Listened to a podcast yesterday where the lesson was don't procrastinate except when it helps you because someone else implements the solution for you. Same vibes.
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
553 points (98.3% liked)
Greentext
5928 readers
1317 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Statistically an outlier like that shouldn't count.
Yep. Should have used q2/median
Kinda the opposite, but I took a physics exam once where everyone else did so badly that when the professor curved the exam grades mine went up to 114%. Still not quite sure how I managed that.
Your prof curved to the third quartile. Interesting.
I once faced the anger of my entire class because my Inability to pay attention to lessons meant i was the only one that knew how to brute force reverse engineer formulas using the fancy calculator and oblivious to the fact the teacher had forgotten to teach that specific material.
My Imposter syndrome peaked when we got the test and teacher pointed at me directly as proof we had covered the material.
I never really understand what the point of grading on an average is. An individual's ability isn't measured against everyone else's ability is measured against the test. So then to take that and change the grade to something else based on what is essentially arbitrary doesn't seem to have any point except to make it look like more people passed than didn't.
A class of 200 students performing much worse than the last class is very unlikely. 200 Students is enough to make even small differences statistically significant.
A single test being much harder than the last test is much more likely, since it isn't an averahe of 200, it's a single datapoint.
That's why if this semester's class performed much worse than last semester's, you can assume it's because of the test, not the students.
I guess this makes sense in a university context and with aggregated data.
As an example of how you do not want to do grading based on an average, I once had a high school professor rescale my 85%-ish percent on a test to 65%-ish, because most people did well in that test so the professor decided he had made the test too easy and scaled grades down.
That was only one of the reasons I hated that guy’s guts.
Or when there are 1000 students over multiple classes getting 5 different versions of the test (to make looking over someone's shoulder more difficult.)
If one of those has a significantly lower average it's more likely it just had a few badly worded questions than that those 200 randomly picked students are all bad at the given subject.
It wasn't a regular thing in my class; the professor just realized he had screwed up and made the exam way too difficult. I agree that doing it for every exam is a bad idea.
Were you in Hogwarts?
Got 4% on my first (and only) calc midterm. I statistically should have gotten a better grade by randomly picking multiple choice questions and leaving everything else blank... Sadly it didn't provide anything to the rest of my class and I had actually studied for it.
Your calc exam was multiple choice?
Well not the whole thing. Maybe a third of the questions or something like that.
They say leave the rest blank, so there was some multiple choice questions, which is fairly normal. Well, at least I think it is, all the maths tests ive done have had at least a few multiple choice qs (UK)
For anyone who wants to repeat OP's experience:
Also I once scored a 3 out of 200 on a final exam and failed the fuck out of a class.
I will never understand churros. Chocolate or cream stuffed churros? Sure, that's a mini hot ice cream pocket. But churros by themselves? Maybe the first 20 seconds after they're cooked they taste alright, but anything after is like eating granulated sugar on styrofoam
Well, to be fair, OP did smoke weed and ate churros, so that might have influenced how OP could eat so many churros.
You've hit the nail on the head.
There's precisely a 3 minute window of time, between the churro being the temperature of the sun and it being unpleasantly cold, where they're good.
Also it must always be served with the chocolate sauce, even in the window they're a bit lacking without
I just feel like anything that needs granulated sugar (not even powdered sugar, how lazy is that!) added to its surface probably doesn't taste that good in of itself.
Prime example are jam donuts. If the dough is good and the jam inside is good, then it's a good donut. If you have to sprinkle literal sugar on it's skin, then you can bet your ass that the dough is bland and they skimmed on the jam
Maybe the first 20 seconds after they’re cooked
Yup.
Mean vs median.
Math prof ought to know better than to include outliers.
Maths prof, not statistics prof.
True self-sacrifice.