EPTThe rest is even hazier: use major revisions when you feel it is a big change. For instance when you implement a new feature. And minor revisions for bugfixes. But it's usually completely arbitrary. You can commit to a new revision every month for instance, and release a stable version of your software with a revision increment regardless of how much actually changed. Or, like Blizzard you can use the major revision as a marketing tool, where you hype people up for big changes.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 409
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
The rest is even hazier: use major revisions when you feel it is a big change. For instance when you implement a new feature. And minor revisions for bugfixes. But it's usually completely arbitrary. You can commit to a new revision every month for instance, and release a stable version of your software with a revision increment regardless of how much actually changed. Or, like Blizzard you can use the major revision as a marketing tool, where you hype people up for big changes. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On March 12 2016 22:14 Acrofales wrote: Agree with Captain Barbosa on this one. Major versions are used for major releases. So yeah, 1.0 is when you consider the project finished enough for people to start using without them being testers. However, different companies approach this differently: Google for instance, leaves its services in beta for an eternity, even when millions of people use it and there don't seem to be any features missing, or even many bugs. The rest is even hazier: use major revisions when you feel it is a big change. For instance when you implement a new feature. And minor revisions for bugfixes. But it's usually completely arbitrary. You can commit to a new revision every month for instance, and release a stable version of your software with a revision increment regardless of how much actually changed. Or, like Blizzard you can use the major revision as a marketing tool, where you hype people up for big changes. Its more important to be consistent than to be defined--and even then its only important to be consistent if you have a different team eventually taking over the project or there are other projects that your team will be working on afterwards. The main reason is you want to be able to continue producing more products without confusing your team what stage of the product they are in. How that is presented to the consumer base is more a marketing decision than a development position. | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
1) London, around 1500 euro/month 2) Amsterdam, around 2200 euro/month 3) Uppsala, around 2600 euro/month ? | ||
|
oBlade
United States6670 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44428 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
On March 13 2016 04:32 SoSexy wrote: If you could choose your employement for the next three years, would you rather go to: 1) London, around 1500 euro/month 2) Amsterdam, around 2200 euro/month 3) Uppsala, around 2600 euro/month ? How is that a choice? Amsterdam of course. 1500 euros/month in London is maybe enough to survive on, and Uppsala is small, and has more winter than an Italian could stomach. Hell, it has more winter than I could stomach, and I'm Dutch. 2200 euros/month in Amsterdam is okay, and it's a good size, and very livable city. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10025 Posts
| ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
NOw I only have to hope to get in xd P.s Acrofales, I lived in Finland 6 months and I loved it, so I do not think the weather would be a problem ^^ | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
On March 13 2016 06:02 SoSexy wrote: Cool, thanks. I was thinking the same. NOw I only have to hope to get in xd P.s Acrofales, I lived in Finland 6 months and I loved it, so I do not think the weather would be a problem ^^ Not the weather so much as 6 months of gloom. I don't mind the weather at all. But having lived in Spain and Brazil, I'm not sure I can ever go back to live in a country where sunlight is not really a thing for 4 months/year, let alone even further north. | ||
|
Just_a_Moth
Canada1972 Posts
On March 03 2016 10:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm a high school teacher and I literally wore a three-piece suit to work yesterday. Because I can. I always figured you were a university professor. In what high school class do you get to write an essay about math? 0_o | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46669 Posts
On March 13 2016 06:24 Just_a_Moth wrote: I always figured you were a university professor. In what high school class do you get to write an essay about math? 0_o I teach both high school and college  And it's good practice for younger math students to learn how to write actual reflections/ explanations/ papers about mathematical concepts. Too frequently do we hear "We don't need to write papers because this is math class" and that tends to lead to students knowing how to regurgitate math equations and steps without being able to explain why or how they work. Being able to fluently explain reasoning is really important in mathematics, especially when students learn about proofs. For example, a few months ago we finished a unit on quadratics in one of my high school math classes, and I asked each of my students to pick any application of quadratics/ parabolas they wanted, research it, and relate it back to some of the concepts we studied (applications of the vertex, opening upwards vs downwards, axis of symmetry, y-intercept, x-intercepts, leading coefficient, etc.) I got some really great papers, and students got some great answers to the question "When am I ever going to see this stuff in real life?" | ||
|
Rizare
Canada593 Posts
On March 13 2016 09:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I teach both high school and college And it's good practice for younger math students to learn how to write actual reflections/ explanations/ papers about mathematical concepts. Too frequently do we hear "We don't need to write papers because this is math class" and that tends to lead to students knowing how to regurgitate math equations and steps without being able to explain why or how they work. Being able to fluently explain reasoning is really important in mathematics, especially when students learn about proofs. For example, a few months ago we finished a unit on quadratics in one of my high school math classes, and I asked each of my students to pick any application of quadratics/ parabolas they wanted, research it, and relate it back to some of the concepts we studied (applications of the vertex, opening upwards vs downwards, axis of symmetry, y-intercept, x-intercepts, leading coefficient, etc.) I got some really great papers, and students got some great answers to the question "When am I ever going to see this stuff in real life?" That sounds really neat. That may be what I'm missing as I feel like all my knowledge about maths is memorisation. So if you ask me to explain how or why they work, I'll just draw a blank. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46669 Posts
On March 13 2016 10:45 Rizare wrote: That sounds really neat. That may be what I'm missing as I feel like all my knowledge about maths is memorisation. So if you ask me to explain how or why they work, I'll just draw a blank. It's certainly a great way to reinforce material, and it also shows students that there really are some important commonalities between math and other subjects | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On March 13 2016 09:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I teach both high school and college And it's good practice for younger math students to learn how to write actual reflections/ explanations/ papers about mathematical concepts. Too frequently do we hear "We don't need to write papers because this is math class" and that tends to lead to students knowing how to regurgitate math equations and steps without being able to explain why or how they work. Being able to fluently explain reasoning is really important in mathematics, especially when students learn about proofs. For example, a few months ago we finished a unit on quadratics in one of my high school math classes, and I asked each of my students to pick any application of quadratics/ parabolas they wanted, research it, and relate it back to some of the concepts we studied (applications of the vertex, opening upwards vs downwards, axis of symmetry, y-intercept, x-intercepts, leading coefficient, etc.) I got some really great papers, and students got some great answers to the question "When am I ever going to see this stuff in real life?" Sounds great! Working in research, I am regularly complaining about how high school maths tend to teach the student to apply methods mindlessly, and teach them very little about how the methods can be generalised and understanding what the limits of the methods are in terms of where it can be applied. Understanding the methods, as you say. I think that I'd be an asshole if I were a math teacher.  I'd spend a week teaching a method, and then give tests where some of the problems can't be solved by the method we've been talking about. Some would be solvable by previous methods, some would require creative use of the current or older methods, and some just wouldn't be solvable at all with what the student know. Some wouldn't be solvable at all, just incomplete information to answer the question. So sometimes the corect answer would be "this may be solvable, but I don't know how to". Sometimes the correct answer is "there is not enough information to answer this question, beacuse ...". In real life, that is the kind of problems you'll be faced with, and those are the correct answers! It is much more important to know when to apply method than exactly how to do it (you can look that up the details on wikipedia if you need to).So I entirely support your push to more understanding, and I encourage you to bring it further! Edit: And the other thing I regularly complain about, which also goes for undergrad level uni teaching, is that people don't learn to check their results. People will apply their methods to the numbers they are given, calculate an answer, and that's it. If they want to be sure (assuming the correct answer isn't in the back of the book), they'll redo the same calculation, and go through it again and again to check that they haven't done any mistakes. What you WANT to do, is to do some orthogonal check. If it is a physics problem about how far you throw a ball, and you get a result of 1.3mm, you probably made a mistake. And so on. Even in pure maths, if you do an integral, or calculate the length of a triangle or whatever, you can try to draw the function and eyeball roughly what the area is, or draw the triangle etc. There is almost always a way to sanity check the result, often several. I'd score like this: - using correct method: 1 point - carrying out the calculation of the correct method properly: 0.5 point - doing a sensible assessment of the result: 1 point. So once you got the right method, it is more important to have a good check in place than to nail all the arithmetics. Even if you happen to hit the right answer with the right method, how can we trust it if you don't do a sanity check on the result?? Then i prefer the wrong answer, but a check that identifies the result as nonsensical. At least you then know that you need to find the error, and you are likely to eventually find the correct answer, and you'll be able to trust it more at that point. When I supervised calculation exercises at second year uni physics, people would show me their calculations and ask if this was right. I'd ask them if they thought it was right. They'd look at me and try to read my mind and figure out if they actually had the correct solution and I was just messing with them, at which point they'd say that yes, they were certain it was the right solution. Or they'd cave in to the pressure and admit that they were not sure. Either way, I'd ask them how they could check if the answer was the right one, and I was usually met by a blank stare, even if their solution was perfectly correct.  I spent quite some time explaining to people how to sanity check their results on that course. I hope some of it stuck with at least some of the students....In general, the correct answer is worth very little if you don't trust that it is the correct answer. And the wrong answer is very dangerous if you blindly assume that it is the correct one. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12073 Posts
Maths didactics guys are currently trying to figure out how to solve this problem and teach students maths in a way that they actually understand what they do and can generalize that a bit further. And it is already happening, for example, if i compare the maths textbooks with which i am currently teaching in my practicum with those i was taught with in high school, there are a lot more words in there. Those i was taught with were usually pages upon pages with one line explanations "solve for x" "Find the derivative", and then about 20 different maths expressions that those questions can be applied to. Modern text books contain a lot more text questions, some "think about this stuff" questions, some "prove stuff" questions, etc... However, a big problem is that you don't want to fail half your maths class. If we are honest, a lot of the students you teach maths to are not going to go into STEM, and probably have strengths somewhere else that isn't maths. If you teach maths in a style more akin to university, one that focuses on understanding of concepts and abstract thinking as opposed to following a cooking recipe to solve a very specific question, a lot of them will be completely lost. There are already enough students that have problems following the cooking-recipe style of maths often taught in school. I agree that maths should be taught more akin to what Cascade describes (And what DarkPlasmaBall apparently does), but sadly it is not trivial to actually do that in a way that doesn't just lead to losing all of the students along the way. | ||
|
Just_a_Moth
Canada1972 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On March 13 2016 20:51 Simberto wrote: You will be happy to hear that that is actually a recognized problem called "sluggish knowledge". The students know stuff, but they have no concept of how that stuff actually applies to anything but the exact type of problem formulated exactly like it is formulated in school. Maths didactics guys are currently trying to figure out how to solve this problem and teach students maths in a way that they actually understand what they do and can generalize that a bit further. And it is already happening, for example, if i compare the maths textbooks with which i am currently teaching in my practicum with those i was taught with in high school, there are a lot more words in there. Those i was taught with were usually pages upon pages with one line explanations "solve for x" "Find the derivative", and then about 20 different maths expressions that those questions can be applied to. Modern text books contain a lot more text questions, some "think about this stuff" questions, some "prove stuff" questions, etc... However, a big problem is that you don't want to fail half your maths class. If we are honest, a lot of the students you teach maths to are not going to go into STEM, and probably have strengths somewhere else that isn't maths. If you teach maths in a style more akin to university, one that focuses on understanding of concepts and abstract thinking as opposed to following a cooking recipe to solve a very specific question, a lot of them will be completely lost. There are already enough students that have problems following the cooking-recipe style of maths often taught in school. I agree that maths should be taught more akin to what Cascade describes (And what DarkPlasmaBall apparently does), but sadly it is not trivial to actually do that in a way that doesn't just lead to losing all of the students along the way. I am happy to hear that! I guess I'm not actually surprised to hear that there are issues with the implementation in practice. :/ Anyway I'm happy that people are trying. I think it should be possible to teach a bit more understanding and still pass the same ratio of students though... Maybe just need to start at sufficiently low age, like at primary school. Already when they start memorising the multiplication table it is already the completely wrong approach. They should start talking about when to add things (you got 3 apples, I got 5 apples, how many do we got together?) and when to multiply (there are 15 children in the class, each having 4 books, how many books do they have together?). Why do we add in one case and multiply in the other? What about negative numbers? What do they mean? How do they solve problems we couldn't solve before? etc. I think that this more scientific approach to teaching works better for young kids, as they are still open and curious in general. Before puberty, when they start getting all this attitude and thinking about other things. That is where the school loses students I think, as if you miss a year of maths at that age (or don't care), it is very hard to catch up, and you just feel stupid if you try to catch up again afterwards. It'll depend a bit on talent as environment as well of course, but you'll just grade by quantiles in the end right? Adapt teaching to fir most of the students and pass the top X% nationwide. That's how it works right? But yeah, I don't actually know anything about teaching at that age, so I am just rambling. Anyone with a bit more knowledge: feel free to correct me. :o) | ||
| ||
