Agreed. Even looking at our binge TV thread, there’s not that many shows that more than a handful of us are watching/have watched (last year probably only The Last Of Us and Ted Lasso, that I can think of) and I would expect our group to have significantly more similar tastes than the general population.
1 Like
That’s the only thing I watch on TV. Everything else is streaming service. I guess I might watch some Wimbledon and Olympics occasionally too.
I don’t have a TV in my apartment, so football is actually the one thing I rarely watch. Have Peacock to watch swimming, cycling, and olympics though.
The one they didn’t list was “Next Level Chef” which aired right after the Superbowl.
The 3 college games in order were tOSU/MI game, the SEC championship game, and the national championship game.
1 Like
I’m just going to leave this here. I watched the reel and about fell off my chair when she explained the answer.
When 3 = 0 it doesn’t work?
Kinda. She ends it by saying 2/3 of an small mug isn’t the same as 4/6 of a big Stanley cup.
They aren’t the same when the wholes are different.
While technically true, I think this is a bit too subtle for a 3rd grade assignment. I would ask this as a challenge question in maybe 7th grade and hope that it sparks an interesting discussion.
1 Like
I don’t see that as being different than asking when is 1 not the same as 1, which is dumb. I’m glad my kids have smart teachers.
3 Likes
Yeah, great way of putting it. 2/3 isn’t 2/3 of something, it is just 2/3, unless you say otherwise.
So 2/3 of a feather is not the same as 2/3 of a cannonball?
Wow, they broke math.
1 Like
To me, it’s not a math question. I don’t like the phrasing though.
1 Like
The other 6,599,993 people are cheering them on.
4 Likes
Eh, quote said “over 3 million” so I’m going with 6,599,994. 
1 Like
Each person would have to fight off zero penguins.
Because penguins are known for fighting humans.
[quote="Klaymen, post:861, topic:1153”]
penguins are known for fighting humans.
[/quote]
Wait, they ARE?
NY Times investment strategist was only off by a factor of 100 in his calculations. Had to laugh at his “That’s not an error” comment as it was!
Have shown a photo of it below from yesterday’s NY Times as the online version was subsequently corrected (probably after several actuaries pointed out the mistake).
6 Likes
I think they need a new investment strategist.
1 Like