dmarchand90
Oh and that will be the new default 'Full-screen mode by default'
Then you have the journalism side which is basically just another main stream news website. (I'm not even against main stream news but it's not the same as scientific articles)
My background is computational material science, but more on materials than the computational part. I have an ok broad knowledge of most CS topics but I'm always finding I'm playing catch up. My work also involves a lot of making research prototypes in areas I don't have time to get a proper background in.
For me GPT has had a transformative impact on my work.
For example I had a lot of projects that needed Docker. I have an ok idea of what Docker is and what i want to do with it. But, I don't have the time of a real software developer to learn the syntax and deal with subtle bugs or how to do basic things, e.g., "how do I ssh into my Docker container X"
I think I'm on the end of users that is best poised to make use of llms. A decent knowledge of what strategy i want to go for but don't know the tactics. And I'm mediocre enough at programming that the Llm can usually beat me. Another example, I would just never write any unit tests, not enough time. With llms I can get simple dirty tests done + I know enough about testing to filter out the bad ones and tune the best ones.
I see poor responders on two extremes on either side of me. People who really don't know what they are doing and can't prompt correct the llm into doing anything better. And people who really know what they are doing and are generally working on one tech stack/ project and don't need help getting dumb basics in place + have more time to write things themselves.
I often think of David Mitchell's commentary on whether stripes make you look fat: https://youtu.be/ISZyJ5MHApI?si=4_hJVLfsvMWWDXKE
Take this quote from George Orwell on the Spanish Civil War
"I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories, and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’. Yet in a way, horrible as all this was, it was unimportant."
I just find this to be such a large detail that it's hard to gloss over. What are the assumptions of this model in the simulation? How accurate is the model? How did you evaluate that accuracy? How sensitive are the results to the model's parameters?
(Yes it could still be a scam even if it gets into nature but that seems like the minimum to me)
The problem, honestly, is an ancient one. In plato's republic he complains about a lack of state funding for geometry :
" Then take a step backward, for we are out of order, and insert the third dimension which is of solids, after the second which is of planes, and then you may proceed to solids in motion. But solid geometry is not popular and has not the patronage of the State, nor is the use of it fully recognized; the difficulty is great, and the votaries of the study are conceited and impatient. Still the charm of the pursuit wins upon men, and, if government would lend a little assistance, there might be great progress made. "
15) I made time to do whatever impulsive thing my mind felt like doing in my free time. I love video games and after a decade avoiding them because I felt like they were a waste of time, I got back into them.
16) I still had total freak outs from time to time. I vividly remember googling plumbing classes at community College. (Nothing wrong with plumbing! I bet for 10% of readers the right answer is to drop out of your phd and go into trades)
17) try not to get drunk too often or high too often. A bit on Friday is ok (you need to self monitor)
Note this advice is only if you're average or feel average. If you're a superstar and you know it please disregard (but in that case you're probably not reading this anyway).
1) I had a professor who was very strong in the field and could point me to high impact work and steer me clear of useless activities.
2) I got a good stipend. I do not recommend borrowing money or living wretchedly for a phd.
3) My professor hit a good balance between pushing me to work harder and puling back when I felt I was going to hard.
4) I avoided doing much work as a TA as much as possible. I did the minimum amount that delivered reasonable value to the class and the students.
5) I avoided working weekends and the evenings. Conversely I put a lot of pressure on myself to do work during work hours.
6) I would occasionally work holidays and weekends (this only applies to European phds which get 5+ weeks of vacation. Do not go below three weeks vacation. )
7) I did not try to be "a hero " I didn't do crazy ideas without discussing with my professor first. I didn't take more than the minimum amount of classes and select material that seemed extremely relevant.
8) I worked a job first (2 years). This made me really appreciate my phd a lot more and gave me a lot of much needed time management and interpersonal work skills.
9) i avoided reinventing the wheel at all costs.
10) I learned to say no and said no often
11) I always yes to social activities
12) I did hiking on the weekend and running during the week.
13) I prepared for a non academic career often.
14) on special occasions I would disregard all the above and work really hard on something. I cannot say how often this happens and it's kind of a spiritual question. Probably no more then 3-4 times a year is sustainable and sometimes not even every year.
My goal the whole time was to be a 'forgettable' student. Forgettable in that I tried to avoid being memorably good and avoided being memorably bad.
Of course there were genius peers I worked with and worked the weekends and evenings. I think this was right for them as the act gave them joy and they were producing great results. Conversely some people ground too hard and still didn't have very much to show.
If in doubt and you're freaking out do less. If you're not in doubt and you're getting complacent do more.
He had already gotten a masters at MIT and a phd from Stanford. From his Wikipedia:
During his 25-year career (1958–1983) at Texas Instruments, he rose up in the ranks to become the group vice president responsible for TI's worldwide semiconductor business.[13] In the late 1970s, when TI's focus turned to calculators, digital watches and home computers, Chang felt like his career focused on semiconductors was at a dead end at TI.[2]
Chang left TI and later became president and chief operating officer of General Instrument Corporation (1984–1985).[14]
So he was already running massive companies by that point anyway haha