Suppose I was a high IQ person in a tech firm with access to people who are actually doing machine learning in a practical setting? Since the comparison is university learning versus on-the-job learning, not university learning versus autodidactism.
Ride the most extreme excesses of the bubble you can, pulling in ridiculous amounts of cash and equity. Convert it to reasonably safe (e.g. money markets) and counter-market (e.g. gold) investments. When the bubble pops, don't worry about being laid off: take some time off and live off your reserves. And invest some of them in those tech firms which have a solid business but whose stock prices were brought down in the general crash, to set you up for the recovery (or next bubble.)
Nothing ruins the world for parent, child, and innocent bystanders like making everything a teachable moment. Let's leave the teaching for the classroom and let the rest of the time be free of the tyranny of pedagogy.
Dude's got "trouble with girls" because "three things happen". Got that? These aren't things that are possible, these are things that happen so often that they cause old Mr Hunt "trouble". One is that he falls in love with them. Because the old horndog never got the memo that you don't shit where you work.
The common advice of not dating where you work is more honored in the breach than the observance. That's just reality. Dr. Hunt, who likely met his wife in just such a situation, knows this very well.
The second is that these "girls" fall in love with him. Because of course they would. He's clearly irresistible.
I'm sure some found him so, in his younger days.
The third thing that "happens" is that he criticizes them and they fall into an hysterical heap of crying femininity
He actually just said they "cry". And that may well be his experience. Personally I've run into very few women at work who cried when criticized... but no men. He wasn't talking about Ph.D. defenses.
Everyone is against the boss hitting on a subordinate. The whole point of this article is that we have a Nobel-winning scientist who claims he is unable to resist hitting on female scientists when they work in his lab.
I've seen a man cry at work exactly once. He was the CEO and founder, and he'd just been unable to get sufficient funding and had to lay off half the company. I've seen three women cry at work due to work stuff, so still pretty unusual.
If, as you say, it's a generalization, a stereotype, then why are you comfortable with a highly-trained scientist making such generalizations, such stereotypes, in a speech to a professional conference?
Because most of us know the difference between informal after-dinner remarks relating personal experience in a not-entirely-serious way and the presentation of a formal paper.
"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls: three things happen when they are in the lab. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."
Let me as you a question. This is a scientist, who claims that every single woman who has ever worked in the lab has either become an object of his love, has fallen in love with him, or has cried when they were criticized.
Sure. Guys are socialized not to cry. A boy over a relatively young (somewhere in the single digits) age cries, and he's told to man up and stop crying, and/or he's hit, and/or he's derided as a "crybaby". A girl cries, and she's comforted and/or men rush to her defense. So of course girls cry; it works for them, as it doesn't work for men.
What idiot can be so humour-impaired as to not realize that Hunt was just kidding?
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY
The whole speech apparently was not recorded, so all we've seen is the cherry-picked remarks. Maybe he's really a misogynist of Marc Lepine's level. More likely, though, it was British humor.
Following your train of thought to its logical conclusion people may as well just curl up into a ball and die for fear of harming anything anywhere.
Of course. Environmentalists would prefer we freeze in the dark rather than harm the fragile desert ecosystem or reduce the albedo of the desert or whatever. So they can't be reasonably satisfied. Once satisfying them is off the table, we may as well burn coal and oil; advantage there is there's already powerful lobbying groups dedicated to keeping those going in the face of environmentalist opposition.
Stress is a reason to leave a lot of jobs/careers. If game companies can't get a supply of new suckers, they'll have to either do something to reduce the stress, or actually pay more. If they can get a supply of new suckers, I guess things stay the same and I recommend staying out of the industry. Either way, no real story.
The tendency of scientists to become attached to their pet theories, even in the face of mounting evidence against them, is not new at all.
As for "If a theory successfully explains what we can detect but does so by positing entities that we canâ(TM)t detect (like other universes or the hyperdimensional superstrings of string theory) then what is the status of these posited entities? Should we consider them as real as the verified particles of the standard model? How are scientific claims about them any different from any other untestable â" but useful â" explanations of reality?", William of Ockham had the answer to that one.
This is where elegance comes in; if you have equally powerful explanatory/predictive theories, pick the most elegant, which includes considering undetectable (in theory) entities it predicts. A theory which doesn't require any undetectable entities is superior to one which does, assuming they predict/explain all the detectable ones equally. But the fact that a theory predicts entities which cannot be detected isn't a fatal flaw.
If the entities aren't detectable in theory, their actual existence is irrelevant; they have no effect on this universe whether they exist or not; detecting them would actually falsify the theory.
If they are detectable in theory but not in fact, then you're in the state the current Standard Model was in until the recent discovery of the Higgs boson. Nothing wrong with that.
There's no exemption for products. If they don't renew the exemption, you have to stop doing the activity. The exemption process never was meant to work; it was just to make the law look slightly less Draconian (and various groups are pissed off that it somehow managed to produce as many exemptions as it has)
Regardless, I think we need to start making the internet a cleaner place for everybody.
That's just censorship by whoever gets to define "clean".
People need to act civilized online the same way they do at school or work.
No, because "online" isn't necessarily school or work, so there's no bureaucracy or autocracy to define "civilized" conduct.
If I'm your co-worker and I say I'll kill you and you know I'm truly mad at you, would you still feel like the matter doesn't require action?
Let's consider a possible example: "Goddamnit, I'm going to kill that son of a bitch; he broke the build 3 times this week". Nope, no action required.
This will reduce chances of action and will act as a deterrent to those wanting to make a dumb joke.
That last part is the problem. A law which has as an intended effect to deter those making dumb jokes (protected expression) is unconstitutional. A law which has an intended effect of something else but an unintended effect of deterring dumb jokes may be unconstitutional; to pass, the government would have to show that there was a compelling state interest in the "something else", and that the effect on protected speech was unavoidable and minimized as much as possible.
When you step out of line and vote for the wrong person or support the wrong cause, they'll dredge them back up, and blackmail you on the basis that you were sitting together in the same bar as a known bad guy one day while you were both in college.
"Oh, yeah, that's me and Hitler. He was one angry MF, believe me, but it was kinda fun to listen to him rant, at least until he tried to take over Munich. Got any old photos? How about that one of me and Marlene Dietrich? Whaddya mean that never happened?"
Keep in mind that to many artists the place you see an object is a big part of the work. Simply by converting the photos from an electronic format on Instagram into large canvas prints in a gallery he transformed the works. There are actually entire schools of art devoted to taking random shit, placing them in galleries, so everyone can stand around speculating about what you meant when you decided to display your bed*.
Yeah, I saw one "artist" who took a radio, as is, and called it art. Well, it might be art, but it wasn't her art. It belonged to the uncredited industrial designers who made the thing. She also blew up some images of the literature accompanying the radio and called that her art too.
I hope one of the Instagram photographers does sue him. $90,000 ought to be worth it.
there are people of great social skill and malicious intent, and people of great social skill and good intent. you confuse intent and ability. if you can't tell the difference you're only announcing your own lack of social skills
Someone with better social skills would have tried poisoning the well more subtly than that. Anyway, great social skill and malicious intent typically go hand-in-hand; psychopaths are known for their social skill. This is because things like having a conscience get in the way of treating people like tools to be manipulated.
"Social intelligence" is just a classic weak point for those who are intelligent in the usual 'g' way. Therefore, those who want to keep the smart people down latch on to that as "the most important thing" -- "your ability to solve hard problems means nothing next to my ability to schmooze with others".
People with high social intelligence include politicians, pointy-haired bosses, "bros", Kardashians, and salespeople.
Slashdot Mirror
Suppose I was a high IQ person in a tech firm with access to people who are actually doing machine learning in a practical setting? Since the comparison is university learning versus on-the-job learning, not university learning versus autodidactism.
What's so special about a college classroom that you can't learn bioinformatics or machine learning anywhere else?
Ride the most extreme excesses of the bubble you can, pulling in ridiculous amounts of cash and equity. Convert it to reasonably safe (e.g. money markets) and counter-market (e.g. gold) investments. When the bubble pops, don't worry about being laid off: take some time off and live off your reserves. And invest some of them in those tech firms which have a solid business but whose stock prices were brought down in the general crash, to set you up for the recovery (or next bubble.)
Nothing ruins the world for parent, child, and innocent bystanders like making everything a teachable moment. Let's leave the teaching for the classroom and let the rest of the time be free of the tyranny of pedagogy.
I'm not personally acquainted with Mr. Terry. Your link shows why men generally don't cry; they are treated with contempt for doing so.
The common advice of not dating where you work is more honored in the breach than the observance. That's just reality. Dr. Hunt, who likely met his wife in just such a situation, knows this very well.
I'm sure some found him so, in his younger days.
He actually just said they "cry". And that may well be his experience. Personally I've run into very few women at work who cried when criticized... but no men. He wasn't talking about Ph.D. defenses.
Isn't it fun to just make stuff up?
I've seen a man cry at work exactly once. He was the CEO and founder, and he'd just been unable to get sufficient funding and had to lay off half the company. I've seen three women cry at work due to work stuff, so still pretty unusual.
Because most of us know the difference between informal after-dinner remarks relating personal experience in a not-entirely-serious way and the presentation of a formal paper.
Reading comprehension fail.
Sure. Guys are socialized not to cry. A boy over a relatively young (somewhere in the single digits) age cries, and he's told to man up and stop crying, and/or he's hit, and/or he's derided as a "crybaby". A girl cries, and she's comforted and/or men rush to her defense. So of course girls cry; it works for them, as it doesn't work for men.
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY
The whole speech apparently was not recorded, so all we've seen is the cherry-picked remarks. Maybe he's really a misogynist of Marc Lepine's level. More likely, though, it was British humor.
Of course. Environmentalists would prefer we freeze in the dark rather than harm the fragile desert ecosystem or reduce the albedo of the desert or whatever. So they can't be reasonably satisfied. Once satisfying them is off the table, we may as well burn coal and oil; advantage there is there's already powerful lobbying groups dedicated to keeping those going in the face of environmentalist opposition.
Stress is a reason to leave a lot of jobs/careers. If game companies can't get a supply of new suckers, they'll have to either do something to reduce the stress, or actually pay more. If they can get a supply of new suckers, I guess things stay the same and I recommend staying out of the industry. Either way, no real story.
Stopped reading her when she gave her super-genius Sleepless the idiot ball. Doubt she's improved.
The tendency of scientists to become attached to their pet theories, even in the face of mounting evidence against them, is not new at all.
As for "If a theory successfully explains what we can detect but does so by positing entities that we canâ(TM)t detect (like other universes or the hyperdimensional superstrings of string theory) then what is the status of these posited entities? Should we consider them as real as the verified particles of the standard model? How are scientific claims about them any different from any other untestable â" but useful â" explanations of reality?", William of Ockham had the answer to that one.
This is where elegance comes in; if you have equally powerful explanatory/predictive theories, pick the most elegant, which includes considering undetectable (in theory) entities it predicts. A theory which doesn't require any undetectable entities is superior to one which does, assuming they predict/explain all the detectable ones equally. But the fact that a theory predicts entities which cannot be detected isn't a fatal flaw.
If the entities aren't detectable in theory, their actual existence is irrelevant; they have no effect on this universe whether they exist or not; detecting them would actually falsify the theory.
If they are detectable in theory but not in fact, then you're in the state the current Standard Model was in until the recent discovery of the Higgs boson. Nothing wrong with that.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
There's no exemption for products. If they don't renew the exemption, you have to stop doing the activity. The exemption process never was meant to work; it was just to make the law look slightly less Draconian (and various groups are pissed off that it somehow managed to produce as many exemptions as it has)
No, Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease, not a symptom of a lifestyle problem. It's not caused by lifestyle either.
That's just censorship by whoever gets to define "clean".
No, because "online" isn't necessarily school or work, so there's no bureaucracy or autocracy to define "civilized" conduct.
Let's consider a possible example: "Goddamnit, I'm going to kill that son of a bitch; he broke the build 3 times this week". Nope, no action required.
That last part is the problem. A law which has as an intended effect to deter those making dumb jokes (protected expression) is unconstitutional. A law which has an intended effect of something else but an unintended effect of deterring dumb jokes may be unconstitutional; to pass, the government would have to show that there was a compelling state interest in the "something else", and that the effect on protected speech was unavoidable and minimized as much as possible.
PRINCESS Leia, PRINCESS Amidala...
"Oh, yeah, that's me and Hitler. He was one angry MF, believe me, but it was kinda fun to listen to him rant, at least until he tried to take over Munich. Got any old photos? How about that one of me and Marlene Dietrich? Whaddya mean that never happened?"
Yeah, I saw one "artist" who took a radio, as is, and called it art. Well, it might be art, but it wasn't her art. It belonged to the uncredited industrial designers who made the thing. She also blew up some images of the literature accompanying the radio and called that her art too.
I hope one of the Instagram photographers does sue him. $90,000 ought to be worth it.
Someone with better social skills would have tried poisoning the well more subtly than that. Anyway, great social skill and malicious intent typically go hand-in-hand; psychopaths are known for their social skill. This is because things like having a conscience get in the way of treating people like tools to be manipulated.
"Social intelligence" is just a classic weak point for those who are intelligent in the usual 'g' way. Therefore, those who want to keep the smart people down latch on to that as "the most important thing" -- "your ability to solve hard problems means nothing next to my ability to schmooze with others".
People with high social intelligence include politicians, pointy-haired bosses, "bros", Kardashians, and salespeople.