(untitled)

Have you ever thought of how to normalize computer science and STEM for the broader public?

>>28751 >neurosuggesting it wasn't already done in the last 10 years

>>28759 I am not talking about BOZIOINGERSS BLACK SCIENCE MAN culture if that's what you are suggesting, but more in the line of Spreadsheet-VBA, Flowgorithm, scratch, etc. Programs and syntax that are more accessible.

>>28751 Computers weren't meant for everyone. Even worse are people like Steve Jobs, who try to sell people a computer while saying "it's not a computer" at the same time. We've wasted far too many resources building on-ramps for a supposed pedestrian internet user that doesn't exist. People just want to watch porn and text grandma on the same device, so it's no wonder that the past decade has been such a complete disappointment in terms of consumer electronics. About a decade ago we hit the point of no return, where GUIs failed to provide meaningful abstractions to the end user and turned every computer into a lifestyle device. stdin and stdout are still king, and the predictions Unix made about the future of computing are holding true 50 years on. Compare this to Windows which needs to add a new design language every 3 years, or how MacOS perpetually moves basic functionality around with each update. None of them had the foresight or interest in enabling the end user like Unix did, so they tend to give computers a bad rap. The average person is caught in a loop of blaming their computer for an issue that could be easily debugged at a lower level, getting frustrated and using a dangerous workaround, and then getting more errors as a result. I hate Apple with a passion, but I empathize with their desire to provide meaningful abstractions to powerful systems. Where they fail is in empowering the user, though, and that's what modern Linux at least gets right from a user perspective. Having a streamlined UX and robust input/output is what makes software good for the common user, but that kind of power is at-odds with our surveillance state.

>>28768 >We've wasted far too many resources building on-ramps for a supposed pedestrian internet user that doesn't exist. yeah its always seemed weird to me that "outreach" type projects always seem to fall into the pattern of building a super dumbed down lego blocks toy of a programming environment (or whatever... the same applies to a lot of "noob friendly" desktop linux distros) rather than something which is useful to a fairly competent but not especially committed computer user. i think these days the hypothetical person who "just uses their computer to run up google chrome" is basically a myth. that person doesnt even own a computer. they do everything on their phone. i think the processing/p4.js guys have the right idea. they made a programming environment that is genuinely useful for visual artists looking to get into basic computer graphics (mostly 2d generative/glitch type stuff) without doing the "code as lego blocks" thing or the "web app dev boot camp" thing. its the perfect environment for dabbling in programming, as you might dabble in drawing or biking. also, as much as i hate the user experience of node editors compared to regular code, they do seem to be the best way to get non programmers to do programmer-like things. ive seen plenty of people who havent ever even seen code before make incredibly intricate shaders in blender or unreal engine.

It being unappealing to normal people is the main reason why the salaries are so high, compared to other jobs. I think this is where all the "get girls into STEM" programs are coming from. If twice the people were doing it, you could pay them less. Imo the broader public has a positive view of STEM already, they just don't think they are able to understand it. Most STEM teachers in schools aren't very good, so most students see these subjects as hard and boring. Another factor is that popular proprietary operating systems make computers seem like polished blackboxes, which makes it difficult to find an entry point, even when you're interested.

Firstly, it would need to be normalized for the programmers and other people who regularly use computers. Consider how many programmers don't understand algorithmic analysis, how to write correct software, and how many revel in the artificial complexity of current environments. They love being wizards casting spells, and value the useless knowledge.

Its already normalized and so is stem. Look around, every asshole on the street is staring into their idiot box, talking to themselfs and feeding the megacorp empire with not only data but giving away their soul essentially. Every halfwit journalist can make up crap about science as long as the establishment is behind it and gets away with it. People go all "muh science" and soykaf, fighting crusades that achieve nothing at all, instead of rational critical thought they go to their local science propaganda journal and quote the priest to justify their shortsighted nonsense spouting so they can feel better about themselfs. This spiral of degeneracy where everything is used to feed individual egos but they always become hollower and emptier shells of humans is as normal as it gets. Normal people are not interested in rationality, progress or change of any sort, they just want to be allowed to do utterly stupid things and be rewarded for it with by their hive. Science and technology is a means for people to endulge in destructive and counterproductive behaviour while at the same time providing a framework into kidding themselfs that is ok and that the priest class takes care of all their problems, while also shoving all critique and problems under the rug. >>28781 Programmers not being able to put up with algorithms and math is just the tip of the iceberg here. I heard there are literally lots of people who think they make good programmers because they know how to make facebook pages and this was 10 years ago i was told by someone who ran his own company. Most people are even too utterly incompetent to know what airplane mode is, then they bitch and complain about people calling them when we got soykaf like text messaging and voiceboxes and whatnot. This is not gonna get better, people are getting dumber in ways that i havent even imagine 10 years ago. It was bad when smartphones first came up, but this is a dumpster fire in a madhouse made of soykaf. The worst part is the more things dont work, people keep brute forcing solutions, disregarding all consequences.

>>28751 Most of the people in this threads are being overly cynical and judgemental so I'll give you a proper response. The answer is that you grow it from the ground up, you start teaching people when they are young, and this is already being done in many parts of the world. STEM related educational outreach programs are growing really fast, and many are very successful in giving kids a head start in their academics. For this reason I think the average person will only get more tech savvy over time. So in kids its fairly straight forward, but the more interesting question is how you get adults into STEM, and the answer is you can't. STEM is already very difficult for the average person which his why it has such a high drop out rate compared to other fields. Even if they tried, I don't think many people past their 30's would be able to pick up something like programming if they tried, even if they had a great teacher and plenty of motivation, because their brain just doesn't have the learning capacity for it anymore. Plenty of people struggle to learn STEM when they're young, and it gets harder the older they get.

Nobody knows how to train the needed skills, not even companies or universities, as shown by the demand for senior engineers and surplus of useless soykafty junior engineers. That is the real problem.

>>28800 Junior - Senior engies is a meme at this point Employers don't really understand or care about the difference and just use buzzwords they heard they need to write down from a broken telephone game in their industry circles

>>28801 Sounds like this employer knows the job market is fuarrrked, hell if I was trying to get experience for entry level I would pay $15 an hr. Clown world.

>>29204 >>28801 the question here is if they provide additional value and teach you for real or if you make them money doing nonsense. Since you are paying they better provide you what you paid for cause now they are selling a product. Not too crazy if it comes down to another pay for education scheme. If they don't provide that you can just buy a fake " worked for us" cert much cheaper which prices them out of the market.

>>28751 Increase their IQ through genetic engineering

Yeah I think you shouldn't, just as you shouldn't normalize sculpting clay either, each to their own.

>>28801 >>29204 Still a better deal than American universities.

I don't know a single person in my everyday circle who is the least motivated to learn any fundamental knowledge of computers or computer science, or even learn practical skills such as programming. They all use computer devices without any understanding at all and zero motivation to change that. Sadly this is to some degree also true for students of computer science at my local university campus. I feel like an isolated special snowflake unicorn because I can't have the most basic conversation about computers with anybody, despite them using computers every single day.

>>29252 Most people use everything on minimal knowledge required to use. You probably present the same situation to a older guys interested in cars. You know how to drive and change tire but thats it. PC went same way as cars with later iterations being more closed hiding more from the user which made newer gen more tech illiterate. Windows 8+ is trash for that reason.

>>29254 I know it's irrelevant at the scale of society, but I bought the manufacturers repair and instruction manual with my motorcycle and taught myself how to fix mechanics and even have to some degree knowledgeable discussions about the mechanics with actual learned professionals of this field as in manufacturer repair shop technicians. It feels like even those people interested in cars occasionally run into others of the same interest and are able to exchange knowledge. For me personally this is not true in the field of computer science and even worse because people are handed a much more universal platform than a manufactured transportation system. They own processing units with a turing complete instruction set that can theoretically process ANYTHING imaginable. Its hard for me to emphasize what that even means, but it has been abstracted to a level of absolute ridiculousness of people swiping screens.

>>28751 Why does everything need to be "normalized" these days?

>>29272 I'm not op, but can't you comprehend the overall topic despite the chosen wording? I interpret "normalize" as in improving accessibility to knowledge and education in the field of computer science aswell as increasing motivation and curiosity of people currently unaware of this topic.

>>28751 obama tried and it didnt work too much racism scared everyone off not even just normal people. even i am afraid to get deeper into coding because all coders i talked to online give off weirdo vibes. that and the fact that the main achievements of all time are predatory apps like insta. code could be a sheep in wolf's clothing

>>29273 Knowledge is plenty accessible. You can read all about it on wikipedia. It's literally free. People just don't want to.

>>29273 Why does it have to normalized ?

not op but tech literacy would improve the world. Its easier to fool the illiterate which creates worse products.

>>28798 I think you overestimate the power of education on the average person, and the compotence of organized public education. We teach (here anyway) a good bit of math to students starting when they're less than 10 years old, the average highschooler should have at the very least been taught basic calculus and trigonometry. Do you really think the average 20 year old highschool graduate can do calculus ? I don't. The source of my opinion on this comes partly from trying to teach highschoolers math. For many of them its like dragging dead whales down the beach. In one ear and out the nose with the rest of their brain. Young, healthy kids, are of course generally good at learning, but they have to be interested, and able. And I don't think all of them are. If teaching works, and we teach this much math, then why isnt the world full of mathematicians ? Instead its full of people who get by with what they need. A little arithmatic, a little algebra, maybe. Some technical and construction stuff obviously needs this and that. And a lot of people just plugging numbers into calculators when they need it. As a society, we get by. Like with many things, the way to get people educated in specific skills, is first of all accept that not everyone can be above a fairly low base range of abilities. If school has any function at all outside of daycare and seperating children from their families, it should help them meet a very low baseline of skills (like, literacy and arithmatic), and then facilitate them learning about other things if they're interested, and expose them to different topics worth learning about, and skills worth acquiring. The kids who are into programming are probably into programming enough that you don't actually need to teach it to them. You give them tools, a nice computer that lets you mess around with it, maybe a book or two, help em out when they need it, and they'll learn themselves.

>>29373 In all fairness, math is a notoriously hard subject to teach. I wasn't very interested in it either when I was in high school, but overall I don't disagree. Perhaps I worded my post a bit wrong. You need to generate interest in STEM starting in childhood, and hope that the kids end up taking themselves further down that path later on. Like I said this is already happening, primarily through robotics. LEGO sells robotics parts and there are LEGO robotics tournaments for kids. Adafruit has a section for kids, Youtubers promote things like KiwiCo which aims to provide STEM education through DIY projects for kids, organizations like FIRST exist (as a side note China is trying really hard to emulate STEM educational outreach projects like these, though apparently there's a teacher shortage. I got approached by a Chinese company recently asking to do some teaching for them) etc. Robotics tends to be the focus because it covers a large range of subjects (that being mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and computer science) and is visually interesting. Anyone can look at a robot and see that it's impressive, which gives it larger range of appeal than something like pure math, especially to kids. You can debate how good any of these programs are about actually increasing understanding, but they are getting more kids into STEM. The fact that this is now a large and growing industry is proof of that. I'd bet that within 10 years you'll see a huge increase in enrollment in STEM programs at colleges.

>>29374 regular Lego is good learning material for hand-eye coordination which promotes brain development and is increasingly more important in our modern flatscreen world but their robotics section will be outside the price range for most kids parents. Arduino projects would be more realistic to sell for lets say 12+ kids. ( started with c++ at 12 so its possible) Otherwise online-games did more than anything else for doing math outside school for me. If you play anything competitive you start doing math to minmax. I learned statistics with excel ahead of school for same reason.

>>29375 Usually you wouldn't buy a set like that just for your kid, you'd just get them to join a local school's team. The idea is that working on something physical is more fun than regular classroom work which gets them more willing to put up with the classroom stuff. "Oh if I keep my grades up then I get to build robots with my friends!"

>>29375 >tfw you get unlimited access to the blocks at school because you're a teacher's kid

>>29374 >math is hard to teach Harder than computer programming ? maybe but I am not sure they're that different. Programming might have a different reward structure; people enjoy making things and for programming the rewards are a lot more immediate (robots suggested later are great for that). Math has rewards but they're deffered a lot farther usually, for most people at any rate. >>29376 >The idea is that working on something physical is more fun than regular classroom work which gets them more willing to put up with the classroom stuff Is the normal classroom stuff actually that worthwhile ? You make it sound like letting kids play with robots is basically the same as giving them cookies. Maybe the robots are actually more fun AND more useful and relevant to learning. And likewise for a lot of other physical tasks. Also yeah. Legos these days are just expensive anyway. But they have the advantage of being, especially for a school a one time (more or less) investment, same with some of the fancier first / FTC associated kits. You get one, you put it together, and when you're done you pull it apart. Most years you'll probably want a few special non reusable bits, and maybe need some new motors or batteries, but the cost isnt that great if the students are careful and smart (and many kids who are useful and smart in this way have parents who are useful and smart, and may be willing to give access to tools and other stuff that actually is expensive). I'd draw out that last point though, and say, while I think FIRST and stuff like it is great fun, what I've seen of the students who end up getting involved in it, they're smart (and they were clearly smart before joining), and generally motivated. Allowing them to get involved with FIRST might make them more likely to get interested in programming or robotics or other engineering type stuff, might stop a few of them from burning out on school or life, but generally when you get some smart kid interested in engineering it is at some implicit cost to another field where they'd also be smart. Schools don't make smart people. Parents do. If you want more smart people you have to work on it from that end.

>>29385 >Is the normal classroom stuff actually that worthwhile ? Yes. You have to walk before you run. It's hard to learn calculus from building robots, but is still necessary to know for many applications. >Maybe the robots are actually more fun AND more useful and relevant to learning. They teach different things, at least in my experience. It's better for a kid to learn basic trigonometry before doing machine shop work than to try and figure it out while he's there. That said, knowing how to use power tools is still very valuable. Outside the classroom projects work as a supplement, not a replacement. It's also a cost thing, buying physical equipment for every individual child gets really expensive really quickly once they move past Legos. As a side note this is different for programming where cost isn't an issue as much. >generally when you get some smart kid interested in engineering it is at some implicit cost to another field where they'd also be smart. Right, but this thread is about how you normalize STEM to the larger public. Personally I'd rather see more smart kids go into STEM than business or liberal arts.

>>29393 >It's hard to learn calculus from building robots, but is still necessary to know for many applications. This is true, but I would make the point that in the course of building robots (or doing other projects) its not at all improbable that questions which calculus and trig help answer will simply naturally arise. There's the meme question that gets repeated a lot in math about 'but when will we actually use this?'. If you approach it differently (like, how are you going to shoot that thing very far away accurately), suddently calc and trig might have immediate and clear applications that make the student actually curious and interested in the problem. Sure the 'learn to walk before you can run' thing has some truth to it, but I think the school systems I have seen err too much on the side of learning to walk. I might be comming across as advocating for the opposite extreme, when probably a more balanced middlepath might be ideal. >robots teach different things than classrooms I think we're focusing too much on robots as a specific example. There are lots of real projects that kids can be doing, working in gardens, building buildings, amateur astronomy, cooking, you name it, that all can be used to introduce technical and math concepts. Making things is rewarding, classroom learning is not. Ideal is probably to identify a reward, slowly move to it in classroom work, and then sieze it using the newly introduced technical skill. Imagine you have some students interested in shooting. Shooting is fun and cool so you probably do. But shooting really long range or with slow, light projectiles gets pretty difficult to do accurately. So how do you try to hit your target despite all that ? Queue the introduction of a bunch of math and physics. And yeah, its hard to explain differential equations on the range so you might go back to the classroom for it, but thats ok. At the end your students can get the reward of being better at something they probably find fun. Much better reason to pay attention in class than that the government says to. >It's also a cost thing, buying physical equipment for every individual child gets really expensive really quickly once they move past Legos. As a side note this is different for programming where cost isn't an issue as much. Sure, and I'm probably building up the idea of a fantasy school which would be difficult to achieve in reality without a lot of cash and willing parents. I would point out though, a lot of the costs still are one time. If a school wants a machine shop, it does need a couple machines, but once it has them the cost of stock and other things is more manageable. >but this thread is about how you normalize STEM to the larger public. Personally I'd rather see more smart kids go into STEM than business or liberal arts. Good point. I think I was thinking a little too much about the compsi rather than 'stem' bit of the op.

>>29398 I largely agree, though I would point out that much of what you said is already being done depending on where you live. The real problem with modern education is a lack of resources and an abundance of red tape making it hard to do anything. Any teacher worth their salt will give real world examples. Plenty of schools have machine shops and gardens and kitchens, though how willing they are to make use of them will depend. To give a personal example, my high school had a machine shop but there were very strict rules for using it and the teacher wasn't very interested. Conversely, my physics teacher was amazing and loved her job. To return to the question in the op, I think a mandatory programming class would go a long way to help normalize STEM. Programming in general is very useful for plenty of other fields, and would hopefully inspire more kids to get into and have stronger opinions on things like FOSS. In the very least, programming would be far more useful than say, some arbitrary foreign language.

>>29399 >mandatory programming class I do like this. I also like the idea of having more open systems avaliable to students by default. In my first month of using gnulinux I learned more than years of exposure to mac and windows. Obviously schools still want sorta locked down pcs for many things but for learning about computers I don't think that makes sense. I have a friend who wants to get his kids to learn programming by giving them templeos systems.

>>28768 I've posted in this thread before, but missed this. >stdin and stdout are still king, and the predictions Unix made about the future of computing are holding true 50 years on. What predictions would those be? The UNIX way is to avoid solutions to problems, and then no one can agree on which solution to use. Just look at Ncurses. Read The UNIX-HATERS Handbook and understand UNIX is part of the problem. >Compare this to Windows which needs to add a new design language every 3 years, or how MacOS perpetually moves basic functionality around with each update. Compare that to Perl to Python 2 to 3 to whatever stupid soykaf will become popular next. >None of them had the foresight or interest in enabling the end user like Unix did, so they tend to give computers a bad rap. UNIX enables the end user by constantly getting in his way with stupid bullshit, because they believe solving problems once is boring compared to solving them repeatedly, forever. >The average person is caught in a loop of blaming their computer for an issue that could be easily debugged at a lower level, getting frustrated and using a dangerous workaround, and then getting more errors as a result. There's nothing low-level about the tens of millions of lines of C language soykaf such as the Linux kernel. They have all of those lines, and yet the kernel randomly kills a process when memory gets exhausted, rather than have a real strategy. If it were higher-level, it would ask me first. I've actually programmed at the machine code level, so it's just cute to see C language advocates call it low-level. >Having a streamlined UX and robust input/output is what makes software good for the common user, but that kind of power is at-odds with our surveillance state. There's nothing robust about UNIX input and output. Better machines existed, but the market killed them. Now it's all about employing people to pull levers digitally.

>>31387 >The UNIX way is to avoid solutions to problems, and then no one can agree on which solution to use. What do you mean by 'avoid solutions to problems'? Do you mean that there is no forward advancement? In that case I think you're basically incorrect. If you mean that none of the forward advancement is towards what you would consider a 'solution', then I ask you to say what you would want out of a 'solution'. >Compare that to Perl to Python 2 to 3 to whatever stupid soykaf will become popular next. So you mean that new software comes out? Python2 is still supported on most systems, and everyone who's seriously worried about portability can just write everything in POSIX sh which will probably always be supported. The X window system is still available to use pretty much everywhere (even in wayland-based desktop environments) and most KDE,GNOME,Ubuntu, etc. tools change very slowly (mostly due to lack of volunteers). >UNIX enables the end user by constantly getting in his way with stupid bullshit what kind of stupid bullshit? It's very rare I have to do something with my computer and there isn't a tool or established best practice for it. (this applies to my work on large UNIX clusters as well). >If it were higher-level, it would ask me first. How would this be implemented? You'd need some way for the kernel to stop *everything* and still display some inter-actable window that asks what you want to kill. It could be done I'm sure, but really this is something that the desktop environment should do. Check every few milliseconds how much virtual memory is available for allocation and prompt the user if there isn't enough. Waiting until there is truly not enough memory is just a bad idea. >I've actually programmed at the machine code level, so it's just cute to see C language advocates call it low-level. I have too, and I think C is pretty low level if your baseline for "low level" is x86 assembly. To do anything nice like scope-allocated variables or automatic garbage collection requires extensive macro modifications with the horrible C macro system.

Oh my, I forgot to post a pony. >>31392 >What do you mean by 'avoid solutions to problems'? Look at how broken the file system is. Oh well, use one of several databases instead. Again, look at how they just throw a C language library around for terminals, but that doesn't stop programs from sending the terminal control codes directly. >So you mean that new software comes out? That's the same with Windows and Mac OS, then. The sh is a joke, and X11 barely works. >what kind of stupid bullshit? How about throwing away the input I give it, because it has no sense of a global event log or file versioning, which is another problem UNIX doesn't solve and instead leaves to disparate programs. >It's very rare I have to do something with my computer and there isn't a tool or established best practice for it. (this applies to my work on large UNIX clusters as well). Read this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ Where's my Memex? >How would this be implemented? Why should I care? >You'd need some way for the kernel to stop *everything* and still display some inter-actable window that asks what you want to kill. Operating systems thirty years ago did it, but I guess that's too hard for little Linux starving on machines millions of times more powerful. >It could be done I'm sure, but really this is something that the desktop environment should do. Sure, but that requires an integrated solution. Notice nothing related to graphics is integrated. X11 is just a normal program for the most part. Even Windows integrates its graphics system with everything else. >Check every few milliseconds how much virtual memory is available for allocation and prompt the user if there isn't enough. That's typical UNIX inefficiency at play. >Waiting until there is truly not enough memory is just a bad idea. Older systems could do it. >I have too, and I think C is pretty low level if your baseline for "low level" is x86 assembly. We disagree.

>>31399 >>how would this be implemented? >why should I care? because presumably you have some vision for how this feature would work, unless you're some kind of user who never wants to contemplate how their computer works. In which case... yeah you should just buy a mac. >Operating systems thirty years ago did it operating systems thirty years ago didn't have the concept of separation of concerns. Window managing, device drivers, process management (if it existed at all) were handled in the same few thousand lines of code, and all happened in the same memory space, which meant that a poorly written program could corrupt a device driver's memory and brick your machine. The linux kernel isn't (and shouldn't be) in the business of managing your desktop environment. The kernel can't guarantee that some other program which does manage your environment won't try to allocate memory to show you a warning. Then again, you could just try to launch a window before the invalid allocation happens, and if that causes more allocations then fallback to original behavior could happen. So it's not *impossible*, just not the way I would do it.

>>31401 >because presumably you have some vision for how this feature would work, unless you're some kind of user who never wants to contemplate how their computer works. Well, in a high-level interactive system, there's always the concept of being able to ask the user a question, so just ask the user a question. >operating systems thirty years ago didn't have the concept of separation of concerns. This is a lie. Multics didn't? Genera didn't? Smalltalk didn't? >Window managing, device drivers, process management (if it existed at all) were handled in the same few thousand lines of code, and all happened in the same memory space, which meant that a poorly written program could corrupt a device driver's memory and brick your machine. This is another lie. Genera was millions of lines. These high-level systems didn't let a poorly written program do these things, because they were forced to go through the compiler and it wouldn't let them. On Genera, the hardware also performed checking. A poorly written program in Lisp can't corrupt memory, because it can't create pointers. >The linux kernel isn't (and shouldn't be) in the business of managing your desktop environment. See, this is what I mean. It has to happen anyway, but there's no single coherent solution. >The kernel can't guarantee that some other program which does manage your environment won't try to allocate memory to show you a warning. Genera allocated the out-of-memory help beforehand, because it knew about it. That's an advantage of the holistic approach.

>>31404 >Well, in a high-level interactive system, there's always the concept of being able to ask the user a question, so just ask the user a question. Cool, you've solved the problem then! All that's left is implementation

>>28751 Not everyone will become a good programmer. Not everyone needs to become a good programmer. But in the modern world, people should know a bit about programming and what parts the computer is made of. Everyone should be taught to write basic HTML and CSS. FOSS and Linux (something like Xubuntu) should be mentioned, too. Schools shouldn't require Windows or other proprietary software. Free software and Right to repair should be promoted (and people should be explained why they both are so important). Also, in the modern world, people should/need to know more about computers and tech. Most people do not even get the implications of surveillance or social media and data mining (or how social media is being to used to influence people). People should start caring about privacy more. Actually, there is a good book "Data And Goliath". The reason why we are heading for a world where social credit and mass-surveillance are the norm is that people don't know or even care enough. If they only understood that democracy or any form of freedom is not possible in such world because that kind of system will be used to control people (total control is the only goal of such system, in fact). You really shouldn't force people to go into STEM field. That only results in people caring less about STEM, and in the worst case, it may cause policymakers to make STEM more easy just to get more people into STEM programs (which would a total disaster).

>>28769 >i think the processing/p4.js guys have the right idea. Processing wasn't in my radar. Thank you, I'd been looking flr something like this.

>i want to teach algebra to monkeys it wont work because people get iq filtered unless you wave through failure. >>31408 >they dont know no they are willfully stupid because its easier to wishfully think its okay then admit there is a problem you need to fix. Just look at obesity.

>>28751 it's a difference in culture and worldview. the average person doesn't value a deeper understanding of the world around them and doesn't seek new perspectives. THAT is the fundamental difference and no amount of making things simpler and more accessible will change that. Sure you might attract a few but overall most won't give a soykaf. the spark of curiosity needs to be there and for most it simply isn't