asafira

Has he tried these? https://www.fortell.com/

Or are they the directional ones you were referring to?

Isn't there TRT that doesn't impact your endogenous production? (HCG, SERMs)

There is large-enough consensus on this drug for its main use cases (treating diabetes and obesity), but more importantly for this conversation: it's actually quite common for drugs to get new indications after their initial one --- at which point, there might be a new, broader consensus on what the drug is good for.

Clinical trials are designed to treat a very specific subclass of individuals; pharmaceutical companies very carefully choose that subclass in an attempt to help ensure the clinical trials are successful, which is a combination of the following:

- Positive, statistically-significant results. - FDA approval with those results. - Insurance companies willing to pay for the given treatment. - A decent-sized addressable market.

Examples of drugs/medical technologies later getting other indications: - Minoxidil was a drug that only later got its approval to be used as a hair loss treatment; there are currently clinical trials for a more "advanced" minoxidil oral pill for this use case. - Re: GLP-1s: Tirzepatide later got an indication that it effectively treats sleep apnea. There are very many other clinical trials ongoing for GLP-1s, but perhaps most recently, Semaglutide (ozempic) failed to show statistical significance as a treatment for Alzheimer's. - The Galleri blood screening/test. The initial indication they are going for is folk who are at highest risk for cancer (I believe that's individuals between the ages of 50 and 70); however, that's not to say it would be bad for individuals younger or older. But, this is a way to help ensure the earliest product has a successful outcome.

These are ones I know off the top of my head, but I suspect an LLM can give several more examples.

He worked mostly on the software side, but of course had important input into what sensors and processors were chosen for the phones.

I did my PhD in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical (AMO) physics, and despite "optical" being part of that I realized midway that I didn't know enough about how regular cameras worked!

It didn't take very long to learn, and it turned out to be extremely important in the work I did during the early days at Waymo and later at Motional.

I wanted to pass along this fun video from several years ago that discusses HDR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkQJdaGGVM8 . It's short and fun, I recommend it to all HN readers.

Separately, if you want a more serious introduction to digital photography, I recommend the lectures by Marc Levoy from his Stanford course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7HrM-fk_Rc&list=PL8ungNrvUY... . I believe he runs his own group at Adobe now after leading a successful effort at Google making their pixel cameras the best in the industry for a couple of years. (And then everyone more-or-less caught up, just like with most tech improvements in the history of smartphones).

Even better if it is actually a usb stick, too.

This might be the silicon valley bubble here though.

I am sorry you feel that way =/; I understand it was a picky comment, but quibbling over it is far from the gross overstatement you mentioned.

I've read before that they used to use the sound of bacon cooking on a skillet to mimic the sound of rain in movies. I think I can hear it...

From the post: "Ray tracing was invented by Turner Whitted around 1980."

I believe that Turner probably did some great things, but somehow I don't think I believe he invented ray tracing. Ray tracing has been around for so long in physics...

For intermediate E&M, Griffiths Electrodynamics.

It seems to me like when I type in company names, I don't get the exact colors they use in their branding...

I often get asked about what my views on doing a PhD are (I am more-or-less finished with one now), and one of the ways I frame it is the following:

You know how you've take a course before where the professor was just surprisingly awful at teaching? These professors are often some of the most knowledgeable people in a subfield of the subject you are taking, yet their teaching ability is severely lacking and you have to scramble to learn the material some other way (or just never learn it).

During a PhD, there is a decent chance that your adviser is similarly a bad manager. Unfortunately, having a bad manager for 5-7 years of your life can be a fairly awful experience. You will work with someone who you, on the one hand, look up to, but on the other hand, who seems to not care at all about your mental health, your possible career desires outside of academia, your work/life balance, or the exact reason why this week was a rough week for research in your (human) life.

I have a lot of other thoughts on the matter, but I thought I'd try to keep this post more concise =).

As is mentioned in this thread, Linear Algebra Done Right is a solid textbook for learning linear algebra. I might start there =).

This.

There's always more you might want to learn, but when people talk about these basics, it's really just being super focused in 4 or so classes, not a whole ivy league undergrad curriculum in math.

probability & stats, multivariable calculus, and linear algebra will take you a long way.

Or though too little beginner material =).

This sounds pretty intriguing, but I'm not sure if professors actually do this...

Has anyone had a professor that tried something like this?

Someone linked to this in a recent thread on philips colluding over something else.

=(. Sad.

I don't see why that fixes the issues I brought up --- if anything, I mention that it really isn't a good way to figure it out.

I didn't mean to use the term that way, just that different textbooks can be more effective than others.

I have to admit that I have often disagreed with others over what textbooks are best, but I think that's natural.

For one, you often start a field with a specific book. If you pour a lot of time into that book, you often feel more attached to it. Then, when trying to evaluate another textbook, it's hard (impossible?) to go through that same experience and understand if you would have had an easier time with the material. There are definitely some obvious cases, but it isn't always.

Second, sometimes people just have different learning styles and have a preference for them. Landau and Lifshitz has a reputation for being very hard (but rewarding!) to parse, and that is easily a showstopper for some people. Other books might only have relatively easy exercises (Axler's Linear Algebra Done Right, for example), which can help you gain a lot of confidence, while others might have many very difficult or very tedious problems. Some might have solutions to problems, some might not.

Really, I think the best we can do is put a list of "top books" for each subject rather than the "best textbooks" for each subject.

As a PhD in experimental physics, I totally agree.

That said, I still think they have room in making it a shorter length PhD. Not 3 years, but there are several groups where less than 6 years is rare, but 6-7 is normal.

Why did people feel guilty to read papers?

Seems like a strange reason to drop out.

I know many more people who dropped out because of poor management than those that didn't seem to be good at it.

I am a little late to reply, but I wanted to anyway from my experience as a Harvard physics PhD that is choosing to leave academia:

Many PhD programs are their own bubble, and many students don't seriously consider outside opportunities because of it. I honestly do not believe many of the students would be there if they had more exposure to basically anything outside of research, and more students would also consider other opportunities earlier if there was more exposure or a better connection. I really wish internships were better embraced by physics PhD's, but the current competitive culture combined with disagreeable professors makes it not encouraged. (Not to mention the fact that a 3 month internship is a drop in a bucket for a 6+ year PhD)

Otherwise, it is great to hear this person decided to leave their PhD program and found happiness (regardless of what she is doing). One thing I tell people who aren't sure about what they want to do post-graduation (e.g. most physics PhD's), or even if they aren't a good fit for the group they are in: if you took an entire month off from your PhD to make that decision would you regret it? I personally believe in almost all cases you wouldn't.

Strangely, many students seem to either default to a postdoc or put a half-assed effort towards finding an industry job.

Does Kittel define Shannon entropy?

Yes, you are right. It's a typo.

You have a gifted daughter.

This. If I remember right, RAM hasn't changed much in performance between LPDDR3 and DDR4.