https://preview.redd.it/7ki80hdlkdbh1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=9bfc2646fc55df26d5cf666a377ded8b4c0d8871

Front Matter

The world is moving toward AI and nothing is stopping it. Learn it or fall behind. Engineering programs, in fact all college programs likely, are beginning to incorporate AI. For example CSULB (my former university) and LAHC (my former transfer college) have courses specifically designed for effectively leveraging AI or programming with/for it. I view AI as the next major milestone in technology: steam engine, electricity, landlines, radio and television, automobiles, automation, computers, Internet, autonomous devices and vehicles, wide AI accessibility. Whatever comes next will be based on AI.

Introduction

First let me answer one burning question: is it okay to use AI for homework or other projects? Absolutely!!! But do not use AI to do the work for you. And most importantly understand that all AI models can be prone to confident yet wrong answers (hallucinations). If a response doesn't appear rational reword prompt and send it again. Also use AI to check other AI models.

Six Styles

The most valid use of AI is to validate your work and as a tutor. If stuck on a problem or concept, instruct AI to explain it to you using various styles as needed:

1. Textbook - a variation of this tends to be the default style and it usually takes you where you want to go.
2. Softer Language - like a lower education level (i.e. explain it to me like I'm 5) then ramp up from there.
3. Symbolism - explaining core ideas with metaphors or analogies (my favorite approach). This helps to strip away all the noise to get down to first principles.
4. Steps - instruct AI to create an outline of simple steps.
5. Flowchart - have AI create a flowchart of steps.
6. Complete Solutions - it is also valid to have AI generate complete solutions but only after all other attempts have been exhausted. If you reach this stage do not let it become a black box. This is a very tempting single source of failure. Make certain you own it by going through each line with AI until you can defend every step. Remember, make it yours, because you will be tested on it.

If you're thinking you can rely on point 6 by obfuscating your work to bypass AI sniffers by going through it line by line to replace words or phrases or style, that is still studying albeit at a lower level. I wish to stress that the only way to prove you learned the material is to be capable of defending it. That is what exams are for. There may be other creative ways to use AI but the prior 6 are likely the most common.

Transparency

If you do use AI always disclose it by showing which model was used and how. For example:

All ideas in this Reddit post are my own, 100% of it. The outline and order is also my own. I validated the entire stack with Google Gemini for proper grammar and truth. I own it.

Band members from Mike Mangini era. Maestro drummer Mike Portnoy returned in 2023.

Me:

1. Dream Theater - A huge catalog of outstanding content. Bassist John Myung and Keyboardist Jordan Rudess are especially impressive. I consider these two the GOATs in their respective roles. All band members are masters of their craft including former drummer Mike Mangini in which some of the best content was produced during his tenure.
2. Opeth - This prog death metal band (prior to album Heritage) also has a large catalog. If you are unfamiliar with this band it is a little bit of an acquired taste as earlier albums are filled with death growls. But once you're hooked, there is no out. Again all band members are outstanding especially guitarist/vocalist/growler Mikael Akerfeldt (GOAT growler) who writes most music. They held the number one spot with me since I discovered them in 2001 but dropped to 2 after discovering DT recently.
3. Stone Temple Pilots - Not a large catalog but it's nearly all top tier. There is nothing GOAT about this band but every piece just fits so perfect starting from Scott Weiland who was also a member of supergroup Velvet Revolver (think Guns-n-Roses with Weiland at lead vocals), to Chester Bennington (Linkin Park), and now Jeff Gutt (Season 3 runner up X Factor) who can sing and emulate Weiland's persona and appearance so eerily well.
4. Nirvana - A tiny gritty catalog (3 studio plus miscellaneous) which could have been so much more if Kurt Cobain had not checked out early. Still, I enjoy them quite often.
5. Rush - Another massive catalog of the finest prog rock in the industry. This trio paused after the passing of Neil Peart, one of the all time greatest drummers. I was fortunate to see them live in 2013 with Peart. They continue on with Anika Nilles, a German virtuoso drummer.

HM: Metallica - Not a huge catalog but lots of outstanding tracks. To view their best material watch their live uploads which include bassist Rob Trujillo. Bro is a maestro on the 5-string.

https://preview.redd.it/sx0fuardb6bh1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=5925495443df631e5e8b03b723159c88629462b1

True story with a little hyperbole. It was a sister inlaw and two nieces and highest math tutored was Algebra 2. I also tutored in Common Core. Recall the backlash it got when it was first introduced? It's a little tricky at first but not very difficult to adapt to it.

Substitute \"quadrant\" for \"axis\" otherwise it's correct.

Explanation: The rock says "constant" but girl hears "consonant" hence her pedantic rant.

https://preview.redd.it/8jshw0v9grah1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=a824a29ad687268001c1195895a578cafe53e0f2

First let me answer one burning question: is it okay to use AI for homework or other projects? Absolutely!!! But do not use AI to do the work for you. And most importantly understand that all AI models can be prone to confident yet wrong answers (hallucinations). If a response doesn't appear rational reword prompt and send it again. Also use AI to check other AI models.

The most valid use of AI is to validate your work. If stuck on a problem or concept, instruct AI to explain it to you using various styles:

1. Textbook, a slight variation of this tends to be the default style.
2. Softer language like a lower education level (i.e. explain it to me like I'm 5) then ramp up from there.
3. Explaining core ideas with metaphors or analogies (my favorite approach). This helps to strip away all the noise to get down to first principles.
4. Instruct AI to create an outline of simple steps.
5. Have AI create a flowchart of steps.
6. It is also valid to have AI generate complete solutions but only after all other attempts have been exhausted. If you reach this stage make it your work by going through each line until you can defend every step. Remember, make it yours because you will be tested on it.

https://preview.redd.it/s2qq3ixt1rah1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=767b43e0b9da31923e981e91506641c91c23bb8f

I wish to stress if we do our work on reliable commercial software we don't actually need to verify the truthiness of the software itself. We verify the truthiness of our input into the software. This is usually done in one of several ways. Before going into it I must stress that mathematics for some projects needs to be well understood at the level we learn it in any engineering program. We don't necessarily need to write it out on paper but our math intuition should tell us to expect to see a ballpark figure. This is done by one or more ways:

1. Inputting known edge or regular cases where we already know the answer.
2. We may also test our input with unknown edge and regular cases but verify it with a second software like Mathematica, MATLAB, Excel (very common), etc.
3. Using software for calculations that output each step of the derivation. We can use math dedicated software as in 2.
4. If you're good at Python or Javascript you can write an algorithm to check your math with edge and regular cases. You can insert (program in) unit tests (checks and outputs at each step). May be calculator intensive as you validate each step.
5. Yes to deriving it on paper. I have done that many times before committing it to a computer. Again, this is checked with simple cases where possible. Note: deriving the math on paper isn't always possible so it is perfectly valid to start with a written problem then picking up from a given step to do the rest (or for an intermediate step) on math software.

Don't be too concerned if you're a student. No sane engineering department is going to drop you head first into the water and tell you, swim. Most engineering math will be done by seasoned engineers. New engineers are always ramped up softly into complexity. The math required for most problems at a given company is usually narrowly focused and already well worked out.

Standards do not usually need to be read from cover to cover. Treat them as reference books. Let us look at two examples of standards applicable to mechanical engineering in two different roles working in a top tier aerospace/defense company. The two standards I shall look at are ASME Y14.5 (about 350 pages) and AS9100 (about 54 pages).

AS9100

1. Engineering team member: You likely only need to review sections applicable to ECOs and related topics.
2. Engineering manager: I would do a quick read (scan) of the entire standard to familiarize yourself with what is in there but slow down and focus on all parts that are applicable to your oversight of workflow.

ASME Y14.5

1. Engineering team member: This is an exceedingly difficult read for first time GD&Ters. I would instead follow an external tutorial or two (I recommend doing several) or course (far better) on the topic then reference back to the standard on all parts learned.
2. Engineering manager: I would do a quick read (scan) of the entire standard to familiarize yourself with what is in there but slow down and focus on all parts that are applicable to any ongoing projects and yes even for one-time short projects. Remember, you are also responsible for everything you sign off on.

Two Sticks

I've seen the two-sticks experiment suggested often. However it's not that simple or practical as it requires significant separation (about 500 miles) between two equal length rods (longer is better) at two ideal locations during the right time of the year with clear weather. It also involves high precision instruments like a reliable compass (not a pocket compass or phone) and a large triangle level or plumb bob as well as a little knowledge of geometry and taking measurements. That is too many moving pieces for a flat earther.

Any experiment that requires significant travel or cost like viewing star drift from both hemispheres or the prior two-sticks isn't practical for obvious reasons.

Sunset Secant

Here is an easier less costly way. I call it the sunset secant:

1. Find a beach, a body of water, or flat terrain.
2. Take a filtered photo of a sunset (or sunrise) over water or flat terrain to capture the secant chord that forms at bottom of sun. This proves the sun dips below the horizon which is only possible on a spherical body (Earth).

Some Important Nuances

Diffraction is messy throughout. It does not form a flat line so immediately dismiss it as a cause. Do not use a phone. We need a filtered (sun is too bright even at sunset) high resolution photo. Capturing it requires a proper camera, a telephoto zoom lens, and a solar filter. If you have a tripod, even better.

The wave is transparent enough to reveal the secant chord.

NASA Artemis II Crew

This is how I dismantle the claim that preserving funding for NASA is the driving force behind hiding the flat earth reality. Any one point can topple it. I present five...

1. There are currently over 70 countries with space programs. Many of these are from adversarial countries. Why would they cooperate with the US on a grand conspiracy to deceive the entire world just to preserve funding for NASA? Such a massive program of deception would have tens of millions of moving pieces all without leaking intelligence or without a single whistleblower who would instantly be hailed a hero and be offered riches for media deals for outing this black program.
2. Such a program might cost trillions of dollars per year to pay off all collaborators just to preserve funding of $24.4B/year (2026 budget) for NASA. If the US can amass such a complex program of deception it could certainly concoct a leaner conspiracy that wouldn't drain the treasury.
3. NASA manages a lot more than space programs. They also perform or procure studies in the following sciences: atmospheric, aeronautic, energy and physics, chemistry and materials, geology, oceanography, biology, medicine and psychology (yes psychology too), and engineering like thermodynamics, electronics, and computer science.
4. Wouldn't it be more prudent to repurpose NASA toward other programs in science? This preserves its budget.
5. Suppose the earth really is flat. That in and of itself presents a massive domain to study: the firmament, explore beyond the footing, explore above and beyond the top of firmament, explore the close and small sun and moon. I could do this all day.

Conclusion: acknowledging the flat earth wouldn't extinguish NASA funding. It would motivate much bigger programs essentially doubling or tripling the size of NASA.

Based on comments I have seen it appears over 90% of those in here aren't even flat earthers. What happened to all the flatties? Did they abandon the flat earth? I propose we do a headcount.

Please call out if you are....

• Flat earther
• Globie
• Other (please specify)

I'll start: Globie

Image generated with AI (Absurd Imagination) by flat earth community

Flat earth "scientists" often challenge real NASA scientists with: "Where are the real photos or videos of the earth?" always dismissing them as CGI or AI generated when presented. My challenge to them is, "Where are the photos of the close and small sun and moon and photos of the edge of the firmament?"

Why don't we see winds like this all the time everywhere?

Understand that the Earth does not "spin" as this suggests a dizzyingly fast rotating sphere. Earth only rotates one revolution in 24 hours. This is very slow however there is a tangential velocity gradient starting with 0 at the poles maximizing to 1000 mph at the equator. Centripetal force due to Earth's rotation acts in opposition to gravity, slightly reducing our effective weight. However, at Earth's current rotation rate, this effect is small (roughly 0.3% at the equator) and is negligible for daily activities. If the Earth were rotating significantly faster ("spinning"), this effect would become much more pronounced, clearly impacting the measured weight of objects.

Everything that isn't anchored to the surface of the Earth including the atmosphere and all bodies of water inherit it's angular momentum (on such a large scale it is essentially linear within short lengths of the Earth's surface). Viscosity ensures fluids like water and air act as a cohesive fabric. Drag keeps these fabrics anchored to the surface instead of flying out like hurricane winds. We don't see or feel 1000 mph winds at the equator or the tangential velocity gradient because of these resistive forces (drag and viscosity). Hence the atmosphere forms the same inertial reference frame as the Earth resulting in no relative motion between us and the air.

James and John doing it live

Dream Theater - The Glass Prison ( Live GiganTour 2005 ) UHD

https://preview.redd.it/0j7lp79ok75h1.png?width=1737&format=png&auto=webp&s=1a9c60b93cf0b762a7f6466788e9706e67f905cf

Standards do not usually need to be read from cover to cover. Treat them as reference books. Let us look at two examples of standards applicable to mechanical engineering in two different roles working in a top tier aerospace/defense company. The two standards I shall look at are ASME Y14.5 (about 350 pages) and AS9100 (about 54 pages).

AS9100

1. Engineering team member: You likely only need to review sections applicable to ECOs and related topics.
2. Engineering manager: I would do a quick read (scan) of the entire standard to familiarize yourself with what is in there but slow down and focus on all parts that are applicable to your oversight of workflow.

ASME Y14.5

1. Engineering team member: This is an exceedingly difficult read for first time GD&Ters. I would instead follow an external tutorial or two (I recommend doing several) or course (far better) on the topic then reference back to the standard on all parts learned.
2. Engineering manager: I would do a quick read (scan) of the entire standard to familiarize yourself with what is in there but slow down and focus on all parts that are applicable to any ongoing projects and yes even for one-time short projects. Remember, you are also responsible for everything you sign off on.

Me:

https://preview.redd.it/79ggq1qbd75h1.png?width=320&format=png&auto=webp&s=59fcb6967dfd2fba290afdc4de760e677aec7815

2026 Honda Rebel 300 in Pearl Smoke Gray

Back in the 1980s when I was in college I rode a Honda Helix (76 mph) for 50 min on the freeway 4 times a week to get to class. A new 300 will be a big step up from that. Haven't owned any bikes since then. It's why I still have an M1 license to go with my Class 3 (CA).

I'm waiting on 2027 300s to come out. A 300 won't wake up my neighbors when I leave house at 6:30 AM, they are very maneuverable, unlike Harleys and others they are very low maintenance, I don't need to ride at unsafe speeds, on freeways they can still pass cars in the fast lane, and my 300 will reward me with 70+ MPG. So what if I'm a man on a "chick bike." At my age (62 yrs and 165 lbs) I have nothing left to prove.

https://preview.redd.it/g3p6n876b8yg1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=b86bae67bf7e6ab5c53affba8f44bfbcbbd38de4