2,841 karma · joined November 20, 2012
juuso.dev
Next, array languages abstract away the execution strategy of loops. You as a programmer do not pick whether you use an accumulator or divide-and-conquer in your loops. Some good parallel libraries like Rust's rayon arguably have this feature in the imperative model, but it's not exactly a language feature of Rust.
W.r.t. machine languages, array programs do not have typing information which I think is the case for all modern intermediate representations.
I have heard this a lot. My counterargument is that if that is the case, why do they want the IP anyway? Of course they can say that the IP is half created by the professor, but on the other hand, isn't that what I am paying for the university?
> where you see the commercial possibility from the beginning and aim to do that to start your company
And yes, if you personally plan to have any stake in the IP you have to think this beforehand: you must have a stake in the private company that funds your studies. Otherwise (and in the best case, i.e. 50% split) the IP will just be split between the university and your funder. So, you have to start a company in order to ever own any IP personally. I was told that LLCs for PhDs are somewhat common nowadays by the university IP people.
Generally, I think making a billion or a million dollars on my PhD project are extraordinarily slim, but it is not like these constraints exactly help either. The way I see it, is that I already take a financial toll in opportunity costs by doing a PhD. It is borderline charity when you also give the black-swan option to the university to own all proceeds if it ever becomes of significant impact, which I thought be the whole point of science.
The whole DD process has been quite frustrating to me, as you can see, but it also makes me wonder how does the current system even produce anything worth of significance given the lacklustre incentives. Finally, FWIW, yes the topic is computer science: the IP restrictions do not concern any other subject.
Some are saying to me it is not as bad as it sounds, and that I should go because Oxbridge leads to a better life. But some agree with me on the fact that it creates very bad incentives for good research. I also asked some current PhD students what they think about it, and they told me they never even thought about who owns their work. I checked some other universities which declared that any IPR is always owned by the student, not the university. But, most seem to declare that the work is owned at least in part by the funding source, which seems fair to me.
A one commentor was very strong in their opinion that most universities and especially the UK are currently committing an intellectual suicide with how they treat their researchers.
Hot take: take a look at numpy.
In general, I would say no. One of the main points is that the notation is terse so that the experienced readers can at a glance see what is going on. Notation as a tool of thought, and all that.
Another option is VC type of funding. If you already have the chops to be convincing and work on relevant topic, places like Thiel Fellowship or YC might give you alternative approaches to learning.
As for Gates I do not know. In general, I would assume that the value of a university degree has only declined since then.
I think regardless of the application, it is important to allow everyone to choose their own level redundancy. Crypto is bad for the environment because of blockchain's redundancy. Banning an application because of its redundancy sounds absurd to me.
- FAANG companies, top research universities, spinoffs of top research universities
- Yes and no. Yes because FM orbits around philosophical questions like correctness, soundness, etc., which are not usually thought in your normal web shop. No because it is fundamental CS i.e. generic.
- To prove properties, e.g. that a piece of software is bug-free. Usually this means things like reachability of states, which can be checked with e.g. TLA+. This may be a requirement in a critical system, where your normal support ticket could instead mean a death of someone. Asynchronous, distributed, and multi-core systems, which might be though to wrap your head around, might also be application areas.
- This is super opinionated, but I would say learn about SMT solvers and forget the rest. For me, it clicked with SavileRow. Constraint programming was much more like an AI to me than any actual AI, since I just described the constraints and my programs solved itself. This way, you will get used with propositional logic, which is then easier to extend into TLA+ and some partial formal verification tools which prove state-properties with propositional logic and Hoare-triples from generic software.