I too never thought I was smart enough - in my case, for computers. Nothing to
do with my gender. My father bought me my first computer at 10. But, others
said that I can't learn programming if I don't know maths, and I was crap at
maths. So I didn't learn to program.
Not until I went to university, to study computer science, of all things. I
was good at language, so I treated programming as a language problem. I
learned well enough to make a career for myself as a programmer. I guess that
doesn't say much, though, there's many bad programmers out there who make tons
of money.
After university, I did a masters in Data Science. Why I get myself in those
situations, I'll never know, but I studied Data Science. By then I knew how to
program so I tackled all the maths problems as programming problems. When I
didn't get something, I coded it. So I coded a bunch of linear and logistic
regressions, and perceptrons and recurrent neural nets and the like, 'till I
grokked them right.
So now I'm studying for a PhD in machine learning, in one of the best
universities in the world. Not bad for a kid who always got the worse grades
at maths, at school, eh?
So what I learned is this:
a) play to your strengths, not your weaknesses.
b) Dont' believe when people say you haven't got what it takes. They only know
one way to do things. You do you.
Oh and- you know what? Turns out I'm not that bad at maths after all.
Certainly not the discrete maths used in computer science. Not even the
continuous maths used in data science and machine learning. I get by.
>b) Dont' believe when people say you haven't got what it takes.
Maybe. To play devil's advocate, there are times one should consider that advice. Someone trying to break into performing arts or professional sports may benefit from getting some frank, realistic advice, especially if they don't have the talent or aptitude for the work.
I would also argue there is already too much of the "one should always believe in oneself" pushed by culture - a core message of pretty much every kids TV show since at least the 80s. A more relatable example would be a person investing their life savings in a terrible idea but everyone around them telling them "it's great" and "they should keep going" so as to not hurt their feelings.
Not until I went to university, to study computer science, of all things. I was good at language, so I treated programming as a language problem.
Just today I was reading this blog post from someone who loved math, went into programming, and claims that programming isn't math, it's language, and that the image comes from early programmers being mathematicians and the industry hasn't moved on from that image yet:
People with a math background did fine, of course, but people with a heavy language background often did better. I saw this curious effect again when I started working with high schoolers, with a similar curriculum. Bilingual kids often took to programming more easily than monolingual kids.
I remember this being a common belief back in the 90s.
At school I knew a guy who was good at maths, obsessed with computers (as in often knowing more than the teachers) but was rejected from the computing course (until his parents complained) because he wasn't doing well in English.
Personally, I believe they were getting confused with English as it was taught (mainly literary appreciation) and Language/Linguistics (as in the grammar/semantics and logic) which wasn't actually taught in (my) high school.
It is hard to do the things you love when you aren't wanted. Setting aside the statistics for a moment, imagine being a teenage girl and overhearing boys talk about how girls are dumb. Brainless machines of no consequence. That women can't code or contribute much in fields like math. "They just don't have the brain for it."
These moments stay with you and they impede you at moments when you need to be free. They push you away from being the best version of you that you can be.
I agree with you until you bring up gender. Girls also talk about how boys are idiots. Women's remarks can also bring down men or uplift them. Boys also think they're not good enough. Where I'm from (North-West Europe), I can't say there's a black and white difference between boys' and girls' behaviour or perceived academic ability. It's just that (especially young) women seem more susceptible to social pressure and the need to fit in, especially with other women.
Teens' dreams and ideas often get shot down by peers, parents and even teachers. I'm not defending bad behaviour; I just think that pointing at a few loudmouthed boys and claiming that there's the reason for the gap is pretty disingenuous. Certainly the majority of women I know would not give a lack of intelligence as the reason they didn't go to study CS.
As your comment is the strongest iteration of this line of thought (which seems to be shared by a lot of people). I'll reply to it and explain why.
> I agree with you until you bring up gender. Girls also talk about how boys are idiots. Women's remarks can also bring down men or uplift them
One is not like the other. Teenage female peer dynamics are heavily dominated by corumination and is directed heavily inwards. When girls bully other girls, they do it indirectly. It is more psychologically directed and intensely focused on gossip and disguised status seeking behavior. It is rarely directly confrontational, and I have rarely - if ever - heard girls talk about men's compentence in some general regard that way.
It's more like, "that guys such an idiot. He said <> and <> to me. Can you believe that?"
Teenage boys on the other hand are manifestly different. I am not an expert on male teenage behavior, but judging from the fact that the vast majority of teens sending epithets to other people online or on social media are overwhelmingly likely to be teenaged boys, I would suggest that the male pattern is aggressive and an overt dominance game.
Women don't do well in that environment. Boys often do and say things that are bewildering for anyone socialized as female to interact with.
> It's just that (especially young) women seem more susceptible to social pressure and the need to fit in, especially with other women.
Yes, female social dynamics are heavily about inclusion and exclusion. A welcoming and safe environment matters a lot more to women than it does to men.
> I just think that pointing at a few loudmouthed boys and claiming that there's the reason for the gap is pretty disingenuous
I have not made that claim.
I am just talking about my experience. Your mileage may vary.
>I have rarely - if ever - heard girls talk about men's compentence in some general regard that
In middle-school and high-school I have never heard talk about girls being less competent than boys. You couldn't. Girls did better at school. Girls were Lisa Simpson, and boys were Bart Simpson. If there was a stereotype, that's what it was. If you went to a remedial class at my school(s), it would have been 3/4 boys. The vast majority of suspensions were given to boys.
Maybe the schools I went to were the exception, but no way could this be a singular experience.
>Women don't do well in that environment. Boys often do and say things that are bewildering for anyone socialized as female to interact with.
I feel you're making generalizations that don't reflect reality.
>A welcoming and safe environment matters a lot more to women than it does to men.
It matters to everyone. Who doesn't want a workplace that is welcoming and safe?
> Yes, female social dynamics are heavily about inclusion and exclusion. A welcoming and safe environment matters a lot more to women than it does to men.
You're basically saying that males are more resilient and assertive - this doesn't mean that females can't "shoot down" boys, however indirectly. When you're constantly hearing about "toxic masculinity" being the problem and all males are being equated to toxic, entitled narcissists who might turn "creepy" on you at any moment, are you sure that this isn't a drag to the average guy? Guys care about being included socially, too. They can deal with overt hostility if they have to, but let's not pretend that they'll be happy about it.
I think if the gender stereotypes are as accurate as you imply they are, then the current state of women in tech is pretty much at its natural equilibrium (as in heavily male-dominated).
Maybe Spain (of all places) is super-progressive, but I can't recall a single instance of anyone saying anything similar to "Women can't code" or "Women can't do math".
In fact, for most of my educational life the "top student of the class" has been female, even through engineering and maths.
Am I some kind of odd outlier? is the experience on other countries different? I'm genouinly curious.
Studies show that when it comes to IQ, women cluster around the mean. As you go upwards to higher levels of IQ you find fewer and fewer women compared to the number of men. Somewhat debatable whether this correlates to achievement or exactly what IQ means though.
Same for Northern Europe. Most of the smart kids in high school were girls. Some went on to study science, but I don't think any of them were interested in computers or went for CS degrees. In fact I know way more women with math and other science degrees; I am not sure why those women did not show interest in specifically engineering or CS, which do have low numbers of female students.
Perhaps those fields are perceived as not social, introverted, not warm or inviting; but I feel it would probably be a bad idea to market them as such and force a lot of young women into engineering and CS out of some misguided principle rather than their own future happiness.
Of course there are certain men that make claims about women's ability to do math, but in my experience those are often men that clearly don't possess that ability themselves... Their opinion might be mostly detrimental to their own offspring rather than to society as a whole. Those tend not to be people whose boys attend university either.
I don't know where this non-welcoming stereotype comes from. CompSci is not the same as gamer culture or techies. In fact, in my Hungarian Uni, there were many people who had liked tinkering and modding their computer (without really knowing what the parts did or what the numbers meant) for the newest games and knew how to set up routers etc thought that CS is surely what they should study. Many quickly dropped out when they realized there's so much math involved and it's not all about creating apps etc. So so many complaints about who needs math, why learn these old topics, why not the newest tech which you actually use in real jobs (there were electives covering those).
Those who survived this filter tend to be less of the tech fan boy culture.
Of course being a girl had a special status, there's just no way around that when they are below 10%. There were many cases when a class had only 1 or 2 girls, or I remember when the game design class had their first ever female student, whom I knew. She didn't recall any inappropriate things said to her. But you have to have a really strong interest in the topic to accept being the only girl in so many situations and groups. Just "going with the flow" won't carry you there.
This whole thing must have some deeper roots than what it's being reduced to today, because the effect comes up in many countries even before US influence became this strong. In fact in the former Eastern Bloc countries there was a lot of encouragement for women getting educated and getting more traditionally male jobs.
I think this stuff actually is pretty regional/local; participation rates by women are much better in some non-Anglosphere countries.
Edit: It can also become weirdly specific; participation in computer science and physics remain quite low here (Ireland), say, but I believe most chemistry undergrads are now women.
I was referring way more the prevalence of those type of comments through education. I don't think participation rates are very different than other countries. From my experience (I have a rather weird educational path, so I have anecdotal data on engineering, math & physics undergraduate courses).
Engineering and physics have similar ratios around 10% to 20%, while maths is way higher around 50/50 (the rates for the classes I was taking were actually higher, but that's another story). Chemistry here also is mostly women.
The only hypothesis that fits my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, is that there's quite a difference in the interests of men and women, and that the country differences in enrollment are more a symptom of how the curricula are structured.
For example, Spain does not have CS degrees structured like in the anglosphere, so depending the subfield you intend to work on, you should go to engineering instead. Most of the women I met at engineering would have chosen a CS degree over engineering if there was one. I have seen stark differences too in physics, were the majority of women there wanted to pursue pure theoretical physics with pretty much none of them showing interest in applied physics.
It's a bit puzzling/weird because as it turns out, participation rates in technical fields tend to be "better" in places where women are comparatively worse off, and vice versa. Many people think that these "better" participation rates don't actually reflect anything like a full equalization in underlying interest, and that can still be a problem for women in the longer run.
The point is we've identified gender is used to knock people down a lot, that this particular angle seems to have little basis in fact, and so are trying to make people aware to stop this particular angle.
If we find more systematic ways in which people are getting knocked down, we should probably work on those, too.
"Toxic masculinity" refers to a subset of masculinity that is harmful, e.g. saying things such as "you're not man enough to do x" to peer pressure someone. I feel like 90% of arguments surrounding that term are between people who interpret the definition differently.
It similar to when people talk about illegal immigrants. One group refers to a subset of immigrants, while the other interpret it as an attack on all immigrants and thus racism.
They are very poor words if the intention is to communicate and find agreement on each topic.
Ironically, the common attitude among some people is that "racism doesn't apply" to the male gender, because they're "toxic" and "hold all the power" anyway. Which sure does strike me as a fallacy of begging the question, but meh, whatever. Some people will never try to seriously change their mind; I don't view this as something that could be "fixed" in any way, and I respect free speech even when it doesn't provide me with an immediate advantage; so why should I even be expected to complain? What's there to complain about?
The cure today, which is the enforcement of a set of beliefs on pain of shunning or job loss, is worse than the disease. For example the Connie St Louis fiasco
Well, that's probably what most people tell their children, male or female. I know I've heard that line a few times. It's sad how the love of parents trying to prevent disappointment seems to be a major factor in stopping kids from actually trying something hard.
True, but it is no different for boys these days. Not wanted by teachers and they see that girls just get better grades leaving many uninspired to pursuit greater.
Strange, when I was a kid adults had the opposite attitude towards us.
Boys were considered inherently mischievous, prone to cheating or making shortcuts, and always up to no good, while girls were considered rule-abiding, smart and hard-working.
These two actually coexist happily, somehow. Boys are simultaneously assumed prone to cheating or making shortcuts, and always up to no good and better at math etc. Girls are simultaneously rule-abiding, smart and hard-working, but also a bit dumber and not for math and lazy princesses.
Also, girls are more social and better at relationships, but also cant have by gender good relationship among them as they are destined to be basically bitches.
Boys have totally better relationships among them, but they of course just cant be without physically bullying each other which somehow does not suggest that something is wrong with relationships.
You're saying that OPs perspective is wrong? Because that was the implicit perception in my friend and familial circle. Between friends, cousins and siblings, the boys were by and large fuck-ups and girls were responsible. Almost every girl I knew went to university, whereas (maybe) half the boys did. Most in my circle did well in life, but the ones that didn't were guys.
Things just aren't that simple, and there is tendency of only highlighting these 'microaggressions' suffered by young girls. I don't dismiss that it happens, but growing up sucks for everybody and these indignities are suffered by everyone. And it doesn't end with school, when I started working I went out to some trade-shows as a technical resources with a young (under-30) sales guy. We got no respect from the 50+ year old gray beards in our industry. As in, we, and especially him, got overtly disrespected because of our inexperience and youth. And when you're young, you always feel like you're behind (because you are), and you're desperately trying to push forward and gain recognition, respect and acceptance and you really feel the small daily indignities, from the meeting you weren't invited to, to project you aren't on, to your ideas being ignored (not even dismissed, just ignored), to simply not getting the credibility or respect or recognition you feel you deserve.
No, I am saying that the stereotype he detected really exists and somehow happily coexist with other stereotypes. That the stereotypes when combined into one person become inconsistent.
Personally I knew plenty of boys that were not fuckups. I know also boys who are fuckups or went through periods where they as kids were troubles, but I know also plenty of perfectly fine boys.
>I am saying that the stereotype he detected really exists and somehow happily coexist with other stereotypes.
Of course each of us has to deal with a plethora of cultural influences and pressures, but in this case you're just asserting things and maybe gaslighting a little. Someone shared an anecdote that counteracts your assertion and you go and post hoc fit your conclusion by claiming there are in fact other secret stereotypes that must be there as well. Maybe they aren't there.
>Personally I knew plenty of boys that were not fuckups.
So do I.
In my case, however, all the fuckups I know are boys. All of them. I don't know what that anecdote says, but it says something.
OP wrote: "Strange, when I was a kid adults had the opposite attitude towards us.
Boys were considered inherently mischievous, prone to cheating or making shortcuts, and always up to no good, while girls were considered rule-abiding, smart and hard-working."
Me posting first time: these stereotypes coexist.
You: You are opposing him and gasslighting. Also, he contradicted you.
Me now: wtf. Also, he could not contradict my assertion, because I joined only after him and made no assertion before.
I understand what you were trying to say. Have you considered that maybe the other stereotypes did not coexist or were not influential? That's what I'm saying.
It isn't really about holding or not holding any specific view. I shared my personal experience. I admit the possibility that all kinds of biases could be coloring my perspective. But it is what it is.
Men and boys are demonised and ridiculed daily all across our media, and education is in my experience biased towards males also. Teachers are mostly female, and I remember at school normal male behaviour being criticised, and a general attitude of 'girls work harder than boys', 'girls are better behaved than boys' etc.
If you want some hard data to back this up, take a look at the stats about male/female university attendance in the UK. You'll see it's becoming ever more weighted towards women. I cannot browse the web or social media without being bombarded with pro-female propaganda. And yet it's women that are being discriminated against?!
Not sure what culture you are from, but in Poland at least I have almost never heard girls (or anyone!) say anything particularly bad of that sort to boys, but I sure have heard said a lot to girls.
There's definitely still a strong 'boyish' culture where boys can say almost anything they like and it's OK, but girls (for whatever reason) won't. It's not about who's better - it's about what we let people get away with.
Also it's not about thinking. Thinking is the ultimate change you want, but we can't see and know what people around us think, but we can still try to enact standards of reasonable, gentle (non-violent if you will) communication.
I remember from my childhood that boys were always treated as silly clowns with no patience, responsibility and conscience. (Not saying there's no biological basis for this, girls do mature faster as far as I know)
School was much more set up for girls and they were more successful on average.
I don't remember boys saying girls are dumb or the reverse. The stereotype was more about girls being obedient and tidy and organized and serious while boys are messy, forgetful, chaotic and mischievous.
Edit: this last point also makes it weird for me when people equate male with order and female with chaos. I guess the stereotype may have reversed since then? Or the adult stereotype is the reverse of the child stereotype?
From what I could see the teacher discouraging her from going into science after failing a math test was greatly beneficial as she became a successful author. Yet she is resentful that she was never included in the scientific establishment which seemed to be more what she wanted.
Not really the point I was SUPPOSED to get from this article though. I think I was supposed to be angry at sexism for discouraging her from becoming a scientist. She reminds me of how I feel about the cooks who discouraged me from becoming a cook although it was for the best I'm still bitter they said I shouldn't be one.
Harvard offers undergraduates remedial classes through their extension school. In fact, you may be surprised to hear that so many admits have issues with writing that they offer a non-extension remedial writing class (Expos10.)
These are just undergrads - students come from a variety of educational backgrounds and are admitted for various reasons, of which legacy is just one possibility.
I think there are 2 things that make math different than writing in this case.
1. I expect the main reason for needing remedial writing would be English as a second language people. That is, smart people who got a good education, but that education wasn't primarily English. That doesn't really apply to math.
2. I expect standardized tests can more easily test math than writing due to the nature of solving math problems vs writing. Thus Harvard would be able to filter out people who are bad at math more easily than people who are bad at writing. Then again, maybe Harvard doesn't want to filter out people who are bad at math.
As someone who makes a living ghost writing and copywriting in the technology space, I assure you that many smart people with an excellent technical education struggle to construct coherent sentences when writing.
Most people who go to Harvard have to get very high scores on the SAT/ACT, which include math sections that are of, at least, remedial math difficulty.
The article seems kind of unfocused and meandering. It touches on the common talking point of women being discouraged from STEM, then about the good time the author had doing research for her fiction novel, and some scenes from the novel, but it never actually says anything about the plot of said novel. "There's a professor who may or may not be creepy and a student who may or may not fall in love with him" is about as far as it goes.
An area of academia as seen by an outsider usually makes for good storytelling but this article is a mess.
There, that’s one of those “knock down” the article is about.
There’s this point I heard someone made about internet toxicity: “it used to be that if you didn’t have anything positive to say you’d just shit up and move on; if anything to avoid a bitter quarrel in person. On the internet, the lack of any immediate personal consequence removed this restraint, allowing the worst thoughts to pour out, and drown whatever good is said.”
Thanks, for being today’s example. Now can you please make the effort next time?
> it used to be that if you didn’t have anything positive to say you’d just shut up and move on
While that's an attitude I've learned to follow ("If you'd don't have anything nice to say, don't say it." as my maw would put it) I'm not sure it's actually that healthy. It shuts down all possibility of (negative) criticism for fear of causing offense, or bad feeling.
Sorry, I might have worded it too generally; imho a well reasoned criticism falls under the "positive" side, unlike Evil quips and disparaging remarks.
You comment is anything but positive, and yet you have written it.
The last paragraph ("Thanks, for being today’s example. Now can you please make the effort next time?") is downright nasty.
My impression from people like you is that your kind loves writing toxic comments but thinks that covering them with a fig leaf of a supposedly 'good' cause and high moral ground somehow makes that acceptable.
On the contrary, I do think that calling out nasty behavior is a net positive. Yes, a reproach is a reproach... no need to sugar coat it, but you'd expect the same if you farted or belched in public.
Maybe you should make an effort not to be an *ss on the internet next time as well. Wtf. This comment is more hateful and demeaning than OP. Why not set a good example instead of stooping lower.
I have a PhD in physics and worked at CERN (which is mentioned in the article).
The way math and physics was taught at school vs university makes a world of difference. You leave high school without a basic understanding of science, yet you had to learn what schroedinger equation was.
Then you do not understand what kWh on you power bill means and how this is related to your lamp or keetle.
If math and physics was taught with pragmatism and not the idiotic idea that everyone needs to know everything then we would have more people interested in science.
Same for coding taught at school. You start with data structures. WTF? I do not care what a dict is before I can imagine a useful usage case.
I taught my kids to write code with a lot of handwaving first, than with a lot "you go get what this means later" and now they code. They are not big fans but it will be peanuts for then to go through coding curriculum at school. All it took were two evenings and a bit of minecraft.
The videos I watch online include several game streamers who like to talk about their STEM careers. One of them in particular keeps emphasizing how to them, studying their field did not come easy to them, but they had luckily realized soon enough that working in a lab was what they wanted and loved to do. So they chewed through the academic career. In short, do not exclusively measure your chances for success by how well you do in school.
Myself I haven't had a very successful academic career, and even a decade later I'm still a mediocre programmer struggling to get things done for perfectionism reasons. But I persevere and don't stop learning things. That lead to me getting a job in the industry a few years back, now carrying a comparably big responsibility in my current position.
I very much encourage women to pursue the career they consider the most thrilling. But I can also see that for women, needing more stability sooner in life may make it less appealing to chew through an academic career in a field when they're not sure if they can get good at it.
I related to this story because I also believe I am not well wired for maths, and have live with 37 years of imposter syndrome as a qualified and always employed computer scientist. It's a sub branch of mathematics yet I feel mathematically challenged.
I love how the NIH explains things: "As an organ donor, you agree to give your organs to other people to help keep them alive. As a brain donor, your brain will be used for research purposes only—it will not be given to another person." That's good to know.
Just when I think maybe I’m too cynical in thinking that non-corrupt charities represent a statistical rounding-error, something like this pops up to reconfirm my intuition. Thanks for the link
I actually worked with donated brains while in grad school!
The donations were for educational purposes, and we were forbidden from knowning who the donator was. All material is periodically rounded up and disposed of after a set amount of time and then buried/cremated/etc (per the donator's wishes). We took the donations out to local schools and museums for demonstrations. (It's a bit strange just riding in your car with a bunck of brains in the seat next to you, stuck in traffic, trying to get to the school/museum) The kids were very respectful and we never had an issue with anyone. For me the best moment was when one little boy mentioned that he had an encephalitis catheter implant (tube from brain into stomach to relieve chronic brain swelling). He was able to show the whole class where his tube was, using the donations as an aide. It was awesome! We had many sections of brains and some dura mater. I'm sure we inspired a fair few MDs during those sessions.
Donation is highly appreciated. Charts and diagrams are also very useful, but there is just something very real/grounding/humbling about holding a real brain in your hands. All the kids get very quiet when it happens; it's amazing to see all these emotions and realizations wash across their young faces. This pinkish wrinkly thing is the whole universe for someone else, and your whole universe is just like this thing in your hands. People and kids have different reactions to the experience, but everyone appreciates it.
If you are thinking about donating, I can attest that the donations are highly respected, very appreciated, and greatly helpful to others, at least in my little corner of the world.
"As a brain donor, your brain will be used for research purposes only—it will not be given to another person."
How many people had to ask/worry about that for them to write it? Isaac Arthur's YouTube video on identity[1] includes a comment "if someone transplanted Bob's brain into Joe's body, we would not think of it as Joe-with-Bob's-brain, but rather Bob-with-Joe's-body".
In that sense it might be impossible to give my brain to another person, it would be more like giving me their body; but what if it was only a bit of my brain? If my motor cortex could be transplanted into a stroke victim or a Parkinson's patient, or whatever; writing that down doesn't sound objectionably or identity-breaking.
Right on - if your brain is placed in another body, that body becomes your body. Your brain remains 'yours' almost by definition.
> what if it was only a bit of my brain? If my motor cortex could be transplanted into a stroke victim or a Parkinson's patient, or whatever; writing that down doesn't sound objectionably or identity-breaking.
I think it does break identity, but that doesn't mean it should be discarded. Your thought-experiment strongly suggests that 'identity of mind' (at least as far as it tracks the brain) is not atomic or indivisible.
I need to finish the article but let me leave a “reaction post” here just for starters... that Strumia guy - the misogynist Italian physicist - is a tool. The prototypical socially disabled person that compensates for their ineptitude by digging themselves into a trench of books. I’m male, but having studied engineering I had the displeasure to bump into examples a couple times; and it left marks.
That Strumia guy was mostly "compensating" for his sour grapes, actually. He actually brought up an internal controversy about tenure promotion or something similar, that he was involved in, as an example of gender bias for his CERN "talk", and people fell for it. Master troll.
Not until I went to university, to study computer science, of all things. I was good at language, so I treated programming as a language problem. I learned well enough to make a career for myself as a programmer. I guess that doesn't say much, though, there's many bad programmers out there who make tons of money.
After university, I did a masters in Data Science. Why I get myself in those situations, I'll never know, but I studied Data Science. By then I knew how to program so I tackled all the maths problems as programming problems. When I didn't get something, I coded it. So I coded a bunch of linear and logistic regressions, and perceptrons and recurrent neural nets and the like, 'till I grokked them right.
So now I'm studying for a PhD in machine learning, in one of the best universities in the world. Not bad for a kid who always got the worse grades at maths, at school, eh?
So what I learned is this:
a) play to your strengths, not your weaknesses.
b) Dont' believe when people say you haven't got what it takes. They only know one way to do things. You do you.
Oh and- you know what? Turns out I'm not that bad at maths after all. Certainly not the discrete maths used in computer science. Not even the continuous maths used in data science and machine learning. I get by.