MY READERS, FORGIVE ME IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE ARTICLE I INTRODUCE OR LIKE IT. SCIFI READERS WHO DO NOT READ NASA NEW YORK TIMES SHIT MAY LIKE IT. THE ARTICLE TALKS ABOUT THE FALLACY OF AVERAGES AND INDIVIDUAL PROPENSITIES, REMINDS ME OF A REAL LIFE SITUATION IN WHICH A MACHINE GAVE THE ANSWERS OF CHAPTER 10 TO CHAPTER ELEVEN. WHILE YOU MAY BELIEVE THIS MACHINE ERROR COULD BE CORRECTED WITH HUMAN HANDS, YOU’RE WRONG. IN OTHER WORDS REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, THE MACHINE BY BEING ERRONEOUS AND USELESS TO ITS CAUSE DEEMS THE PROCESS UNWORTHY. THUS FOR 10 AND 11, EVERYONE EITHER GETS 0% OR 100%. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN. IT EXPLAINS WHY I DON’T CRAVE FOR HIGH GRADES OR COMPETITIVE AVERAGES ESPECIALLY WHEN A MACHINE IS DOING THAT SHIT. YOU SEE MY READERS, A GRADE IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE PERSON WHO GIVES IT. DONT FORGET THAT ESPECIALLY IN THE EXAMPLE I GAVE IN THE EARLIER BLOG. I JUST HAD TO ARCHIVE THAT DRAWING. HERE IS THE ARTICLE I AM GLAD I CAME ACROSS TODAY, THE FALLACY OF AVERAGES(SCIENCE HAS A LOT OF FALLACIES PROJECTED AS REALITY):
edewlogics.com 