Live data from Hacker News

Ti-84 Evo

education.ti.com

441–450 of 503 posts

Re: Ti-84 Evo

#441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone here have an idea why the models jumped around like that? Like why'd the 82 come out after the 85, or the 83 after the 92?

One other factor that others haven't yet covered is that the different lines had different capabilities, e.g. the T-89 had Computer Algebra System symbolic manipulation meaning it could pretty much solve many types of math problems on its own, so it wasn't generally allowed in school. And then the Ti-85/86 was a step down, but had matrix support that the lower models lacked, so it was necessary for some specific type…

This. The thread's confusion comes from looking at these as computers: more capabilities are always an improvement.

In common use, they're intended as mathematical learning aids, a function for which very specific sets of functionality (and no more) are required.

F.ex. basic matrix ops but no auto-solvers

Similar to how you wouldn't give a kid learning how to construct an argumentative essay access to a full LLM if the goal is learning how to perform the task.

Re: Ti-84 Evo

#442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... it was an ungrounded plug... Plus it was a chain, so it'd drape across all 3. TBH, in the house I mount them ground down, but under cabinets or in the garage/shop or etc I mount it ground up.

I think ground up commonly indicates that an outlet is controlled by a switch on the wall. It's not code, but I think it's a convention

Agreed, I have seen that.

Re: Ti-84 Evo

#443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a hero of mine so here is my story. Me in math class in 1996 - I had a TI-82 things are programmable so I have no formal education, my parents are illiterate, and taught myself to program, and I begged them to buy me one. I spent time learning how to code on it, writing from scratch, the game Spyhunter. I couldn't figure out how to draw with lines or pixels so I used ASCII or text. I presented this to my teach…

The fact that you made a game on a device that "wasn't for games" is even cooler.

The essence of hack.

Re: Ti-84 Evo

#444
post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One other factor that others haven't yet covered is that the different lines had different capabilities, e.g. the T-89 had Computer Algebra System symbolic manipulation meaning it could pretty much solve many types of math problems on its own, so it wasn't generally allowed in school. And then the Ti-85/86 was a step down, but had matrix support that the lower models lacked, so it was necessary for some specific type…

This. The thread's confusion comes from looking at these as computers: more capabilities are always an improvement. In common use, they're intended as mathematical learning aids , a function for which very specific sets of functionality (and no more) are required. F.ex. basic matrix ops but no auto-solvers Similar to how you wouldn't give a kid learning how to construct an argumentative essay access to a full LLM if…

From a product POV, sure. From an end user’s perspective, I strongly dislike that. There’s no room for growth there. Buy the model that does matrices when you’re taking linear algebra, and you learn that model through and through. Then take an engineering class where you need a solved, and now you have to use a different device that works subtly differently in enough ways that you have to learn all about it.

I just want one device that does everything so my new learning can build on my old.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere here, I love the TI-85 I used through college. I’m no partisan. However, I think that for anything outside a school context, that means skipping any device marketed as “ok to use on tests” and buying an HP. I scarcely need the cool stuff of the HP50g or DM42n I picked up along the way, but if I ever do, I know it’s already in there and waiting for me to discover it.

Re: Ti-84 Evo

#445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see a post about the TI calculators, I think about how much I dislike their interface, and it's all because I started out on a Casio.

I had a Casio that was multi color, because I thought it was cooler. Display was nice, functionality sucked.

I had a Casio as well because, IIRC, it was the only thing the shop had. Eventually I had to also get a TI because it allowed using imaginary numbers in a matrix operation. Not that that was used in more than one course after all. But I grew to like it and even had an emulator for a long time on my first smart phone.

But yeah, Casio was definitely more friendly and polished in UI, but dumber. You could only use "wizard" type things and pseudo gui clickies while the ti was crude and text-heavy but let you enter just about anything anywhere and seemed more symbol and language oriented. Which one was nicer in use? I guess it would depend on how much of that language you could memorize. Or browse a cheat sheet for.

Re: Ti-84 Evo

#446
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly high or surprisingly low?

IMHO surprisingly low. Still not clear to me why they don't just port these things to ARM or similar?

I'm not an expert in this department but I wonder if battery life is a factor here. My Ti-84+ has not fully died once since I was in middle school (as a college graduate now). It can survive an entire year out of use and would still have a usable charge when I would pick it back up for a new math class.

Re: Ti-84 Evo

#447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lack of functionality is the point. You don't want a full CAS or Internet search results available, or many students will just take the easy route and not learn anything. Neither teachers nor school districts have the time or resources to audit every new tool someone wants to use, or to help students figure out how to use their preferred tool to do something - find something that works and just use that

It's a weird halfway house. I had a cheap Casio fx calculator. It got me all the way through my exams in school and university. I had Mathematica at home. While I can see that being very good on a TI-84 would help you complete exams faster and get better marks, is that a skill that we want students to learn? Being good on a fancy calculator is essentially useless in real life. In real life people use computers not fa…

The ability to quickly graph functions and see them visually is an enormous aid to learning. Similarly, for various topics like statistics the ability to operate on a dataset is beneficial. Doing all of the raw arithmetic that goes into Chi Squared or whatever isn't particularly important for statistical analysis, and being able to get to the important bits faster is very beneficial.

Where to draw the line depends on the course. In general tools that "give the answer" for something where thinking provides insight are bad in education - for instance, a CAS which will simply compute derivatives isn't beneficial when taking Calculus. Things that eliminate grunt work not useful to that intuition - like computing the same formula 40 times to draw a graph by hand - are beneficial.

Re: Ti-84 Evo

#448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s what all people say. Everyone who is status driven will not admit or even realize they are status driven. But the fact of the matter is… it is human nature to be status driven. Everyone recognizes status symbols and possesses such a drive within them. It is also clinically tied with serotonin levels and observed in cross species behavior. To say you have no drive for status is an either a lie or delusional. Th…

Again, I think you're entirely off base here. Maybe you are status driven enough that you can't wrap your head around someone who isn't, but I'm really just not interested in it. I want to give my family a comfortable life and spend time with them. That's it. To color that a little, I've literally told the last 4 managers I've had very explicitly that I'm not at all interested in career advancement. When I was asked…

>Again, I think you're entirely off base here. Maybe you are status driven enough that you can't wrap your head around someone who isn't, but I'm really just not interested in it. I want to give my family a comfortable life and spend time with them. That's it.

Read carefully the part about science. Status seeking is inherit in biology... it's tied to serotonin levels in your blood. When you say you don't seek status it is not only false, it is unscientific. You're a liar or delusional. End of story. I can literally cite science around this.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11275287/

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1606800113

This tracks not only in humans, but across multiple species including the lobster. Status seeking is in built into biology and society. Saying you don't status seek is like saying you never felt the emotion of sadness or happiness. At your job, in society, the social hierarchies are everywhere and we are ALL wired to recognize and respond to these things and to SEEK it.

Additionally there is extremely high correlation with women and status. Men with the highest status tend to get the most women. And women are attracted to the men with the highest status. It's directly tied to sexual selection and evolution. Like... this isn't even just a measurable thing via serotonin... it's tied to the theory of evolution and anthropological origins of humans. You literally have no argument other than a pathetic attempt to counter science with anecdotal bullshit.

Saying you don't seek status is in itself status seeking. You're claiming to be holier than thou but it's all just bullshit status signaling because it flies in the face of scientific reality. I think you're more of a person who is unable to obtain status in the human social hierarchy... you're probably among the lowest of society so you might've just given up and called yourself a person who never felt the emotion to status seek. Understandable... but again not realistic.

Also when I say you're pathetically on the bottom of the barrel in terms of status. You shouldn't be offended... because you don't seek status... it's not intrinsic to your character.. You should feel nothing when I call you an utter social outcast with no status whatsoever.

>To color that a little, I've literally told the last 4 managers I've had very explicitly that I'm not at all interested in career advancement. When I was asked to lead my current team, I said "I've done it in the past and can if you want, but check with A and B first to see if they want to". I literally do not care about it.

Bro this is another form of status signaling. "Everyone wants me to be their manager but I don't care for it." lol. It might be true but then again it very well might not be since your statement is a bit braggy here. If you could share with me something people and society will find pathetic and shameful about you... that's more solid proof that you don't care about status. Something like, "Everyone hates me, I've tried to be manager all my life but nobody likes me." That's a more true signal of zero status seeking. But I don't see this in you at all.

To put it in perspective, I think I believe you don't actually want to be manager... but that has nothing to do with not caring for status. It's more likely you're balancing "status" with the extra responsibilities that come with higher status. You can't handle the price that needs to be paid to reach that level so you "settle". Again, very common. You maintain a baseline level of status high enough to keep your wife around (she will leave if your status goes low enough as your status is tied to your ability to raise your family) but it doesn't demand to much out of you. If status was given to you without cost... you would take it without hesitation because... again... you seek status, like all humans do.

>Especially when it comes to teaching, if your identity is "better than child" instead of "person who helps children reach their potential" I'm not sure what to say. Sounds like a narcissist.

No. You're just someone who can't face reality. You have to talk about everything in idealist terms. If a teacher thinks all children are smarter, more educated or better than him, what identity does he have left? How is he even qualified to teach children? A teacher or any human does not think of his job as some selfless charity to society where he is at the utter whim of sacrificing himself for the class room. He has identity and gains status from the role as a "teacher" and that is a huge part of it. It's the same with being a doctor... if you think people become doctors solely just to save people and that it has nothing to do with status... you're out of touch with basic reality.

You not only fail to empathize from the teachers perspective but you succeeded in twisting your response into a direct attack on me. Manipulative. But pointless. This is just an internet forum... winning the crowd doesn't mean shit. This is one of the few opportunities you have to say things that are True and real with no affect on your status.

Anyway what I present is CLEARLY not a narcissistic concept. I am clearly not a narcissist and neither are you. It is a basic concept of basic intelligence. Something you're lacking.

>If we're talking about who's more human, I'd put forward that caring about who's best seems less humanizing than seeking to spend time with people you care about, remembering how lucky you are to have that time, and ignoring outside noise.

When I referred to humans I was more trying to illustrate how your claims don't make sense. Humans seek status period. End of story. If you don't seek status, you're not a human... you're an alien... you clearly aren't an alien... so you're clearly wrong. That was the point.

I'm talking from a hard scientific perspective. You're well outside of that right now and you're only thinking from the perspective of your family. But status seeking is still there, but it's more passed to the status of your children which is still inline with natural selection and biology.

You care for the status of your children, do you not? If your children grew up poor and homeless but extremely happy with their life style would you be content? Or do you care about the status of your children and not want them to grow up ending up in the lowest possible strata of status in human society?

Re: Ti-84 Evo

#449
post #5

> Built to be a reliable learning tool, not a distraction 15 year old me in math class programming my loaned TI-82: CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

Jokes on you, you learned to program.

Didn't let schooling interfere with their education.

Re: Ti-84 Evo

#450
post #373

What calculators are you guys using that aren't in academia anymore and don't need the "exam approved" limitations? Or are we all just using software on our computers now. That would be sad. (I've had a Casio fx-991EX on my desk for a few years, that replaced a broken Casio fx-991ES. Though designed for academia, its operation is burned into my brain at this point.)

emacs calc. It's RPN by default, inspired by HP RPN calculators. Also allows algebraic input. Or often just a python repl

> emacs

> python repl

Hmm...

Post reply on HN