Cafe Du Monde Coffee and Chickory

To drink coffee is divine. 

A little bit of NOLA in NYC.

Location:Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York

Owl of Minerva

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Battery Park, New York, New York

Flipping the Script: Simplifying Subtraction with Addition

98 + x = 100 is a better way to understand what 100 - 98 is!

Do you remember being a child and struggling to understand subtraction? Some people find it more challenging to grasp than its counterpart, addition. But what if we flipped the equation? Today, we're going to look at a fresh approach to the classic subtraction problem, using an equation like '100 - 98', to illuminate this concept.

Let's consider the equation '100 - 98'. Many people might fumble around with this, especially when first learning about subtraction. But what if we reframe this problem?

100 - 98      BUT     INSTEAD    98 + x = 100

The transformed equation, '98 + x = 100', is the same problem presented differently. It's easier to comprehend, especially for beginners, because it's now in the form of an addition equation. You can see that you just need to add something to 98 to reach 100.

So what's the value of 'x'? Just look at the numbers: to get from 98 to 100, you need to add 2. That's it! 'x' equals 2. Therefore, '100 - 98' also equals 2.

Flipping the equation helps simplify the problem by making it more intuitive. The cognitive leap from adding to subtracting is not as challenging, making this a useful strategy, especially for those in the early stages of learning math.

With this innovative approach to subtraction, math problems can become less intimidating, paving the way for a more profound understanding of mathematical principles.

By embracing these alternative strategies, we open new paths to mathematical mastery, demonstrating that sometimes, flipping the equation is all it takes! So, give yourself a high-five — with the flipped equation '100 - 98' = '98 + x = 100'.

PDF Copy for Printing

Comic Book Shop in Manhattan: Forbidden Planet

Forbidden Planet is a cool shop to browse and window shop. You never know when you'll come across a cool Star Wars action figure or colorful graphic novel. FYI: Management holds your backpack while you browse. Check out the Strand next door. 
Where: on Broadway near Union Square 14th Street (Subway lines: 4, 5, 6, N, Q, R).

PDF Copy for Printing

What does Nietzsche Mean by God is Dead (and why German Romanticism is not Cool, Dude)

Kid: Dude, Nietzsche is cool.

Nietzsche: No, I'm not.

Kid: Dude, that's not cool.

Nietzsche: Hey, kid, watch out what you say about my will-to-power.

Kid: Uhhhh. OK.

Nietzsche: Damn kids.

    That's how the conversation would go. Is Nietzsche cool? Well, if you call a highly sophisticated philologist with a penchant for Ancient Greek Philosophy cool, then I guess Nietzsche is cool.

Is Nietzsche Misunderstood?

Nietzsche is highly misunderstood. I read Nietzsche's The Gay Science (no, not that "gay," but gay in the old-fashioned way meaning "happy") for the first time in a philosophy seminar back in my college days. We read the Walter Kaufmann translation (the one I still refer to). I remember at the start of the seminar one guy who was especially excited to be reading Nietzsche as if he were to embark upon an expedition in cow tipping while on acid. "Dude, Nietzsche is all about 'God is Dead.' I totally dig that, man." The guy wanted us all to know he was a nihilist: he cut his forearms for show and he wore stark black; which was OK with me, considering black was a decent choice of color to absorb heat in the Winter.

    The professor, who was a very quiet man, a little intimidating, and spoke in a low, almost condescending tone interrupted the guy. "Don't think you understand Nietzsche without reading him. Reading Nietzsche is not cool."

Nietzsche and Teen Angst

Dwayne (Paul Dano) reads Thus Spoke Zarathustra

    The professor did not like associating Nietzsche with teen angst, or smoking a doobie and talking about how much life sucks. Like in the quirky indie comedy, Little Miss Sunshine. Sporting a tee-shirt that says, "Jesus Was Wrong," a teenage boy takes a vow of silence as a tribute to his favorite philosopher, Mr. Nietzsche. Personally, if a disaffected adolescent is going to pout and rebel, he should read Schopenhauer before he reads Nietzsche. Just saying. Nietzsche is rosy in comparison...

The Madman

   It is true that Nietzsche mentions "God is dead" bit in the Gay Science. The book is written as a series of witty, short anecdotal chapters, with an appendix of verse at the end. "The God is dead" piece is paragraph 125, "The Mad Man." The story is simple. A man races through the streets of a city in broad daylight carrying a torch, proclaiming "I seek God! I seek God!" The atheists - "the many who do not believe in God" - stand around and laugh at the madman. "Is he lost?" they ask. The madman gets right up in the faces of the atheists and asks them, "Whither is god?" The atheist continues to laugh but the madman continues, "piercing them "with his glances." The madman makes a claim that the reason God is dead is that we've killed him. "I shall tell you. We have killed him--you and I. All of us are his murderers." The madman goes on for a few paragraphs about how we killed God. 

Photo of the Day: Annual Bus Festival and Street Fair

No one:

Me: "Would you like mustard on that bratwurst?"

Published by Stones of Erasmus © 2010-2021

Never Let Me Go

I was incredibly curious to see the adaptation of Ishiguro's exquisitely crafted novel Never Let Me Go ever since I had learned of Matthew Romanek's project.

fusedfilms

I must admit I am a huge fan of the novel and I agree with Time Magazine's claim that it is one of the best novels ever written. So, suffice it to say, I was afraid the film might ruin the book. The same ole book-into-movie fear everyone who is devoted to the source material fears. Don't destroy the book's integrity is the argument that runs through most fears that a film will discredit the book. I had heard that Ishiguro had pretty much handpicked the people who would produce the movie and said publicly he was pleased. Watching the trailer did not help convince me, however. The trailer depicts lots of tears, sentimental scores, and one of the main characters having a hissy-fit on a darkened street which made me suspect that Romanek's version would end up spoiling Ishiguro's understated masterpiece.

If you know nothing of the story's premise, I'm saying nothing to spoil the film by saying it is about a possible dystopic future where humans have discovered the ability to clone a subset of humans, which
they raise in schools across the country, educate them about the proper use of their bodies and health, but eventually use them to harvest their vital organs to defer the life spans of other, "real" humans. Death and disease are gone. At the expense of other "lives."

The premise is fodder for dozens of similar clone sci-fi films, but Ishiguro's novel brought to the table the basic question of what it means to be human and what it means when we consider a particular subset of human, un-human.