Yes, processed meat alternatives tend to be significantly higher protein per unit mass than beans. But other metrics like protein per calorie can be useful.
56 karma · joined January 16, 2023
British, run by some fantastic people from the University of Cambridge. Arguably there is no institution with a better reputation in this domain. I did some front end and back end work for them over a decade ago and there's definitely some good mathematics in there. Their mission is to enrich mathematical learning for all levels, but there's plenty of content designed for gifted teens.
I suggest looking outside the US for a curriculum. The nation that came up with the terms "precalculus" and "prealgebra" surely has a pessimistic view on the value of elementary mathematics. The ideas do not exist only to prop up calculus and algebra!
And while we're at it, mandate that nutrition facts have to be printed for a standardized "amount". I hate comparing the label of one food that has 7g of protein per 123g serving and another that has 9g protein per 144g serving.
Also, you may find that PhD salaries are MUCH lower than 1/3 of an experienced developer salary. If you do the standard thing of 20h per week GTA/GRA work and the rest (nominally 20h but likely 40h) independent study, you might get $25k per year plus meagre health benefits. If you're financially independent this is manageable, but relative to developer salary it's poverty in high COL areas of the USA (which is where the good universities are).
I'm so glad the founding fathers protected my right to bankrupt myself at the hands of an incredibly profitable healthcare industry. Stupid Euros don't know what they're missing.
It's comparatively hard to cheat significantly in a pen-on-paper exam in a classroom proctored by vigilant humans. It's much easier to cheat on other forms of assessment. But exams are rather unpopular, not necessarily entirely for bad reasons. They don't really test what we care about in an ideal way, and exam-specific technique is too important. Also, students are _terrible_ at exams.
In my class I'm faced with two choices: make the grade highly contingent on exam success, deal with awful grades, angry students, and a department that wants my teaching to be modernized; or make the grade about homeworks, quizzes and project work that 10% of students cheat on _blatantly_ and an unknown percentage that I figure is 20-50% "cheat" in some way that significantly damages their learning because they lean so hard on Google, ChatGPT, Chegg, smart friends, ...
The vicious cycle is that more professors are moving away from exams so students aren't getting any practice at exams and hence flunk them ever harder. Anybody who still has an exam component is under significant pressure to reduce it, increasing the cheating-vulnerable surface area and hence the competitive advantage of cheating. Of course cheating increases! And as cheating increases, actual learning decreases, thus increasing the pressure on proffessors to avoid assessment that actually tests their students understand, because then there are unacceptable failure rates. The fact of the matter is that I simply cannot afford to fail 30% of my students. The school and department won't have it.
My response to some of the AI handwringing over things like "ChatGPT gets 100% on my intro to Python course" is to say that your stupid python course isn't testing understanding it's testing trivial syntax. But of course it's not testing understanding, doing so is weeded out by the pressure to avoid failing entire cohorts of incredibly weak students.
Obligatory Quanta link: https://www.quantamagazine.org/finally-a-fast-algorithm-for-...