gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention,
"trust me, dykes can get pregnant"
gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention,
"trust me, dykes can get pregnant"
Military guys in control room: "Who is this guy, what does he want"
Dennis Quaid: "I'm a paleo-climatologist...."
Quaid: "I believe we've reached a critical de-salination point"
well thanks for the thoughtful response but I must disagree on both points ha!
i appreciate hearing about your stepfather's personal experiences, and I don't think that's a good thing at all...the whole idea that to "make it" in academia you needed to find some interest area and then drill down as specifically as possible was/is killing academia
the thing is, even though the idea is wrongheaded, the advice itself isn't always horrible advice, because from a purely practical standpoint it was what your future boss might expect you to do
it's like saying to a young female musician, "Hike that skirt up and act slutty"...it'll *probably* increase album sales...right? but is it really good long-term career advice?
as for talking about strong AI, I philosophically disagree with the premise of "strong AI" as you apply it...and really I disagree with how all of CS applies the Church-Turing Thesis. I do not subscribe to the universal computability function per se, and view programing and machines as absolutely not extant in nature which are objects created by humans and nothing more ever.
but back to academia and learning, I really don't think that there is "too much to learn" I don't know how to prove it in this format but almost every academic I've known had wildly divergent side interests that they were proficient enough in to make a living...art, music, some sort of craft work, writing on some non-academic topic, etc.
I don't know what that means to your point, other than to repeat that I think the "drill down" concept is rooted in a false dichotomy twisted up the ivory tower and perpetuated by the top-down management model & oversized egos. I think any person intelligent enough to do PhD level work can also develop w/e "blue collar" skill they would want. Also, any person who can do "blue collar" work skillfully enough to make it a long-term income requires, in my experience, an understanding of complexity that demonstrates high intelligence.
I guess I'll finish by repeating that I too mourn the fact that PhD's are so 'specialized' that they become almost useless outside their specialize area.
yo, thanks for the response
In a world where, within a couple of decades, machines will program themselves,
hold on there cowboy!
everything that machines do is dependent on human choice...humans *chose* to program machines a certain way...
the behavior you describe: "machines will program themselves" is actually not physically possible in the logical sense...it's like saying "gardens will plant themselves"
you're mixing concepts...specifically, the concept of "program" and the concept of "self"
the behavior you *actually* are describing is humans programming machines.
that's a nitpick, but an important one b/c you whole argument is formed along that premise...
I think you're making a false distinction. "teach kids X or Y"
I say "teach kids X and Y"
learn a blue collar skill, learn the concepts of coding so you can apply as needed to specific tasks, learn a science branch, learn literature
all of it
hey man thanks for the response. it was interesting to read your job experiences, especially what happens when you're 'too good' at the job.
as another person pointed out on this thread, you could start your own biz
that's what I'm doing and I got to be honest it feels great!
like the other comment said, since I see an area in biz where the incentives are backwards, I should **capitalize** on it...and I am trying now.
anyhow good luck to you...I do think that you are not alone in some of your work struggles, as I said coders are treated like well paid slaves...
I put Chrome b/c I use it for web dev work. I have 100s of tabs open at times and on my machine it's just too much for FF.
I'd *love* to use FF, if nothing else for the bookmarking system.
Chrome treats your bookmarks like it is a google search...just a huge barely specified pile. Chrome has folders w/ sub-folders but their manager is clumsy.
FF lets you use tags and you can make a folder that automatically includes all sites w/ a certain tag, just for one example.
also I agree that Google is starting to resemble M$....it's a problem beyond M$ but they're just such a good example of the business philosophy in action.
This is a great article. It combines about 30 pages of info that I had to scan to learn it down to one.
It also explains how to manipulate Bitcoin mining to guarantee you mine the next block. It's in the section on what happens when two miners have the next block in the blockchain ready at the same time:
Occasionally, a fork will appear in the block chain. This can happen, for instance, if by chance two miners happen to validate a block of transactions near-simultaneously – both broadcast their newly-validated block out to the network, and some people update their block chain one way, and others update their block chain the other way:
This causes exactly the problem we’re trying to avoid – **it’s no longer clear in what order transactions have occurred, and it may not be clear who owns which infocoins.** Fortunately, there’s a simple idea that can be used to remove any forks. The rule is this: if a fork occurs, people on the network keep track of both forks. But at any given time, miners only work to extend whichever fork is longest in their copy of the block chain.
Suppose, for example, that we have a fork in which some miners receive block A first, and some miners receive block B first. Those miners who receive block A first will continue mining along that fork, while the others will mine along fork B. Let’s suppose that the miners working on fork B are the next to successfully mine a block:
**After they receive news that this has happened, the miners working on fork A will notice that fork B is now longer, and will switch to working on that fork.**
And the miners on fork B get paid their 20 BTC for mining the next block!
Presto, in short order work on fork A will cease, and everyone will be working on the same linear chain, and block A can be ignored. Of course, any still-pending transactions in A will still be pending in the queues of the miners working on fork B, and so all transactions will eventually be validated.
If you set up inside a city fiber ring and made BTC exchanges and *also* mined BTC blockschain solutions you could game out the transactions and network traffic so that **your BTC** solution was always the first available to the network because it is the closest geographically and by network topology!
If there's a tie, you have the next solution ready to break the tie and get the BTC reward!!!!
There you have it...it's a money machine...well a BTC machine
kids don't want to become computer programmers. Because they're not as stupid and gullible as you think.
I completely agree with this, but for a completely different reason which kind of contradicts the premise of your reason.
IMHO, there is a bright future for American computer programmers. We're needed more than ever, and good ones are harder to find per capita. Pay is good.
However, the problem is the **work environment**
Coding work sucks, but all work sucks. I was a snowboarding instructor for 5 seasons and **that** even sucked b/c we had to be teaching fatass Texan rich dudes how to stand up on the board instead of going out and riding to improve our own skills or get footage for sponsors.
All work sucks.
The shit part about coding that makes it wise for kids to want to avoid it is that in most of the industry the coders are highly paid slaves.
REAL CODERS HAVE TO DO ALL THE WORK.
Just look at Snapchat. Or have a gander at this borderline psychotic but not a joke job ad for a web coder for Penny Arcade. That's why young people don't want to code.
American business rewards all the worst things...the incentives are all going in the wrong direction. As to your personal situation and why you've been scrounging since the dot-com bubble burst...well, it could be alot of things. Maybe your idea of "scrounging" means turning down a job a Microsoft because you dont want to work for the man...maybe youre a true genius who makes everyone even the bosses look bad so is ostracized...hell, idk...but I don't think your experience is representative, however I do agree that the issues you identify in hiring are all legit problems.
Coding can be fun.
I think the problem lies in how we define the act of "coding" and in what context we present the activity, combined with a misunderstanding of what people actually think is "fun".
Coding is a powerful tool. It is how humans control virtually all complex machines.
Kids love complex machines, but I think the break point is what machines we teach them to program and what behaviors the programming automates.
People, especially kids, like playing video games, so it stands to reason that teaching them to program their own game would be an excellent way to get them into coding. It totally makes sense. I'm not saying not to do it, but it's not working as TFA points out. For one thing, making a simple "game" in an artificial environment isn't actually that fun...because teaching kids to make their own version of "Starcraft" is way too complex there aren't many options.
I think coding simple machines is the solution, enabling more creativity and real-world interaction, without losing the coding aspect. For example, coding a basic motion sensor that makes an output.
You can get basic light/motion sensors for fairly cheap actually (toys have them) and combine that with an output that either triggers something to play a sound, turn on a light, etc.
A next step would be using a rasperry pi type interface...then linking it with all kinds of stuff...
Advanced lessons would be making a motion detector that turned on a light, turned on a radio, and triggered a program on a computer to send a tweet...
Something like that would give them the basic tools to really go crazy...
yeah you got me there...this looks like what I was advocating
you can tell I'm a bit disgruntled about the whole experience of working in academia....this is actually good news!
Just a few stores below in my feed, I see this
Physicist Peter Higgs: "I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system"
I'm not against screwing around with the lab computer on off hours and make it model "Middle Earth"...that's a fun idea...no, I'm mortified that this became an official research project and was published.
It proves what Peter Higgs was saying in the most weirdly fun yet depressing way....
Money, Money, Money.....That's the way it is.
yes for sure, but there's much more to identify, b/c if you "follow the money" it leads to some interesting places...
for the government...Most of the research grants come from R&D for a specific project (ex: DARPA, a vaccine) or the NSF (ex: archaeology, astronomy, CS, etc)
the government, at least in the US, is another way of saying "the voters"....the US has had enough people fall for the "Austerity" charade that virtually every public university, including the two that employed me, cut their budgets b/c the **STATE** budget was being cut artificially.
Here's a headline from 2011, "Indiana state government unearths $320 million in unknown tax revenue" http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/09/politics/indiana-missing-money/
2011 is **the same year all State Universities went on a hiring freeze**...Including mine, Ball State University
It's *****ALL BULLSHIT POLITICS******
Did the gym coach tell you how it was being marked? Because, if he did, then you had a clear success criteria, and you failed to follow instructions.
this isn't education that you're describing here...that's not how "teaching" works
the goal isn't to "do what the teachers says" or "get a good grade"
the purpose is **to learn the subject & to think independently**
we all know what tests are for...to test our knowledge of a subject...verification of learning
if the test doesn't measure what is being taught (health) and instead only measures something abstract then ***it is fully the teachers fault that the student got a bad grade***
this is fully on the teacher for being a bad educator
that doesn't do as I described at all....it just changes the main windown list of songs...unless I'm double clicking my playlist the wrong 'source' column somehow
Experiments must be reproducible; they should all fail in the same way.