The motivation for the article is this change in OpenJDK, where they got a 10% performance improvement by switching from the single-branch implementation to the branchless one:
Most likely because internal value is associated with salary and worth. It's very difficult to change that when society determines your worth and skills by the salary that you get.
His partner is apparantly also highly ambitious and I don't think relationships work with one partner being all about watching the stars and another super driven. Add a Phd to that which is long years invested as well and it's pretty much that you have a choice but you really don't have a choice.
Music, both listening and performing, has been one of the few things in life that really fills me with joy and gives me the strongest (positive) emotions.
If I had gotten a music degree, I could have probably been a decent composer and a better instrumentalist; so I might have been able to make a living. Or at least I probably wouldn't have gotten enough early higher paying jobs that I trapped myself in that money cycle.
I don’t know what your partner/family situation is - I feel like I could easily wind down my spending and comfort level, but I don’t want to put my partner through that. I think in most cases this is the constraining factor
That is and has been one of my best excuses (and a pretty valid one, especially when children are involved).
Now this is rather extreme in comparison, but some young families with children live a bit of the slow-nomad life, on a minimal budget. It's difficult to know if that would be overall good or negative for them and the kids, but I kind of suspect it would make for better young humans. I imagine it would mean a lot less prejudice and intolerane of others if you grew up being exposed to many different cultures.
This just screams depression to me. You have dedicated so much of your life to CS and now dream about meditation and learning about things for fun.
It may be worthwhile also to think about why started your Phd in the first place. What did you find so fun back then. Just trace to the past and find your initial reason and try to chart a path from here to what problems you want to work on.
Best cure for that is "treat others as you would want yourself to be treated". In this case I would really appreciate it if someone told me that my idea wasn't novel at all, sucked or that I was charging exorbitant fees for some minor improvement of my productivity.
A lot of times in life, kindness doesn't look like kindness.
"In this case I would really appreciate it if someone told me that my idea wasn't novel at all, sucked or that I was charging exorbitant fees for some minor improvement of my productivity."
Ok, but if the reason you think something "sucks" is because of an uncommon opinion that you hold, like a good UI isn't important or worth paying extra for, then your comment isn't very helpful to the creator. It says much more about you than the product.
Similarly, most people in tech/knowledge work would not consider $15 per month for software that makes them more productive to be "exorbitant", and I think we all know that. If you feel that way, fine, but it's not relevant to the discussion.
"Someone told me my idea sucked" is not in and of itself any more of a useful signal than "someone told me my idea is brilliant"; one person's opinion is, well, one person's opinion. Who that person is makes a difference. In the case of SigmaOS here, the "(YC S21)" suggests that they've had at least one very positive signal: YCombinator accepted them. "The most famous seed funding group in the tech world likes us enough to work with us" is probably more of a meaningful signal than "SnarkyTechGuy1337 left us a cutting comment on Hacker News".
1. Invent a problem.
2. Market like crazy to make people believe that there's a problem.
3. Charge for a solution to a non-existent problem.
4. Repeat.
You said currency, vast majority of marketing around cryptocurrencies market it as a store of value, not a currency. I'd very much like a decentralized currency.
Can't say whether I agree or not but I'm reminded of Werner Herzog's interview with GQ[1]:
"I think psychology and self-reflection is one of the major catastrophes of the twentieth century. A major, major mistake. And it’s only one of the mistakes of the twentieth century, which makes me think that the twentieth century in its entirety was a mistake...
There’s something profoundly wrong-as wrong as the Spanish Inquisition was. The Spanish Inquisition had one goal, to eradicate all traces of Muslim faith on the soil of Spain, and hence you had to confess and proclaim the innermost deepest nature of your faith to the commission. And almost as a parallel event, explaining and scrutinizing the human soul, into all its niches and crooks and abysses and dark corners, is not doing good to humans. We have to have our dark corners and the unexplained. We will become uninhabitable in a way an apartment will become uninhabitable if you illuminate every single dark corner and under the table and wherever-you cannot live in a house like this anymore. And you cannot live with a person anymore-let’s say in a marriage or a deep friendship-if everything is illuminated, explained, and put out on the table. There is something profoundly wrong. It’s a mistake. It’s a fundamentally wrong approach toward human beings."
Counterpoint: valid statistical methods and good experimental design has produced good psychological science. Most notably, the predictive power of various theories has been demonstrated in the various social media and advertising algorithms that target different categories of people.
Most of psychology is borderline religious bunkum, but not all. It will eventually converge with a theory of biological intelligence and neuroscience, and until then, will likely not improve much from broad statistical tools and observations.
The understated point is "valid" in "valid statistical methods".
Frequently, social sciences (and even a lot of medicine: basically, anything involving humans where applying valid statistical methods can quickly become unethical) rely on too small a sample set to eradicate the noise.
You do not have to model all factors, because it is impossible to do so, you just need to have a large enough sample to ensure statistical significance that's not out of "statistics in a week" course.
I've seen one too many 50-subjects study, that claims to have extremely high confidence.
> Most notably, the predictive power of various theories has been demonstrated in the various social media and advertising algorithms that target different categories of people.
Can you be more specific? I’m not sure what the field of psychology has to do with algorithms that predict relevance and engagement based on their own data on clicks and other user actions.
