throwgeorge
abstract algebra (rings, groups, fields) is taught in absolutely every undergrad math program in the country (in the world?). there's nothing unique to harvard in this aspect.
the value of harvard math profs isn't reaped by the undergrads, it's reaped by the grad students that work closely/directly with these profs. i'm not 100% sure of this but benedict gross probably isn't holding several hours of office hours every week for his undergrad algebra classes (although he might for the grad sections).
now the knock-on effect, obviously, is that the very good math phd students that pursue and are admitted to harvard do provide a lot of value for the undergrads (since they're TAing/holding office hours for those undergrads). but those same harvard phd students then go get tenure track positions at mediocre schools where office hours are held by profs. so it all evens out as far as undergrads go :)
>Your diploma will read "Master of Science in Computer Science," exactly the same as those of on-campus graduates. There will be no "online" designation for the degrees of OMS CS graduates.
https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/fe6y66/im_...
i would like to point out that there are some men that are made uncomfortable by comments that echo masculinity here as well and criticisms from such men never get much traction either. so it'd be nice if there were space (a space or just space) on HN for someone that wishes question the culture and all of the "high-minded" structure. r/twox is a good model - predominantly patronized by women but welcoming of good faith discussion from other genders as well.
people should read "the trial" and internalize it (and ponder what historical context prompted kafka to write it).
and a job well done is its own reward right? i think it's very pretentious to say that to a person who's attending school in order to improve their lot in life (because credentials count for so much); that what's more important than the credential is some abstract notion of improvement. you might as well cast it in terms of sin and salvation.
lol that's not what it means at all. almost sure/almost everywhere/complement has measure 0 means exactly what it says: the set can be covered by a countable cover whose measure is zero. that's it and no more. no one ever says something like "the normal distribution 100% of the time is not 0" even though { x = 0 } has measure zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_set
This and other wacky analysis things is what inspired me to study pure math in undergrad.
https://see.stanford.edu/materials/lsocoee364b/01-subgradien...
>It’s a Constitutional (and undoubtedly contractual) requirement. Police officers are employed pursuant to a contract. A contractual benefit is considered a property interest that cannot be taken away without “due process.” Hence police officers remain employed (and getting paid) until an investigation establishes they actually did something wrong. Private employers don’t need to provide due process so this doesn’t apply.
probably deleted because it's wrong; deleted before i could submit my response:
>It’s a Constitutional (and undoubtedly contractual) requirement.
you're wrong
> “Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law—rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.”
so it's a matter of “legitimate entitlements”. in fact "legislature may elect not to confer a property interest in federal employment" and moreover in Bishop v. Wood SC accepted a lower court's opinion that police are employed at will even if discharge is conditional on due process.
all this and more at https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/...
sorry i don't understand this. i'm not trying to be pedantic but: statically typed (and type-checked) language will fail to compile ... not just warn you. that's not a 1% difference that's the entire difference (because lots of people will miss or flat out ignore ide hints).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_immunity
>Firming up what had long been held as common practice, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 ruled in Imbler v. Pachtman that prosecutors cannot face civil lawsuits for prosecutorial abuses, no matter how severe
What other job exists on the face of the planet where there's such a strong guarantee and therefore so much moral hazard?