It’s also clearly not a bug as some people suggest. Bugs are – by definition – unintended behavior.

There are plenty of bugs that are well documented. I can’t tell you the number of times that I’ve seen someone do something wrong, that they think is 100% right, and “carefully” document it. Then someone finds an edge case and points out the defined behavior has a bug, because the human forgot to account for something.

The other thing I’d point out that I didn’t see in your blog is that I’ve seen many many people say they need to evaluate the 2(3) portion first because “parenthesis”. No matter how many times I explain that this is a notation for multiplication, they try to claim it doesn’t matter because parenthesis. screams into the void

The fact of the matter is that any competent person that has to write out one of these equations will do so in a way that leaves no ambiguity. These viral math posts are just designed to insert ambiguity where it shouldn’t be, and prey on people who can’t remember middle school math.

If you’re going to take a class to learn how to do X, but never actually learn how to do X because you’re letting a machine do all the work, why even take the class?

In the real world, even if you’re using all the newest, cutting edge stuff, you still need to understand the concepts behind what you’re doing. You still have to know what to put into the tool and that what you get out is something that works.

If the tool, AI, whatever, is smart enough to accomplish the task without you actually knowing anything, what the hell are you useful for?

Another “fun” fact. More people in California voted for Trump than in any other state.