they want to make the internet like tv. with channels and paying to get to specific websites and things. net neutrality = not doing that

This impacts every internet user. Please signal boost the hell out of this and sign the petition if you are American

I do not reblog things like this very often, but this affects me both personally and my business as a freelance artist.

In the economy here; cash is already strapped as it is. You bet your ass companies would suck the ever living life out of misc. art sites.

I don’t want it to ever come down to me choosing between groceries or purchasing a new tier package via comcast to be able to access tumblr or DeviantArt (let alone not guaranteeing I’ll even be seen by my customer base since they may not want to pay out their asses either). It doesn’t seem important to most, but I do 90% of my business online entirely.

Please sign up, fight for this and share it with your followers/friends/family and urge them to give them hell as well.

Not writing related, but this is incredibly important. While we pay for service via ISPs, the internet has been a relatively free space where everyone, no matter their income level, is able to connect, access a wealth of information, and express themselves. The Internet has become a major part of our culture as human beings and the notion that ISPs might be able to limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more is utterly sickening. A lot of us are cash strapped as is, and I’d rather not be limited even more by someone else’s greed. Net Neutrality is essential and I hope you guys will understand why it needs to remain.

-Morgan

P.S. Signal boost this if you’re able.

“ limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more”

limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more

limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more

limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more

limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more

this is fucked up. this fucked me up. the teachers fucked up by not showing us this fuck up. fuck.

dear god

i’m 28 and never knew this

WITCHCRAFT

WHOA WHOA WHOA I KNOW WHY THIS WORKS.

Though, I can’t tell if there are any appropriate models for triple digit and onwards. This rule definitely works with numbers with single to double digits. Triple onwards is probably doable, but not impossible. It’s a very clever method.

Essentially, it works the exact same method that the drop-down method does, only much more intuitively. In the drop down method, for two digit numbers, there will always be two digits that are relatively unaffected by the rest of the equation: the last numbers and the first numbers. For instance, in 12 x 12, 10*10=100, and 2*2=4. Only the remaining bits remain. Therefore, the 1 and 4 remain very unaffected by whatever remains in the equation. It’s much like the chinese method of disassembling numbers (I forgot the formal name; it’s an Number Theory thing).

Applying it to this is very simple: if you’re just counting the affected powers, this stick method works very well. Even more ingeniously, it will probably work well with triple digits onwards because of the 1, 11, 121, 1331 law. However, as far as double digits goes, this is a highly intuitive and visual model for quick and grid-point based matematics.

Essentially this is all binomial theory.

If you want to use a model with n - many digits it’s as simple as splitting each of the numbers up into a group with m and n-m. For example, 264×845 could be thought up as (200+64)×(800+45). In this case n is 3 and m is 1. (The zeroes are placeholders to denote it’s in the hundreds place)

The process of solving would be the same as the one in the gif. Just you know, a lot more tedious because there would be a lot more nodes to count. Then obviously add the numbers that carry over to the next place up.

As for the last thing about the 1, 11, 121, 1331 rule, that more has to apply with how many numbers are being multiplied together. Let’s say that you had 21×42×96. For this to work instead of drawing lines that would make sort of a square, this would make sort of a cube (don’t get me started on how you would draw out multiplying 4 numbers). The numbers opposite corners of the cube would represent the ones and thousands place. 3 of the corners would go to the hundreds place and the last 3 would go to the tens place. Which ones which I’m not entirely sure.

Since multiplication of integers is associative, you can take two of the numbers and do this diamond trick on them. Take the new resulting number and do it again with the remaining number. So instead of one cube you make 2 squares. Again, doable with n many numbers multiplying. (Yeah, set theory!)