You must log in or # to comment.
FWIW I heard the show was extremely bad, and I had to see for myself.
It is very, very bad.
The second season’s arc is about uncovering what SCOOBY was within the show, and there were lots of goofy references to how silly the old cartoons were, and how silly cartoons are in general
i enjoyed the Velma tv show immensely
That is legitimately the first time I’ve heard someone say something nice about the show.
it was designed as ragebait. but it failed even at that.
FWIW I heard the show was extremely bad, and I had to see for myself.
It was okay, better than the shitty Netflix adult animations. The worst part of it was the Velma character, if they got rid of or changed her it would be better.
Don’t you be talking smack on my beloved haunted hotel
Talking about the bad ones Big Mouth, The Prince, Paradise PD, etc.
Fair
they got rid of scooby doo
A negative boy was unsure about a radical party.
The boy was a square, so he missed out on four awesome chicks.
And the whole thing was over by 2am…
This is beautiful, as a mathematics major it brought me to tears. I’ll be reading this at my wedding
I was just taught it to “pop goes the weasel”.
Thanks
Now we just need this in song form which is how I was taught lol
Coming from someone that memorized it in high school and hasn’t used it since, I am enraged.
It’s a formula very useful for a tone of engineering fields, electronic, mechanics, automatic control and probably a bunch more. I used it a tone in my early carrier, including the imaginary flavor.
When I started Chem engineering in college, it blew me away that like 80% of lab math and analisis was just using the linear equation everyone bitched and moaned about how useless it was in high-school.
The fucking what flavor.
Tonne not tone < tonne is the measurement/a lot, whilst tone is sound
Flavour not flavor, you don’t want people thinking you’re a gross American.
I’m terrible at making math jokes, but I don’t have any proofs.
Same here, but I’ll suck it up and make one if I halve two.
When stupid people try to make a show about smart people.
Such an strange error. I’m not saying it’s AI but here’s my prompt:
Generate a picture of someone thinking and, to symbolize their thought process, show math symbols and equations around their head, these symbols have to include the quadratic formula
Here’s the pic:
I suspect it’s an OCR error.
I’m guessing a typesetter was too lazy to add another textbox and although they knew how to type “√”, didn’t realize “²” is in Unicode too. They added a horizontal line as separate graphics to extend the square root symbol but only realized too late the whole thing is in a fraction: maybe someone reminded them and they misinterpreted the advice, or just decided not to split the text box to put the nominator higher.
Can you even do that “proper” square root with unicode? Or is it always just that single character?
Unicode isn’t meant to replace all typesetting like LaTeX. For example, I can’t make proper horizontal fractions (as opposed to slashed like ⅝ or ⁹⁄₁₆) that are normal in my part of the world because that would be too much scope creep. Even the TeX logo is not really doable (Markdown with ASCII: TEX, Unicode ᵀᴇˣ).
An imperfect solution is adding
̅ U+0305 COMBINING OVERLINEabove everything. For example, it does not sit at consistent height (√4̅a̅c̅) and Windows renders it incorrectly (centered to the right edge of the character, not its center).This is how I’d render the numerator using Unicode only:
𝑏² ± √4̅𝑎̅𝑐̅A correct Markdown interpreter can improve the look ogf the superscript:
𝑏2 ± √4̅𝑎̅𝑐̅So they had to use something “fancier” like TeX so they must’ve known about suoerscriots and the like
Nope, it looks like a basic vector graphics editor, think Inkscape, PowerPoint or whatever is built into their animation/effects software. They just used straight horizontal lines for the fraction and the bar of the square root.
That makes about a million times more sense
I stared at the square of the square root of the squared square root for far too long…
that I almost missed the obvious E = / * A. Where would the field of mathematics be without that good old E = / * A? :-D
Check out this bad boy.
It just gets better and better-er(-est?/-ish?)
Did they use AI to generate that?
Neural Network (bad one)
deleted by creator
My guess is they lost the typesetting in a copy/paste. If you copy superscript or the unusual +/- character into an animation tool that doesn’t have the font or doesn’t recognize the typesetting it will drop the character or convert it to the nearest ASCII. If you’ve ever copied and pasted something into an email and had the formatting mangled, that’s like what happened here.
didn’t get an animation job for the math skills
Yeah. Those guys all work on Futurama.
i enjoyed the Velma tv show immensely, its okay if you didn’t, but people got really carried away with just how much they hate
womenthe show, it’s a cartoon, enjoy it or dont, don’t act like Rome is burning before your eyesgood jokes, inclusive characters, queer people that don’t die in the first episode, fun subversion of expectations, meta humour about tropes, a fun mystery, cancelled too soon, but there’s still 30something episodes
it made me reasses how I felt about Mindy Kaling’s work as a whole, turns out I had been caught up in the misogynistic whirlwind in the past, I’ve really enjoyed her older stuff upon revisiting it since seeing Velma
You gotta be trolling, right? I guarantee you “women” aren’t the reason people disliked Velma. The Golden Girls ran for 7 seasons from 1985 to 1992, I personally really liked watching the reruns even in a seemingly random order.
The reason Velma upsets people because the entire show is meant to upset those people. It’s not a real show. It’s a shitpost that targets racial and sexual majority groups. I’m sure they could have made a show if they wanted to and instead they made a shitpost. It’s got the same appeal to the people who like it as white hoods have to the clan.
I was a stupid ass teenager when it came out and people online convinced me it was the worst shit to ever grace any screen ever. Maybe I missed out.
I really enjoyed Velma. I didn’t really care, but wanted to show it to my terminally offline wife to see her honest reaction and she loved it from the first scene and we continued watching it.
… Why not just copy the meme they’re referencing? It’s like they’re intentionally trying to screw this up.
I feel for Velma. I am so bad at math that sometimes I go into a corner by myself so I can hide what I’m working on from my coworkers while I scribble down very complex maladaptive strategies I’ve learned to solve simple calculations.
I have textbook dyscalculia. I am a geospatial wizard, but I cannot remember my pin or calculate a tip.
I was making grits the other day. The can had instructions for 1 serving, and 4 servings. I didn’t want 1 or 4, I wanted 2. So, I wrote a quick interpolation program on my Casio. Once I ran it, I realized 2 is just double of 1.
I feel like a number of the concepts in this infographic are loosely (if at all) defined. As in - they don’t represent established concepts in education and they could have been made by a single party talking out their ass. Or maybe I just have dyscalculia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia
https://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/dyscalculia
I had to have a lot of maths tutors to get by.
I don’t mean to discredit Dyscalculia as a thing. As a matter of fact, I transposed a bunch of numbers that I shouldn’t have in high school math in spite of sound logic for how I went about the questions. I just have issue with the rest of the infographic being things you can identify with without them having a foundation in science. It tastes a little horoscopey.
Haha, no worries! It is hard to find a good one. X)
why is she even thinking about this?
She’s in high school in the show.
never had that kinda math at my high school
In year 2 of secondary we did it.
obviously not american public high school
Wrong formula aside, what is the meaning of dividing an entire equation? (x = b) / a
quotient equivalence under an equivalence relation “a” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotient_type
Okay, but even if we assumed (x=b) to be a very small equivalence relation, it should appear in the denominator position to form an equivalence quotient.
Oh yeah was a bit sleepy and thought you could just put arbitrary expressions in the numerator instead of just the type.
But consider this: heterogeneous propositional equality type of types x and b under equivalence relation a, which is bound somewhere else in the aether that we can’t see in the screenshot
Constructors of this equality type? No fucking clue but I’m sure there exist some to make the need for an equivalence relation make sense
You’re probably on the right track. Every hunk of symbols is probably a valid type expression in some system. Including a square root type.
The new Velma show gave birth to THE best fanmade animation about Scooby Doo https://youtu.be/inJUFqeJehE
So while I didn’t enjoy the show, I’m grateful for it
