About 8% in 2022, under 30yold 12.6%, under 20yold 17.9%, over 60yold 2%.

There doesn’t seem to be an official quota, at least I couldn’t find anything concrete. Should be state law and that’s generally easy to find. OTOH there’s a literal fuckton of organisations involved running Kindergarten, many are independent associations, others are run by churches or municipalities, all of those may have their official or unofficial guidelines.

(For the Americans: Kindergarten is not part of the school system over here y’all are misusing the term. Kindergarten is where you develop motor skills (and other things) through play, school is where you then learn to write. Definitely no home-work. Generally not mandatory though some states have introduced mandatory developmental tests so that kids who lag behind in some areas can get that fixed by professionals (minimum 3 years education) before school starts so they don’t start their school career at a disadvantage)

The push seems to come largely from academia and professional organisations. Here’s a nice, long interview in a professional publication from 2013, I recommend reading the whole thing but this strikes me:

In our representative study […] 40% of parents, 43% of daycare centre managers and 48% of intendants stated that they - more or less intensively - had thought about the risk of abuse by an educator.
Remarkably, however, these survey groups also showed a very high level of approval towards men in daycare centres. In our study, around 90% of parents, daycare centre managers and intendants consider it important that children are cared for by male professionals.

90% is rather significant, I’d be interested in numbers from other countries. It’s more than enough so that you don’t need advocacy to get things started because practically everyone already acknowledges that it’s an issue that needs solving, all that was apparently necessary is for someone to sit down and develop ready-made strategies regarding getting men into the profession, allaying fears, making sure that organisational structures make it harder, not easier, for abusers, etc. That seems to be mostly “have them be democratic and not hierarchical”, which is of course a good idea in general.

Why is basic arithmetic so sacred that it must not be besmirched?

It isn’t. It’s convenient. Toss it if you don’t want to use it. What’s not an option though is to use it incorrectly, and that would be insisting that 0.999… /= 1, because that doesn’t make any sense.

A notational system doesn’t get to say “well I like to do numbers this way, let’s break all the axioms or arithmetic”. If you say that 0.333… = 1/3, then it necessarily follows that 0.999… = 1. Forget about “but how do I calculate that” think about “does multiplying the same number by the same number yield the same result”.

catches people because using arithmetic properly leads to an incorrect understanding of repeating decimals.

Repeating decimals aren’t apart from decimal arithmetic. They’re a necessary part of it. If you didn’t learn 0.999… = 1, you did not learn decimal arithmetic. And with “necessary” I mean necessary: Any positional system that supports expressing rational numbers will have repeating digits. It’s the trade-off you make, by fixing the divisor (10 in our case), to make numbers easily comparable by size, because no number can divide any number cleanly because there’s an infinite number of primes. Quick, which is the bigger number: 38/127 or 39/131.

Any notational system has its awkward spots. You will not get around awkward spots. Decimal notation has quite few of them, certainly fewer than Roman numerals where being able to do long division earned you a Ph.D. If you can come up with something better be my guest, I already linked you to a starting point.

0.999… has no smallest digit, thus the carry operation fails to roll it over to 1.

That’s where limits get involved, snatching the carry from the brink of infinity. You could, OTOH, also ignore that and simply accept that it has to be the case because 0.333… * 3. And let me emphasise this doubly and triply: That is a correct mathematical understanding. You don’t need to get limits involved. It doesn’t make it any more correct, or detailed, or anything. Glancing at Occam’s razor, it’s even the preferable explanation: There’s a gazillion overcomplicated and egg-headed ways to write 1 + 1 = 2 (just have a look at the Principia Mathematica), that doesn’t mean that a kindergarten student doesn’t understand the concept correctly. Begone, superfluous sophistication!

(I just noticed that sophistication actually shares a root with sophistry. What a coincidence)

Someone using only basic arithmetic on decimal notation will conclude that 0.999… is not 1.

Doesn’t pass scrutiny, because then either 0.333… /= 1/3 or 3 /= 3 (or both). It simply cannot be the case when looking at the whole system, as opposed to only the single question 0.999… ?= 1 and trying to glean something from that. Context matters: Any answer to that question has to be consistent with all the rest you know about the natural numbers. And only 0.999… = 1 fulfils that.

Why are you making this so complicated?

They’ve definitely done that before, dunno if it was deliberately. They must have somewhat of an idea how long it takes for nocebo to kick in with the local village idiots, if it’s short enough it could actually be a rather good idea to make waiting a bit a general policy. Tank some mild capital and opportunity cost to prevent having to battle in court and the town newspaper? Sounds like a win to me.

Not really, they’d need to triple their numbers.

Numbers on the far left are misleading as Die Linke is bleeding members to the BSW but the BSW is taking their sweet time handing out membership cards, double-checking every single applicant. Reportedly they have a backlog of at least 8000 applicants or such and at least 20k people generally interested. Wagenknecht is at least 70% tankie so it doesn’t surprise that they’re doing a vanguard thing.

The majority of my casual partners have explicitly requested, or discussed how attractive they find, borderline abusive behavior: physical aggression, jealousy, catcalling and infantalizing language, relentless pursuit, etc.

What they say they want is usually not what they want. Let me take your examples apart:

physical aggression,

The actually attractive thing is being able to hold your own, and be self-directed. Anger and aggression are a pale imitation of that preferred by some women because they’ve never seen anything off the doormat - douchebag axis. Or, differently put: You can’t be peaceful while being harmless. If she prefers a bit of a thrill loom there like a rollercoaster handing out tickles if you dare to get on.

jealousy,

Is a pale imitation of loyalty. It’s what passes as attachment in lieu of meaningful connection, as relationship security in lieu of figuring out what both of you want from your own and the other’s life.

catcalling

Yes she wants to be considered attractive. She likes compliments. We all do… at least from the right people, in the right situation, for a thing we want to be complimented for. The trick is to be able to mind-read :)

and infantalizing language,

That’s about being cared for, having space to not have to care about things, space to stop adulting. If she generally fails at adulting that’s a red flag, if she has her shit together, heck, why not, I can make pancakes with happy faces on them.

relentless pursuit, etc.

See jealousy. Basically the same mechanism.

You’re not out of the “masculinity rat race” if you don’t do something that some people see as not manly.

I wouldn’t know whether I’m doing that because I don’t care. Got more interesting things to consider.

I think there’s a couple of people around with collective OCD that just can’t stand metaphor.

Jokes aside, and not being a sociologist, I do think it’s a good distinction because PTSD implies a maladaptive reaction to trauma, and communities, just like individuals, can process their trauma well or they can mess it up.

I get that ever model is wrong, but some are useful.

There is nothing wrong about decimal notation. It is correct. There’s also nothing wrong about Roman numerals… they’re just awkward AF.

Basic decimal notation doesn’t work well with some things, and insinuates incorrect answers.

You could just as well argue that fractional notation “insinuates” that 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/6. You could argue that 8 + 8 is four because that’s four holes there. Lots of things that people can consider more intuitive than the intended meaning. Don’t get me started on English spelling.

Terms.

There! Syntax. We went over this. Seriously, we did, and, no, I got the last word.

I suggest you check some Maths textbooks, instead of listening to a Physics major.

I can check any textbook from any discipline. You know what? I could even ask my school teachers. Because I’m not American and I wasn’t taught shit that doesn’t match up with what professionals are doing.

You’re just another yank drunk on jingoism, “We do it like that, therefore, it is right”.

You had the option to not double down and didn’t take it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCDca6dYpA

…oh wait I remember that Unicody user name. It’s you. Didn’t I already explain to you the difference between syntax and semantics until you gave up. I suggest we don’t do it again but instead, you review the thread.

Yes, you killed it.

Wait, let me try:

The earth is flat!

See how funny I am?

Really, you did it. You really did it. You killed humour so dead it’s not even working for me, any more.

Also it’s not like “getting food is easier” is the only hypothesis out there as to why we settled down. Another one, IMO much more in line with human nature, is that we figured out how to ferment beer and for that reason planted buttloads of grain.

Ackchyually… that’s completely wrong. Frighteningly so, I might add, where has basic education gone.

Ultrasound are mechanical waves, light is EM radiation. Really slow light is infrared. Really fast ultrasound is… even more ultra ultrasound. Slower ultrasound would be this.

If you’re taking photos on a nude beach in Europe you’re getting decked. Kid, adult, doesn’t matter.

There’s a massive fucking difference between sitting naked in a sauna with other naked people and sitting on public transit, fully dressed, gossiping about non-consensual nudes of children. How is that even a question. How are you capable of equating those things.

Help them remove the stigma around their bodies and sex, and empower them to speak and be heard when something they don’t like happens.

This. So much this. If auntie wants to give them a kiss and they don’t want to get slobbered then tough fucking luck auntie, I’ll back the little shits up when they bite you. Predators are, by and large, able to do what they do because people don’t teach kids that they do, in fact, have bodily autonomy.

And while I’m at it bodily autonomy of kids also implies that parents don’t parade photos around like some fucking trophy or something. Have some basic fucking regard for your own kids and what they want. How would you feel when they’re showing nude pictures of you to their classmates yeah I thought so.

Simlocks have completely vanished from the market at least here in Germany, mostly because carriers don’t care if you use your subsidised bonus phone with a different card – you’re still locked into a contract with two years or such minimum duration. Even those contracts have gotten rare though I think most people right-out own their phones and then make a separate contract.

0.999… = 1 requires more advanced algebra in a pointed argument,

You’re used to one but not the other. You convinced yourself that because one is new or unacquainted it is hard, while the rest is not. The rule I mentioned Is certainly easier that 2x/x that’s actual algebra right there.

It’s as if all math must be regarded as infinitely perfect, and any unbelievers must be cast out to the pyre of harsh correction

Why, yes. I totally can see your point about decimal notation being awkward in places though I doubt there’s a notation that isn’t, in some area or the other, awkward, and decimal is good enough. We’re also used to it, that plays a big role in whether something is judged convenient.

On the other hand 0.9999… must be equal to 1. Because otherwise the system would be wrong: For the system to be acceptable, for it to be infinitely perfect in its consistency with everything else, it must work like that.

And that’s what everyone’s saying when they’re throwing “1/3 = 0.333… now multiply both by three” at you: That 1 = 0.9999… is necessary. That it must be that way. And because it must be like that, it is like that. Because the integrity of the system trumps your own understanding of what the rules of decimal notation are, it trumps your maths teacher, it trumps all the Fields medallists. That integrity is primal, it’s always semantics first, then figure out some syntax to support it (unless you’re into substructural logics, different topic). It’s why you see mathematicians use the term “abuse of notation” but never “abuse of semantics”.

The teacher couldn’t possibly fathom marking “mega” right for students who had only context from the classroom and also marking “yotta” right for students who had done independent research.

That is child abuse. Literally. The way my teachers worked, presumably because they learned how to deal with the situation when actually studying pedagogics (a thing we require of teachers here) is to give an extra point because you want to encourage kids to figure things out on their own.