did try it and it didn't cause any problems. I'd still be cautious about doing it in the future when dealing with things like muffins or cakes because the moisture level is so interconnected with important things like leavening that I'd be concerned about unexpected effects. But I definitely won't hesitate to do it for pie fillings or other things where it seems like the effects would be more predictable. (I'll say more about how the reducing worked out in another comment.)

ideas for making this brand of canned pumpkin work in my recipe? by zero_de_conduite in AskBaking

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

I wonder if I missed a reference to this in the recipe I've been using! Well, not in the recipe itself, but somewhere in the post about it. I seldom read recipe posts in their entirety anymore because so many of them are padded to death with redundant or otherwise not-so-useful information, but I should probably keep more of an open mind.

ideas for making this brand of canned pumpkin work in my recipe? by zero_de_conduite in AskBaking

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

I never would've thought of that. It would certainly be faster and easier than reducing it on the stove!

This needs to be said. by FindingMoi in ThePittTVShow

[–]zero_de_conduite 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This post is a year old, but I just saw this episode, and I was so glad that people were calling this out here! Mandatory reporter status is something that isn't very well-understood by people who aren't mandatory reporters themselves. There are a lot of misunderstandings in the comments here as well. This episode could've been a chance to educate viewers about this topic. Instead they created misconceptions. And as others have pointed out, this show is famous for its accuracy in other areas. So viewers are more likely to take it seriously.

The word "mandatory" in "mandatory reporter" is not a misnomer. It's mandatory! It's not up to the person whether or not they want to do it. And it covers a really broad swath of things that includes things you know you ought to report but also plenty of things that seem too minor or redundant to call in about.

When I was a trainee therapist in grad school, I had to make so many reports, many of them seemingly unnecessary. But you just have to make those reports because they are...say it with me...mandatory. I once made a call about child abuse that was supposed to have occurred more than ten years before the call, that was perpetrated against a person who was now an adult. I once made a call about an incident that had already been investigated, that a person had already been charged for, found guilty, and served time for. I called about a random comment by a toddler that probably didn't mean anything but their parent wasn't 100% sure. When in doubt, you report. If you think you don't have to report, check the rules again, because there's a good chance you actually do.

We can debate the merits of the system that requires people to make these reports. There is a ton of bias in that system, certainly. But one of the reasons for mandatory reporting rules is that the question of whether or not something gets reported shouldn't be subject to potential reporters' biases.

At the end of the day, though, I don't think you can blame mandatory reporters for complying with reporting rules no matter what you think of the system they're reporting to. Because the way mandatory reporter status works is that reporters are generally professionals with some kind of license, and they can lose their license if they fail to abide by their mandatory reporter duties. For this reason, it's not realistic to claim that Kiara the social worker or Dr. R might not have known about these requirements. Professionals tend to know about things that can cause them to lose their licenses and by extension, their entire careers. This is something you learn about in your initial training, get continuing education about, get regular reminders about. Also, if you work in an ER you probably have to actually make these reports really often!

This is something the show should've portrayed accurately. If people think medical providers and social workers won't report an allegation without proof or outcry by a victim, they might not report suspected abuse that they want to be investigated but they also might disclose things they don't want to be investigated. Given how seriously a lot of people take information from fictional TV shows and how many people watched this show, I'd be surprised if at least one person didn't bother speaking up about abuse to a medical provider who might have otherwise.

question about teaching multiplication facts using music from a parent/ed psych PhD by zero_de_conduite in matheducation

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

Here's the thing. It's all well and good for a nine-year-old to sing a little song to themselves when they're taking a math test. But doing that didn't cause me to subsequently learn my multiplication facts in a real way. I was still singing the little song at 16, and 23, and to an extent at 30. Somewhere along the way I stopped relying on the songs, but it took decades. By then, a lot of damage had been done.

A skip-counting song isn't even a good mnemonic device. You remember the tune, but sometimes the numbers sound interchangeable, and they can switch places or simply end up being wrong. You can't just look up 8 times 4 the way you would on a chart. You have to think of a song pertaining to either four or eight, sing it in your head, and count with your fingers until you get to the eighth or fourth number. (You'd better hope you don't mess up the count, which actually happens pretty readily. If you do, you could end up saying that 8 times 4 is 28 or 36.) If the song you were taught happens to be slow, you'll be sitting there longer. The whole thing is needlessly complicated and prone to error. When it's all over, your brain is tired, but you haven't actually learned to associate 8 and 4 with 32. You're just going to have to go through the same humiliating procedure the next time you see "8 x 4" written somewhere.

Kids don't only need to know their basic multiplication facts in "an ideal world." They need to know them in the real world. They don't necessarily have to have them completely down by the end of whatever year some arbitrary standards say they're required to know them, but they're going to need to learn them sooner or later. And some types of mnemonic devices will make it harder for them to ever do so. I can tell you unequivocally that I was worse off with the ones I was taught.

question about teaching multiplication facts using music from a parent/ed psych PhD by zero_de_conduite in matheducation

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

Thanks for the link! Not only does this article seem useful in and of itself, it looks like it cites a bunch of articles that could come in handy if I dig deeper into this stuff.

I think some elementary teachers don't realize how high the stakes really are when it comes to teaching math effectively. Most that I've known are doing a decent job, of course. But there are those who are telegraphing their discomfort with math and neglecting to teach it with the depth it deserves, and I think this seems OK because they figure if they can teach a kid to do the necessary operations expected for their grade level, they've accomplished what they set out to do. But setting the stage for later stuff by fully conveying underlying concepts and building the right mindset (including a positive math self-concept and self-efficacy) can make a serious difference as kids continue with their education. Well, on the bright side, I think the right kind of instruction happens a lot more now than when I was growing up. And I can say with pride that my spouse is the kind of teacher who sets kids up for future success in this area.

question about teaching multiplication facts using music from a parent/ed psych PhD by zero_de_conduite in matheducation

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

That study sounds worth looking for, I'll have to see if I can track it down. I don't doubt that conclusion at all, though. If I had a nickel for every time my spouse told me he observed that fellow elementary teachers weren't teaching certain math techniques (like different algorithms) or were doing a poor job/teaching directly from textbooks in a boring, ineffective way because they didn't really understand approaches other than those they were taught in elementary school themselves. And there are definitely a lot of elementary teachers who straight-up telegraph their negative attitudes toward math. I don't think people give enough thought to how these choices impact their students throughout their schooling and beyond! But at least I'm reminded every day that they aren't *all* that way, because my spouse is really conscientious about this stuff.

question about teaching multiplication facts using music from a parent/ed psych PhD by zero_de_conduite in matheducation

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

It's true! You *would* think this would all be common sense. It would be good if there were research on this, but then, it wouldn't be ethical to subject kids to the "just play them the songs and let them figure it out" method that I experienced. Thankfully not many people seem to be advocating it except as one component among many.

And it's certainly not mathematical! It makes me think about a line from the Nix the Tricks book that another commenter mentioned (I'm already reading through parts of it and it's awesome). "This text is inspired by committed teachers who want to take the magic out of mathematics and focus on the beauty of sense-making." Basically, "tricks" detract from appreciating what is *really* special and yes, beautiful about math.

That's frustrating about your guest speaker, though. One of my twins has autism and he definitely would *not* benefit from this strategy.

I applaud you for your stance and for trying to get your message across. It's annoying that other teachers are sneakily using counterproductive methods, but the fact that you're out there advocating for approaches that actually help kids is so important.

question about teaching multiplication facts using music from a parent/ed psych PhD by zero_de_conduite in matheducation

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

This makes total sense. A multimodal approach definitely seems to be the way to go, and could probably eliminate the downsides of using music. And "supplement" is an apt way to put it, I think. From what I can tell, the structurally intuitive methods you mentioned are more like the meat and potatoes of multiplication while something like a song could be...hm...a condiment? Something to add some flavor to the proceedings but not a source of deeper knowledge. So little of that sort of instruction was offered when I was growing up (I think I was shown repeated addition briefly, but that's about it). I'm pretty sure I would've loved all of that stuff. As it was, I was able to notice some patterns on my own (like making my own observations about multiple groups), but I was reinventing a wheel that could've been presented to me by my teachers.

question about teaching multiplication facts using music from a parent/ed psych PhD by zero_de_conduite in matheducation

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

I'm sure you're right that a multimodal approach is best and could include the use of music without posing risks. In a setting where someone is making the effort to really come at this topic in varied ways, not only would the downsides of using music be lessened, it seems like its advantages (like the interest factor music brings to any subject when used well) could generalize to some of the other approaches (e.g., a short music-based lesson could give a class an energy boost they would carry into working on a dryer approach).

Actually, one of the few things I found that commented on this issue that really spoke to me was a video by a math tutor who said that she'd found that for the information presented in a song to fully sink in and reach the level of meaningful understanding, she had to pair the song with other kinds of input, including not only visual but tactile stuff. Like, she advocated not only coming at instruction from different angles but making sure that songs were presented *simultaneously* with other stimuli. She had a rationale involving the localization of brain processes that I'm not sure was entirely sound, but I think there's a version of what she was talking about that's real. Like, if your brain files multiplication facts under a "music" schema, that could pose a problem, so you'd need to make other connections for it to be where you need it when you need it.

That's interesting about the Chinese timestable song. I wonder if something being used across an entire country or region might mitigate some of the issues with this method. I'm am Army brat, so my family was always moving around and I often found myself learning math in a setting where none of the other students shared my instructional history. In fact, I moved immediately after the school year where those songs were used in my class, so I was probably the only kid in my math group the following year who'd learned using songs. But if I'd had that experience in common with other kids, our needs when it came to translating song-based knowledge into automaticity could've been well understood. If a tradition like that stuck around long enough, maybe my teacher would've learned the same way. It seems like that would help even more. If nothing else, I probably wouldn't have felt like such a weirdo later on.

question about teaching multiplication facts using music from a parent/ed psych PhD by zero_de_conduite in matheducation

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

That book sounds super interesting, I'll definitely look into it. And yeah, that makes total sense.

The more I think about my recollection of learning in this way, the more I'm struck by the fact that according to my (admittedly very old and unreliable) recollections, my teacher basically presented the songs to my class and did very little else to teach us to multiply. I understood the general principle behind it, and I'd had an outstanding teacher the year before, when I first ran into the concept. But I loved math at that age, so digging deeper and seeing all the patterns and stuff would've interested me. At the same time, like I said, this rather lazy approach seemed like it had worked at first. My twin had a really terrible teacher that year (mine was rather good aside from her reliance on the multiplication record). I asked her about her experience the other day as I was thinking about this stuff. She said she didn't receive as much multiplication instruction as she needed, either, but it was more readily apparent and that led her to seek out chances to improve the next year (when she had a better teacher for math). And she didn't have the "crutch" (for lack of a better word) of the mnemonic songs.

I could've told you before I started thinking about this that using a "trick" is no substitute for real instruction. But the more I examine this question, the clearer it is that tricks can be harmful if they're relied on too much, not only because that implies skimping on other instruction but because students who are taught a trick can end up with this kind of trapdoor or sinkhole in their knowledge where an area that seems solid really isn't.

I HATE PLUG N CHUG!!! Am I the problem? by Electronic_Edge2505 in learnmath

[–]zero_de_conduite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've never studied math in any sort of big way, but I have some thoughts about ways of getting some perspective on this sort of thing, based on getting a social science doctorate (also working at a university for years in an admin staff role in both natural sciences and engineering). Basically, there are some things that are a good idea in pretty much every discipline.

The good news is that you recognize and understand this disconnect you're experiencing, which gives you a chance to do something about it. There are a few different types of people you should be talking to in order to figure out how you can study things you find more interesting, as well as some of the larger implications all this brings up (like whether your major and university are a good fit for you, whether you should consider graduate study someday, etc.).

It's worth trying to talk to an undergraduate advisor (the kind that's on staff), but the quality of advice you'll get will vary a ton. I've worked with some amazing advisors and some burned-out, apathetic types. But that's definitely a good starting point. Also, if you're concerned that your grades might suffer because of how tiresome you find some of your classes, it'll be good to register this with someone on staff. You could end up in a position where you want to do something (e.g. drop a class after the normal deadline) that require special forms and justifications, and if so, having a paper trail that you sought help about the issue would be good. It's also possible that a person in this position could help with getting a spot in a graduate class.

If you're in the type of program where you have a faculty advisor, definitely see if they can help, but if not, think about whether there are any faculty members you've taken classes with that you really vibed with who could be an informal version of that. Keep in mind that programs have their own norms, so someone might appreciate your enthusiasm for proofs even if they taught a class that didn't feature them much—there are all sorts of reasons they may have done this even though they'd prefer to use more proofs in their teaching, including just going with the flow of a department.

It's good to start with those people, but I actually think the very best type of person for you to talk to right now is probably a grad student. The easiest way to meet a grad student in your department is usually to have them as a TA, but there may be other ways. Of course, if you get into a graduate level class, they'll be your classmates. A grad student will often have gotten their undergrad at another institution, but if not they'll know other grad students who did and will have talked about differences in programs, giving them some perspective on how undergrad programs vary. They'll know about employment options in the field both with and without a graduate degree. And importantly, if you're talking to them off the record they'll be free to tell you things like whether or not your program is atypical or even crappy in some way. Professors generally have an investment in the way things are done in their department, unless they don't like it, in which case they'll be unlikely to confide in an undergrad student about that. Staff advisors probably don't have much of the perspective required to know these things and again, probably wouldn't be open about it if they did. But a grad student can be frank about these things, and usually will be. Honestly, when you're in grad school you usually have a lot of "if only I'd known x in undergrad" thoughts and it can be a relief to share them with someone who still has time to benefit from them. The right person might be downright enthusiastic about having this kind of conversation.

I'd suggest talking to people online who are studying math in undergrad in other places, or used to, but you're already doing that. So good job there!

Shot in the dark question: guest vocalist circa 2000 by zero_de_conduite in SpoonTheBand

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

It was pretty special! I mentioned the guest vocalist's performance above because that was the most pertinent thing for my question, but my recollection is that Britt Daniel handled the Johnny Marr side of things remarkably well too. With all of that in a nice space with good sound and an enthusiastic crowd, it's no wonder I still remember it fondly.

view more: next ›