mennis16

Anthology shows might be a decent balance between the two. At least personally an existing show has to be getting really good reviews for me to care enough to catch up on previous seasons, but if it's possible to jump right into season 3 then I'd be more inclined to check it out.

IIRC American Horror Story had increased viewership in the 2nd and then again in the 3rd season, but it did eventually go downhill. Ryan Murphy shows are also pretty weird though, it would be nice to see the seasonal anthology format in broader contexts. I'm optimistic about the Haunting of Hill House series but that's again horror.

I'm usually pretty neurotic about getting enough sleep, but if I just won the Nobel Prize I certainly would want to be woken. That's gotta be the moment of a lifetime.

Yeah I'm allergic to tree nuts and it's surprisingly common to have people ask me if coconut is okay. In some cases I've even found restaurant menus where dishes were marked as containing tree nuts just because of coconut.

To be fair on the numbers front, there is a lot of evidence suggesting the true death rate for infected individuals is under 1% - so with 1 million dead I don't think it's unreasonable to guess at least 100 million have had it.

That said I am surprised how many dismissive comments there are in any thread about COVID around here. It is tiring how many people are not taking it seriously enough, and ironically this attitude also contributes to businesses not being able to safely reopen.

Doesn't this still depend on what specifically "math" is referring to? Sure there is some underlying concept, but when people use the word math I think they are largely referring to the language that has been/continues to be built up to describe those concepts. Without at least learning the existing language one would have to rebuild a ton of foundations themselves before they could do much of anything. I suppose you could say the same thing about e.g. biology but I don't think it's quite analogous, as terminology is nowhere near as precise and things often don't abstract super nicely.

I've seen plenty of cleaning-averse husbands hire a maid to solve chore-related relationship problems. Hell, the maid does a better job, so everyone is happier. This is not really an option for a mismatched libido, so the situation is trickier. Especially as libidos can change differently with age, a couple can't entirely know what they are getting into.

Put another way, both withholding sex and insisting on monogamy simultaneously is a shitty thing to do IMO, so I sort of agree with you. But it is also tough for me to judge someone too much for doing so in a culture where anything but strict monogamy is taboo.

For a concrete example, let's say a woman feels nauseous from the smell of cooking while she is pregnant. I do not think it is the duty of that woman to soldier through it and continue to cook. But in this situation the partner can obtain food from anywhere else that is willing to serve. If the partner instead was only able to eat food that one of them had cooked, it would be tougher on the relationship for the woman to not cook at all for 9 months straight.

So yeah compromise and sacrifice are part of a relationship, and I don't think sex should be excluded from that. But at the same time it is unrealistic to reach a good solution with mismatched libidos, because even a perfect compromise can leave both parties dissatisfied/uncomfortable. Is the solution to just end the relationship? If it is otherwise a good one I don't think so, but strict monogamy makes this a harder call.

More generally I think people are looking for too much in a single package. To find someone that would be compatible with you over nearly your entire lifetime as a housemate, a co-parent, a friend, a financial partner, etc. all rolled into one is hard enough. When you start prioritizing sexual compatibility in this choice, good luck not having to compromise on other features. But if sex wasn't seen as exclusive it wouldn't need to be considered to the same extent in choosing a life partner.

I dunno, I like the title, it has a nice ring to it. But that also might be because the "trash" part reminds me more of Toy Story 4 than anything negative.

Their support page does imply if you want to avoid cloud sync you should keep it offline, but perhaps that is just because it is the most brief/user friendly way to describe the situation. There definitely isn't an explicit option to turn off the cloud sync in the device settings, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are workarounds to this once you ssh in. You could also maybe block internet access to the device via your router settings, so you could at least use rsync while at home?

https://support.remarkable.com/hc/en-us/articles/36000264829...

I think narrow biases and unpublished results happen to some extent anyway with the politics/beauracracy that arises from having a small subset of established scientists vote on which science gets funding. I don't disagree with the concerns about wealthy donors/corporations, and I do think it is a good idea to have a large portion of funding allocated by other scientists. But I also feel a little diversity in funding sources can give labs breathing room to be more creative.

There's also examples like the development of the original birth control pill- which was largely funded by one wealthy woman. I doubt it could have happened in that time period without someone wealthy with independent interests being able to push development.

I love mine, it is a great motivator for doing more reading in addition to helping keep my notes organized. Especially for reading academic papers, it is great to be able to easily annotate and then actually keep my annotations, which I haven't found any other good solution for.

I also decided to preorder a 2 because the thing that breaks immersion for me the most currently is having to switch to eraser mode. I may still keep my 1 as well though, because as another commenter mentioned the biggest slow down is trying to flip back through notes on the device (even using the zoomed out view it can be quite slow with larger documents). I have been working through a few math textbooks and am actually looking forward to being able to have problems open on one tablet and the book on the other.

Not if the temperature has an effect on the intervention you are trying to study. Taken to an extreme, you obviously cannot house mice in a freezer and expect generalizable results.

I don't know how the numbers work out but I imagine there are enough people using property as an investment that the above could be implemented with an exception for 1 single family home per tax household, and still generate a lot of money.

I agree it sucks to force people out of their primary residence, even if they would be nicely compensated. But residential property should be more focused on the residential part than it is these days.

I think it would be hilarious to get a company email that uses only the subject line. I miss getting "announcement EOM" emails (EOM indicating the end of the subject is actually the end of the message).

Interesting, thanks for the info! I think the statement could still apply even with videos available, but of course it is also in MIT's best interest to say this.

Honestly I really like the idea of using OCW materials to run a course, I'd have loved something like that instead of the AP program in high school. It's too bad the original intended use didn't catch on (or at least I've never seen it used that way).

When was this? Not doubting you but by the time I came across OCW in 2012 there were quite a few courses with video lectures, at least you could cover the standard frosh year curriculum with videos and much of the year 1 CS courses. So that gets you an "associates" worth of CS content right there, and this was before I recall MOOCs being a hot topic more broadly.

There are also still quite a few MIT courses that have course websites/YouTube channels with videos but are not linked to on OCW nor adapted for edX. At least I've taken 3 such courses in the last couple years. So I don't think they are being strict about distribution either.

I mean a lot of biology papers are loose on protocol details to be honest, dunno about Chemistry but for Bio it can often be difficult to exactly replicate a method because of lack of details alone.

That said I think this should change given how easy it is these days to share supplemental info online.

As far as ugly code I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of academics won't take the time to fix it up, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be released IMO. Maybe an open source community would pop up that could help clean this code for them.

I agree it doesn't make sense for the purpose of convincing anti-vaxxers. But I do think sometimes valuable research topics end up getting thrown out "with the bathwater" so to speak when the general public gets too wrapped up in a pseudoscientific interpretation (especially when that interpretation was originally supported by some poorly done or fraudulent published research).

For example, galvanic skin response was used for very bullshit purposes, which led to research on it essentially stopping for over a decade. But recently it has been rebranded as "electrodermal activity", and turns out to have use for studying Epilepsy as well as other promising potential use cases (such as improving sleep staging without EEG).

I am less aware of literature on side effects for current vaccines, so I don't know if this same phenomenon has happened. But I wouldn't be surprised if certain lines of thinking are reflexively stomped down right now.

Maybe this just needs to be the natural life cycle of science though, it might be for the greater good to let anti-vax die down before doing anything which could stoke their flames.

I've never heard the exhausting activities warning, but I do get mild flu-like symptoms for a few days (low grade fever, some fatigue, congestion) after the flu shot most years.

I don't know how common it is to experience this, as I would say I have a subpar immune system (frequently sick as a kid, history of food allergies, etc.). But when I've discussed it with doctors they do say my reaction is unsurprising, however the benefits outweigh the "costs".

FWIW there was some backlash at the time: https://www.wsj.com/articles/furor-erupts-over-facebook-expe...

Yes if I'm remembering correctly this study was published by Facebook data science after some psych lab published a study that went semi-viral suggesting people were more unhappy when their network made mostly happy posts (which was explained by jealousy/comparing self to others).

I remember thinking both studies had limitations, the main one here being that the interpretation is a stretch and to me was obviously trying to push back on the original popular narrative.

Point being, I agree it is definitely plausible that seeing positive posts encourages more showing off rather than actual happiness. I would be interested if anyone is aware of any more recent follow-up studies?

Interesting, thanks for letting me know! It does seem there is more variance in the courses than I realized. Might be related to whether courses are part of a MicroMasters or not.

I didn't realize either that some amount of course credit could transfer from that program to a traditional Masters. However it also appears to require an in person exam in that case and the "semester equivalent tuition" is like $1500.

MicroMasters sounds like a good way to test the waters for those considering a Masters to me, especially if possibly switching fields. I am still skeptical that one could realistically get a full education via these resources though. [Noting of course that depending on use case you may not need a full education].

Even for OCW which in some cases is a carbon copy of the course materials, it takes a lot of self discipline and regular access to a good study group (or an expert you can ask questions) to get the same value out of one of those classes.

It is a fact that edX courses are developed separately and with a different target audience in mind. The material is demonstrably different. They are a nice resource, but they are not an argument that Harvard classes are "worth $20"

edX. But also they really are not the same courses, at least the MIT courses on edX are not the same as "real" MIT courses (or what they put on OCW). Video lectures are separately planned/recorded to be shorter duration "modules", which decreases the depth and sometimes also results in entire topics being cut out. Assignments are heavily simplified. There is no proper replacement for recitations/office hours. And so on.

Also, there are sites like HMX which is more in the realm of $1000 per class, and still not "the real thing". These classes are solid but they are just not comparable to actual classes at Harvard Medical School. My experience with taking classes versus trying out mass online learning has repeatedly resulted in "this is a nice amenity to have, but it is not a substitute for a proper course".

Does Harvard have a monopoly on undergraduate math, philosophy, etc. materials? No. But there is a huge difference between doing challenging problem sets/having complicated debates with a high quality peer group (+ access to top profs), and doing the most basic "understanding checks" with a random sampling of college students. I think it is silly to pretend the only value top schools provide beyond random U is the value of building up a network/credentials. That is part of it, but it is also actually much easier to get a better education at these schools.

I think there are two main problems with higher ed: 1) the top schools do not do a good enough job of admitting talented students across socioeconomic lines and 2) students are taking out debt to go to mid tier schools at unsustainable levels [especially because some of these students do not actually have a plan for college but feel pressured to rush into it]. There are also probably a bunch of lower tier private schools that should not exist.

Anyway, for some reason I get the sense HN takes these 2 problems and somehow comes to the complaint that "elite schools are a waste of money". Given the generous financial aid, the greater availability of classes and rigor of coursework, the career building resources, etc. I don't think you will find better value per dollar at any US schools than from the HYPSM+ cohort.

Students for whom it is at all feasible should just take a gap year this year IMO.

You'd be surprised how many young adults are not aware of basic things like if your sink does not have a garbage disposal you should not dump large chunks of food down the drain, or that you should replace your dish sponge periodically. Certainly these are things that could be easily learned, but I do think there is a lack of awareness (or caring) about basic procedures on which cleaning products to use when, etc.

I have seen recent college grads go over a year without washing/changing their bed sheets. In one case I found a couple dead bugs under the sheets. It may be pure laziness but in that case they are also feigning ignorance.

Plenty of schools have a higher endowment than Amherst. Stanford has a notably bigger endowment than MIT.

In any case, I was not agreeing with GP, I just think "lower ranked schools" is a bit of a strong statement as that does not conjure images of e.g. Columbia for me, even if it is technically a couple spots lower

I do agree the "universities don't give a shit about their students" sentiment is over the top these days though.

But at most of these schools (<10 in the US are exceptions) ability to pay can still affect who they choose to admit in the first place internationally. Whereas >100 schools practice need blind admissions for domestic students. That said Harvard/MIT should be no different between the two.

According to QS only Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, and Amherst do need blind admissions for international students (surprised to not see Stanford on that list). So while in this instance I do not think it is driven by any direct financial motivation, the majority of even "top" US schools do appear to select international students in part on their ability to pay.

I'm no defender of Harvard but I can guarantee you that most "elite" schools do this, including the whole Ivy league- and there are definitely other Ivies that are worse offenders. Harvard is just in the spotlight. Not that this changes the criticism of Harvard necessarily, but there are system-wide problems here.

But at whose expense are ALDCs chosen? I suppose we cannot know, but are there rejected non-ALDC white students that could fill those spots who the model would consider deserving to be there? FWIW MIT is ~40% white without AL(DC?) [0], so that is closer to H's current distribution.

The whole admissions situation is of course an opaque, handwavy, crapshoot. But I am just curious in practice what would happen to the distribution if Harvard decided to drop say legacy status.

[0] https://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/profile/

I have a question about the abstract for anyone that looked deeper at the paper- does the following statement take into account rejected student stats or only those of accepted students? Because it seems plausible to me that white students "on the cusp" are more likely to get rejected to "make room" for ALDCs. Meaning that removing this preference may actually benefit a typical white applicant more than others. I could of course also imagine that not being the case though.

"Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged."

I do recall the popular line about how everyone at orientation could be replaced with a new cohort that has similar academic profile, which implies that there is quite a bit of judgement call going on.

Overall, it is unsurprising yet disappointing that they estimate ~3/4 of ALDCs would not get admitted without that status. This system is probably a big reason that most elite schools have ~15% of their students from the top 1%, while MIT is closer to 5%. MIT definitely does not do legacies and of course gives little weight to athletics. I am not sure about children of faculty though.