關於 math word problem ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

成長的藝術　◎露琵‧考爾（Rupi Kaur）著；張家綺 譯
⠀
十二歲我第一次覺得自己美
身體猶如一顆初熟水果
突然間
男人淌著口水瞅著我的初生臀
下課時間男生不想玩捉鬼
只想觸摸我的身體
那嶄新又陌生的部位
我不曉得如何駕馭
也不知怎麼坦然面對
努力想將它藏在胸腔裡

咪咪，他們說
我厭惡這兩個字
厭惡我說出這兩個字的尷尬
即使這兩個字指的是我身體
卻不屬於我
而是屬於他們
他們重複這兩個字
好像深思它的含意
咪咪，它說
讓我看看妳的吧
除了罪惡羞恥沒什麼好看
我試著腐爛陷入腳底泥巴
卻依舊杵在距離他那
勾起指頭的一尺之外
他俯衝上來啃噬我的半月
我咬了他前臂，好恨這副軀體
一定是我做錯事才會有它

回家後我告訴媽媽
外面的男人飢腸轆轆
她告訴我
我不能穿袒露胸部的洋裝
又說，男孩看見蜜果會飢餓
她說，我應該兩腿交叉坐正
這是女人該有的姿態
不然男人會氣憤動粗
又說，我可以避免這一切
只要我學習當淑女
問題是
這根本說不過去
我想不通為什麼
我得說服全世界一半人口
我的身體不是他們的睡床
明明我該學的是科學和數學
卻得學習身為女人該承受的下場
我喜歡翻筋斗和體育課，無法
想像兩腿夾緊走路
似欲窩藏某個祕密
彷彿接受我自己的身體部位
就等於邀請他們腦海起邪念
我不打算迎合他們的思想
因為蕩婦羞辱是性侵文化
處女情結是性侵文化
我不是你最愛商店的
櫥窗模特兒
不能任你隨意更衣，或
一旦被用過就丟棄
你不是食人族
你的行為不是我的責任
你有自制能力

下一次我去上學
男孩朝我後背吹口哨
我推倒他們
一腳踩上他們的頸子
挑釁地說
咪咪
那個眼神簡直太好笑
⠀
⠀
i felt beautiful until the age of 12
when my body began to ripen like new fruit
and suddenly the men,
looked at my newborn hips with salivating lips
the boys didn't want to play tag at recess
they wanted to touch all the new and unfamiliar parts of me
the parts i didn't know how to carry
didn't know how to wear
tried to bury in my ribcage
⠀
boobs,
they said and
i hated that word
hated that i was embarrassed to say it
that even though it was referring to my body
it didn't belong to me
it belonged to them
and they repeated it like they were meditating upon it
boobs
they said
let me see yours
there is nothing worth seeing here
but guilt and shame
i try to rot into the earth below my feet
but i am still standing 1 foot across from his hooked fingers
and when he charges to feast on my half moons
i bite into his forearm
and decide that i hate this body
that i must have done something terrible
to deserve it
⠀
when i go home i tell my mother
that the men outside were starving
she tells me i must
not dress with my
breasts hanging
said the boys will get hungry
if they see fruit
she tells me to sit with my legs closed
like a woman oughtta
or the men will get angry and fight
said i can avoid all of this trouble
if i just learn to act like a lady
but the problem is
that doesn't even make sense
i can't wrap my head around the fact that
i have to convince half the worlds population
that my body is not their bed
i am busy learning the consequences of womanhood
when i should be learning science and math instead
i like cartwheels and gymnastics
so i can't imagine walking around with my thighs pressed together
like they're hiding a secret
as if the acceptance of my own body parts
will invite thoughts of lust in their heads
i will not subject myself to their ideology
because
slut shaming is rape culture
virgin praising is rape culture
i am not a mannequin in the window of your favourite shop
you can't dress me up or
throw me out
you are not a cannibal
your actions are not my responsibility
you will control yourself
⠀
so the next time i go to school
and the boys hoot at my backside
i push them down
foot over their necks
and defiantly say
boobs
the look in their eyes
is priceless
⠀
—'the art of growing', "the sun and her flowers" by by Rupi Kaur

The power of putting the first and second multiplication miracles side-by-side is to see the interesting math in them.

When Jesus was given five loaves of bread, He fed five thousand men and there were twelve baskets full leftover.

On the other hand, when Jesus was given more to start with—seven loaves, He fed only four thousand men and there were only seven baskets full leftover.

You see, the God-kind of math works like this: the less of your flesh that gets in the way, the more God can demonstrate His perfect power in the situation.

When you start with more loaves and fish, you’ll think that you need less of God’s power to overcome the problem.
Imagine if the multitudes had 10 cart loads full of loaves and fishes to begin with.
In that situation, man would tend to rely more on his own resources, ability and strength than on God.

However when all you have is five loaves and two fishes, with five thousand hungry men to feed, you can’t help but throw up your hands in surrender and admit that you cannot but only God can.

With God, less of man’s fleshly efforts is a better opportunity for Him to demonstrate His power and receive glory.

When you place your faith in Him, and not on your own existing resources, ability or strength, watch Him multiply His supply of Grace until it greatly exceeds the need.

There’s a Chinese proverb that says “One mountain still has another mountain taller than it.”
If you think you understand what being blessed means, wait till you keep humbly placing your faith in God as if you’re always starting from zero.
That’s as good as saying, “I believe that you’re infinitely greater than this my God, and the heights of your love and goodness towards me exceed even this.”

“Then he answered and spoke to me, saying, “This is Yahweh’s word to Zerubbabel, saying, ‘Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says Yahweh of Armies. Who are you, great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you are a plain; and he will bring out the capstone with shouts of ‘Grace, grace, to it!’”” ‭‭(Zechariah‬ ‭4:6-7‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

If you’re facing a great mountain today that feels like an unconquerable obstacle, don’t fear.
Your victory will not come by man’s might or power, but by the Holy Spirit—all by God’s Grace!

Become a patron and receive our new series “37 Miracles of Jesus” leading up to Christmas Day, as well as other attractive rewards in return for your support: http://Patreon.com/miltongohblog

In this exciting series, you’ll:

- Receive bold faith for miracles—stepping out from a powerless form of Christianity, into the kind that God intended!

- Understand the significance of the miracles of Jesus Christ—and why the Holy Spirit chose to feature them in the four gospels even though Jesus worked countless other miracles.

- Receive a power, uplifting message about Jesus and His power and goodness every day that refreshes your soul and prepares you to have a worshipful, meaningful Christmas.

#37MiraclesofJesus #BibleStudy

根據計算，100萬人遊行隊伍要從維多利亞公園排到廣東；200萬人遊行則要排到泰國。

順道一提香港15～30歲人口約莫100出頭萬人。以照片人群幾乎都是此年齡帶來看，兩個數字都是明顯誇大太多了。

另一個可以參考的是1969年的Woodstock Music & Art Fair，幾天內湧進40萬人次，照片看起來也是滿山滿谷的人。（http://sites.psu.edu/…/upl…/sites/851/2013/01/Woodstock3.jpg）

當年40萬人次引發驚人的大塞車，幾乎花十幾個小時才逐漸清場。

而香港遊行清場速度明顯快得多。

順道一提，因此運動而認定「你的父母不愛你」的白痴論述也如同文化大革命時的「爹親娘親不如毛主席親」般開始出現：

https://www.facebook.com/SaluteToHKPolice/videos/350606498983830/UzpfSTUyNzM2NjA3MzoxMDE1NjMyMTM4NjY3MTA3NA/

EVERY MAJOR NEWS outlet in the world is reporting that two million people, well over a quarter of our population, joined a single protest.
.
It’s an astonishing thought that filled an enthusiastic old marcher like me with pride. Unfortunately, it’s almost certainly not true.
.
A march of two million people would fill a street that was 58 kilometers long, starting at Victoria Park in Hong Kong and ending in Tanglangshan Country Park in Guangdong, according to one standard crowd estimation technique.
.
If the two million of us stood in a queue, we’d stretch 914 kilometers (568 miles), from Victoria Park to Thailand. Even if all of us marched in a regiment 25 people abreast, our troop would stretch towards the Chinese border.
.
Yes, there was a very large number of us there. But getting key facts wrong helps nobody. Indeed, it could hurt the protesters more than anyone.
.
For math geeks only, here’s a discussion of the actual numbers that I hope will interest you whatever your political views.
.
.
DO NUMBERS MATTER?
.
People have repeatedly asked me to find out “the real number” of people at the recent mass rallies in Hong Kong.
.
I declined for an obvious reason: There was a huge number of us. What does it matter whether it was hundreds of thousands or a million? That’s not important.
.
But my critics pointed out that the word “million” is right at the top of almost every report about the marches. Clearly it IS important.
.
.
FIRST, THE SCIENCE
.
In the west, drone photography is analyzed to estimate crowd sizes.
.
This reporter apologizes for not having found a comprehensive database of drone images of the Hong Kong protests.
.
But we can still use related methods, such as density checks, crowd-flow data and impact assessments. Universities which have gathered Hong Kong protest march data using scientific methods include Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Baptist University.
.
.
DENSITY CHECKS
.
Figures gathered in the past by Hong Kong Polytechnic specialists using satellite photo analysis found a density level of one square meter per marcher. Modern analysis suggests this remains roughly accurate.
.
I know from experience that Hong Kong marches feature long periods of normal spacing (one square meter or one and half per person, walking) and shorter periods of tight spacing (half a square meter or less per person, mostly standing).
.
.
JOINERS AND SPEED
.
We need to include people who join halfway. In the past, a Hong Kong University analysis using visual counting methods cross-referenced with one-on-one interviews indicated that estimates should be boosted by 12% to accurately reflect late joiners. These days, we’re much more generous in estimating joiners.
.
As for speed, a Hong Kong Baptist University survey once found a passing rate of 4,000 marchers every ten minutes.
.
Videos of the recent rallies indicates that joiner numbers and stop-start progress were highly erratic and difficult to calculate with any degree of certainty.
.
.
DISTANCE MULTIPLIED BY DENSITY
.
But scientists have other tools. We know the walking distance between Victoria Park and Tamar Park is 2.9 kilometers. Although there was overspill, the bulk of the marchers went along Hennessy Road in Wan Chai, which is about 25 meters (or 82 feet) wide, and similar connected roads, some wider, some narrower.
.
Steve Doig, a specialist in crowd analysis approached by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), analyzed an image of Hong Kong marchers to find a density level of 7,000 people in a 210-meter space. Although he emphasizes that crowd estimates are never an exact science, that figure means one million Hong Kong marchers would need a street 18.6 miles long – which is 29 kilometers.
.
Extrapolating these figures for the June 16 claim of two million marchers, you’d need a street 58 kilometers long.
.
Could this problem be explained away by the turnover rate of Hong Kong marchers, which likely allowed the main (three kilometer) route to be filled more than once?
.
The answer is yes, to some extent. But the crowd would have to be moving very fast to refill the space a great many times over in a single afternoon and evening. It wasn’t. While I can walk the distance from Victoria Park to Tamar in 41 minutes on a quiet holiday afternoon, doing the same thing during a march takes many hours.
.
More believable: There was a huge number of us, but not a million, and certainly not two million.
.
.
IMPACT MEASUREMENTS
.
A second, parallel way of analyzing the size of the crowd is to seek evidence of the effects of the marchers’ absence from their normal roles in society.
.
If we extract two million people out of a population of 7.4 million, many basic services would be severely affected while many others would grind to a complete halt.
.
Manpower-intensive sectors of society, such as transport, would be badly affected by mass absenteeism. Industries which do their main business on the weekends, such as retail, restaurants, hotels, tourism, coffee shops and so on would be hard hit. Round-the-clock operations such as hospitals and emergency services would be severely troubled, as would under-the-radar jobs such as infrastructure and utility maintenance.
.
There seems to be no evidence that any of that happened in Hong Kong.
.
.
HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS MESS?
.
To understand that, a bit of historical context is necessary.
.
In 2003, a very large number of us walked from Victoria Park to Central. The next day, newspapers gave several estimates of crowd size.
.
The differences were small. Academics said it was 350,000 plus. The police counted 466,000. The organizers, a group called the Civil Rights Front, rounded it up to 500,000.
.
No controversy there. But there was trouble ahead.
.
.
THINGS FALL APART
.
At a repeat march the following year, it was obvious to all of us that our numbers were far lower that the previous year. The people counting agreed: the academics said 194,000 and the police said 200,000.
.
But the Civil Rights Front insisted that there were MORE than the previous year’s march: 530,000 people.
.
The organizers lost credibility even with us, their own supporters. To this day, we all quote the 2003 figure as the high point of that period, ignoring their 2004 invention.
.
.
THE TRUTH COUNTS
.
The organizers had embarrassed the marchers. The following year several organizations decided to serve us better, with detailed, scientific counts.
.
After the 2005 march, the academics said the headcount was between 60,000 and 80,000 and the police said 63,000. Separate accounts by other independent groups agreed that it was below 100,000.
.
But the organizers? The Civil Rights Front came out with the awkward claim that it was a quarter of a million. Ouch. (This data is easily confirmed from multiple sources in newspaper archives.)
.
.
AN UNEXPECTED TWIST
.
But then came a twist. Some in the Western media chose to present ONLY the organizer’s “outlier” claim.
.
“Dressed in black and chanting ‘one man, one vote’, a quarter of a million people marched through Hong Kong yesterday,” said the Times of London in 2005.
.
“A quarter of a million protesters marched through Hong Kong yesterday to demand full democracy from their rulers in Beijing,” reported the UK Independent.
.
It became obvious that international media outlets were committed to emphasizing whichever claim made the Hong Kong government (and by extension, China) look as bad as possible. Accuracy was nowhere in the equation.
.
.
STRATEGICALLY CHOSEN
.
At universities in Hong Kong, there were passionate discussions about the apparent decision to pump up the numbers as a strategy, with the international media in mind. Activists saw two likely positive outcomes.
.
First, anyone who actually wanted the truth would choose a middle point as the “real” number: thus it was worth making the organizers’ number as high as possible. (The police could be presented as corrupt puppets of Beijing.)
.
Second, international reporters always favored the largest number, since it implicitly criticized China. Once the inflated figure was established in the Western media, it would become the generally accepted figure in all publications.
.
Both of the activists’ predictions turned out to be bang on target. In the following years, headcounts by social scientists and police were close or even impressively confirmed the other—but were ignored by the agenda-driven international media, who usually printed only the organizers’ claims.
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION
.
Skip this section unless you want additional examples to reinforce the point.
.
In 2011, researchers and police said that between 63,000 and 95,000 of us marched. Our delightfully imaginative organizers multiplied by four to claim there were 400,000 of us.
.
In 2012, researchers and police produced headcounts similar to the previous year: between 66,000 and 97,000. But the organizers claimed that it was 430,000. (These data can also be easily confirmed in any newspaper archive.)
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION TOO
.
Unless you’re interested in the police angle. Why are police figures seen as lower than others? On reviewing data, two points emerge.
.
First, police estimates rise and fall with those of independent researchers, suggesting that they function correctly: they are not invented. Many are slightly lower, but some match closely and others are slightly higher. This suggests that the police simply have a different counting method.
.
Second, police sources explain that live estimates of attendance are used for “effective deployment” of staff. The number of police assigned to work on the scene is a direct reflection of the number of marchers counted. Thus officers have strong motivation to avoid deliberately under-estimating numbers.
.
.
RECENT MASS RALLIES
.
Now back to the present: this hot, uncomfortable summer.
.
Academics put the 2019 June 9 rally at 199,500, and police at 240,000. Some people said the numbers should be raised or even doubled to reflect late joiners or people walking on parallel roads. Taking the most generous view, this gave us total estimates of 400,000 to 480,000.
.
But the organizers, God bless them, claimed that 1.03 million marched: this was four times the researchers’ conservative view and more than double the generous view.
.
The addition of the “.03m” caused a bit of mirth among social scientists. Even an academic writing in the rabidly pro-activist Hong Kong Free Press struggled to accept it. “Undoubtedly, the anti-amendment group added the extra .03 onto the exact one million figure in order to give their estimate a veneer of accuracy,” wrote Paul Stapleton.
.
.
MIND-BOGGLING ESTIMATE
.
But the vast majority of international media and social media printed ONLY the organizers’ eyebrow-raising claim of a million plus—and their version soon fed back into the system and because the “accepted” number. (Some mentioned other estimates in early reports and then dropped them.)
.
The same process was repeated for the following Sunday, June 16, when the organizers’ frankly unbelievable claim of “about two million” was taken as gospel in the majority of international media.
.
“Two million people in Hong Kong protest China's growing influence,” reported Fox News.
.
“A record two million people – over a quarter of the city’s population” joined the protest, said the Guardian this morning.
.
“Hong Kong leader apologizes as TWO MILLION take to the streets,” said the Sun newspaper in the UK.
.
Friends, colleagues, fellow journalists—what happened to fact-checking? What happened to healthy skepticism? What happened to attempts at balance?
.
.
CONCLUSIONS?
.
I offer none. I prefer that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. This is just a rough overview of the scientific and historical data by a single old-school citizen-journalist working in a university coffee shop.
.
I may well have made errors on individual data points, although the overall message, I hope, is clear.
.
Hong Kong people like to march.
.
We deserve better data.
.
We need better journalism. Easily debunked claims like “more than a quarter of the population hit the streets” help nobody.
.
International media, your hostile agendas are showing. Raise your game.
.
Organizers, stop working against the scientists and start working with them.
.
Hong Kong people value truth.
.
We’re not stupid. (And we’re not scared of math!)

KẾT NỐI VỚI MÌNH TRÊN INSTAGRAM: @TTDUC95
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ttduc95
Instagram: @ttduc95
Business Inquiry: david@mywallie.com

SUBSCRIBE YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDGTEX6ewfr9KitX4qPCRjA?sub_confirmation=1

PODCAST: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-trong-duc-podcast/id1304201102?mt=2
SOUNDCLOUD: https://soundcloud.com/duc-tran-22

## TRANSCRIPT E:
Alright this’s going to be a fun episode. It’s the first video that I speak English to my Vietnamese people - and heck, I’m not that ready to do this.

How can I talk to native English speakers with an accent. Will they judge?
By now you know that I’m not a native English speaker. I was born in Vietnam and only seriously learnt English in tenth grade or so. That’s why it’s naturally that I have an accent. It means that the way we talk is not as natural as native speakers do.

That’s why many of you DMed me and asked if people judge when you talk like this - or how I can talk confidently with an accent - I guess.

The answer is you - talk. Passionately. And don’t hold back.

But think about it. A lot of people say that they are not confident in speaking because they are afraid that people will judge them. They use it as an excuse to not learn English and speak in the first place.

Most people don’t even try. They keep thinking in their head that people will judge them. And they would never get better so they stop and they never learn.

So my friends, just talk. Talk passionately. Talk with all you have. There’s no how-to-talk tips or tricks. You just have to try. You just have to put yourself in the situation that you must talk. A lot. I guess that’s the secret. You must put yourself in situations that you must talk, a lot!

Let me give you a few examples.
Back in high school, I enrolled in this TOEFL class and every other day, the teacher would ask us to listen to tapes of conversations in English. I listened to them then write them down word, by word, by word. We literally use the cassette player because the teacher was kind of old-school cool that way. I had this big-ass SONY cassette player and every day I would tick … tick przz. Then in class, he would make round. Each of us will speak out loud, in front of the class each sentence.
But I knew that each session, I could only speak probably five or six times. That’s not enough. So I asked the teacher, if he could spent a few minutes each session to review a tape in which I pre-record all the conversations of that class.
That’s one way I did it. I put myself in the situation that I was held accountable by the teacher, that every session, I would submit my speaking cassette to him. And he was so kind to expect that and spend the time to help me. But here’s the thing, most people don’t ask. Most people don’t put in the work.

Another example,
All the years I was in college, each semester I would have a Math class with this specific professor that I like so much. But in the first period of my entire college life, he talked so fast with a lot of terminologies that I had no clues what they mean.
I was confused and overwhelmed so at the end of the period, I stayed and wanted to approach him to ask how I could do better. Would I be able to catch up with this class. And it took me seriously nearly five minutes just to go and talk to him because heck I was afraid that he would judge me, right?
But I forced myself to go talk to him and ask for his help. And he said I would be just fine. Go get this book and do some readings and he would help me as well.
The way he taught was so cool. He made each Math problem as an opportunity for students to present the solution in front the class. And guess what I did?
I knew that I would be shied. I knew that I was scared. I knew that I spoke terribly and I had an accent. I knew that I’m afraid that the whole class would judge because of my accent.
this. I’m still trying to get better. That’s why till this day, I record myself teaching something, speaking if not every day then every week.

You just have to talk. A lot. Every day.

## TAGS:
cách học nói tiếng anh,học tiếng anh,luyện nói tiếng anh,tự học tiếng anh,cách phát âm tiếng anh,bí kíp học tiếng anh,trong duc,duc,tran trong duc,mục tiêu,năm mới,motivation,mục tiêu năm mới,đặt mục tiêu,nghề nghiệp,định hướng,tương lai,đam mê,ước mơ,du học,học bổng,ngành học,chuyển trường,chọn ngành học,chọn chuyên môn,thần tượng