Adarq.org

Quick college and HS stuff.

My CJ professor for one of my classes was the captain of the PD in that city and he just talked about old stories of him when he used to patrol the streets.  We had 2 tests and he gave us the answers the day before, had us write them down and just copy it over to the test.

As far as HS, I graduated in the top 20 of my class and I was more focused on getting my NO Xplode mixed, programming my workout for the day and going to the library to check out new WSBB, EliteFTS and T-nation articles.

well, when it's all said and done.. gettin jakt > getin edukated.

;f

Adarq, have you still been playing tennis? Idt I've seen it in your posts or i just missed it lately.

nah.. i got tennis elbow from overdoing tennis, so i stopped for a while, but i kept doing calisthenics.. and now i still have tennis elbow. So i'm not doing anything until it goes away. ;/

i went to one of the best school districts in the country (98th percentile, at least by this ranking: https://k12.niche.com/rankings/public-school-districts/best-overall/methodology/).

daym nice.

took algebra in 7th grade, geometry in 8th, algebra ii in 9th, pre-calc in 10th, AP calc in 11th, and then no math at all senior year (AP physics instead). that was unusual, though, i think i was two grade levels ahead. didn't always get great grades. i think i got crammed into accelerated math because i was so good at reading and writing from an early age.

then the only math class i took in college was stats and i failed it because i took it pass/fail and was an arrogant shit and never went to class or did any of the work.

only class I ever dropped was calc 1. That was when I first realized I would actually have to study hard to pass a class.. hehe! then went on to pass all of the calcs.

pc

What you're describing sounds somewhat similar to what's happening here, too. We didn't even had a teacher of computer science in high school - nobody would come to teach at the school for a salary of 200$ per month in this domain.

Plus, I absolutely hated programming with all my heart, all my life. Started badly, was "teached" poorly, and I have always thought to myself "these programmers brag about how smart they are. If they're so smart, how come they need 1000 lines of code to calculate two numbers??? Why does it have to be that complicated, with so many words written, to calculate two numbers?".

And based on that, I absolutely hated programming. This continued in college too - I would not go to the classes and play ball instead. And we did Java and PHP in college, I barely attended the classes and was never interested in what was in them, couldn't understand a thing. It was basically the teacher writing weird stuff on the blackboard, continuously, and that was it, you go home. Nothing to understand.

Obviously it was very complicated for me back then too, as my mom and dad would break dishes and swear at each other and threaten each other and had to go in ambulances with my mom and emergency hospitals and crazy, crazy, crazy stuff, while also being in love like crazy on top of it all.

In the class, by the way, people would smoke and play poker, and throw papers at the teacher (in high school).

So... yeah... it is what it is.

There's so much to write about, lol.

ya comp sci isn't usually taught in such a fun & exciting manner.

There's so much art/beauty/science behind it, but most people teach it in a "junk style".

Here's someone I look up to alot.. Simon Peyton Jones. He's one of the creators of Haskell, which is itself the most beautiful programming language i've ever experienced. Anyway, he's helped also lead the effort to teach Computer Science as part of the normal Sciences in the UK. So now, all students will learn computer science concepts (abstract ideas, problem solving skills etc):

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia55clAtdMs" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia55clAtdMs</a>



He's a great speaker IMHO.. full of enthusiasm, passion, etc.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixmbkp0QEDM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixmbkp0QEDM</a>



I mean he even makes "Writing a Research Paper" exciting..

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3dkRsTqdDA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3dkRsTqdDA</a>



that's how I like to think about programming.. more of an Art with endless possibilities.

need more teachers like this

There's tons of resources... www.codecademy.com , https://www.hackerrank.com/domains (linked by Andrew above), and also bitspyder.org as a tracker for tutorials (tons of them) if you manage to get an invite for an account (I did so years ago).

Otherwise... google, lol

There's tons of resources... www.codecademy.com , https://www.hackerrank.com/domains (linked by Andrew above), and also bitspyder.org as a tracker for tutorials (tons of them) if you manage to get an invite for an account (I did so years ago).

Otherwise... google, lol

Alright, thanks, I just didn't want to end up on some watchlist by searching for the wrong thing haha

I have a challenge (probably impossible) for Adarqui (I would also like vag to chime in or anybody else for that matter):

Here's the deal: Someone at work asked me if something is mathematically possible:

One company records its invoices totals with numbers with 4 decimals.

Say you buy 3 items that each costs 1.0250 $. The total would be 3.0750 $ (with 4 decimal numbers).
However, this company calculates the item prices with only 2 decimals.

So they would calculate 1.02+1.02+1.02 and expect to find 3.0750 at the end. Our company has two choices (according to this retarded company) - either truncate (and end up in the 1.02x3 situation) or round (and end up in the 1.03x3 situation).

Both, as you can see, are "wrong". One gives a total of 3.06 (instead of 3.0750) and the other gives a total of 3.09 (instead of 3.0750).

This, for many products, leads to a significant different between the calculation and the actual total.

I told them it's impossible mathematically, since if we "cut" the last 2 decimals we're basically giving up that information for good, and creating an approximation. And I guess that's that and end of story.

I tried coming up with something... weird... probably idiotic, although I tried it a bit and it was more precise in some situations.

Here's the algorithm that I thought about:

I basically established a "weight" for each item - say you have 10 items. 4 of them are of type "last 2 decimals under 50", 6 are "last 2 decimals over 50".

Like this:

10.1241
10.4126
10.8744
10.5616

Again, the last 4 decimals all "under 50".

Then the other 6 (chose 6 randomly) would be this:

10.5589
10.2377
10.3497
10.1166
10.4351
10.7888

Then I calculated the sum in 4 decimals (the total, that they want in 4 decimals).

SUM4 = 104.4595

Now the sum if we're to truncate the last two decimals

SUMTRUNC = 104.40

Now the sum if we're to round the last two decimals (if under 50, keep the 2 decimal of the number unchanged, else increase by one):

SUMROUND = 104.46

Now I thought, what if I pretend all the last digits are UNDER 50 for one calculation, and all the last digits are over 50 for another, and then assign weights to them?

So that would be SUMWEIGHT = 104.40*0.4 (because only 4 elements actually have last 2 decimals under 50) + 104.50 * 0.6 (we're assuming that we round up all the numbers, but only 6 elements have last 2 decimals over 50) = 41.76 + 62.70 = 104.46 -> which ends up exactly as the rounded sum.

I did several calculations and it was different in different scenarios. There's also the possibility that my calculation was wrong, or that I'm doing something completely redundant or idiotic to begin with.

I mean, the more I look at it the more it seems like I'm doing a more complicated rounding, basically (which is probably exactly what I'm doing) - do you have any other ideas or this is simply an impossible task?

Quote from: Eric on April 06, 2016, 06:30:18 pm

Sorry to hijack your shizz and yeah Jacked n Tan and girls having big nice butts on instagram > edumakation these days.  If some noob was interested in learning more about this computer stuff, where would the best place to start?

no problem at all (regarding the hijack).

what do you think you might be interested in? just picking up some programming to see how you like it?

First you want to find some introductory classes using very simple (yet powerful) languages like Python:
1) http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-189-a-gentle-introduction-to-programming-using-python-january-iap-2011/
2) http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-00sc-introduction-to-computer-science-and-programming-spring-2011/

1 is a very basic intro. 2 is a heavier intro, specific to computer science. The first step to getting into programming is simply picking a language, picking some introductory material, then going through it slowly while trying out all of the examples and attempting the exercises.

You can get started very quickly using something like:
- https://repl.it/
- https://repl.it/languages/python3

That will allow you to code via your browser.. so most of the examples you come across, you'll be able to type them in (preferred) or paste them into that repl (read-eval-print-loop, ie, a command interface) and run the program.

Lots of people never take the "first step" to get into coding.. it always seems so daunting. But the first step is to simply find some examples, type them into a file or repl (like above) and run the code. Most likely, even the most simplest examples (getting the program to print hello or ask you questions etc) is enough to trigger an addiction.

Then like raptor pointed out, there are other sites like codeacademy which have their own learning tools, and hackerrank which challenge you with puzzles. If you go through that first introductory course .. you could then join hackerrank and see if you can solve anything. They have nice progressions, you can start out at extremely basic and move on towards advanced.. but along that progression you will find yourself solving small puzzles and it could become pretty fun, especially for someone new to the game. For veteran programmers, it's usually harder to stay excited solving small puzzles because you're always working on some big projects and such.. though, some people just love puzzles.

After you've learned some of the basics of python, you can take more advanced classes, learn more advanced features of the language, play with various libraries found on github, or dabble in other languages.. All languages have very simple tutorials that allow you to get a feel for that lang.. If you find yourself enjoying program, there's no shame in just pasting (or typing, because you actually learn more that way) examples and running them.

The key to learning how to code is pretty simple; consistency. Just like athletic training, it needs a consistent effort, even if it's less than 1 hour a day.

Hope that helps for now. Let me kno if you mess around with any of this stuff!

pc mayne!

Thanks, I'll do it your way and start slow and work up from there, i need to get a brain pump as much as a body pump.

Quote from: Raptor on April 07, 2016, 02:36:42 pm

One company records its invoices totals with numbers with 4 decimals.

Say you buy 3 items that each costs 1.0250 $. The total would be 3.0750 $ (with 4 decimal numbers).
However, this company calculates the item prices with only 2 decimals.

So they would calculate 1.02+1.02+1.02 and expect to find 3.0750 at the end. Our company has two choices (according to this retarded company) - either truncate (and end up in the 1.02x3 situation) or round (and end up in the 1.03x3 situation).

Both, as you can see, are "wrong". One gives a total of 3.06 (instead of 3.0750) and the other gives a total of 3.09 (instead of 3.0750).

This, for many products, leads to a significant different between the calculation and the actual total.

pretty sure that's the plot of "office space."

Uhm... I don't watch movies. lol

No, not really. You mean, you map 1.2 to 2, 3.2 to 4 etc?

My scenario is happening in a large supermarket with the prices, which are obviously diverse.