tazedsoul

I think the lesson of Feynman’s rant has eluded you. I’d keep studying it.

The tech industry, if it can manage to do it, would benefit immensely from enacting interviewing methodologies that aren’t ultimately rooted in an underlying need to haze others. It’s as if the CS nerds forgot that when the frats hazed others we were disgusted by it.

This.

Academia was not initially tasked with the purpose of preparing students for careers in industry. Academic interests are purely that: academic. They serve no intended purpose necessarily beyond their contribution to knowledge, understanding, and often the enjoyment of academics. In some cases, there is overlap between concepts of interest to academics and those in industry. However, to expect an undergraduate degree in an academic discipline, such as computer science, to prepare you for the needs of modern industry is to confuse the priorities and values of academia and industry. You can raise the question of, 'should this be the case?' and of course the answer will vary across fields, academics within fields, and students too. However, I would suggest that it may be an error to value the profit-driven needs of the industrial world to those of the academic world, which veer closer to having a value derived from the intrinsic nature of knowledge itself. If you want a school to teach you how to solve problems for Google or Facebook, I don't believe such a school should come at the cost of replacing the function and values of academia itself; perhaps some fields/departments in academia should extend study and degrees in the direction of industry-motivated study or new schools should open with such a focus. But don't be confused with your expectations that academic study should provide any tangible value in a capitalistic world.

Ah, optimism and assumptions.

It’s a reach. Or else perhaps Twitter is concerned about offending the numerous employees who lack sanity and may feel excluded by someone else wanting their code to run.

If you want to believe that a multi-billion dollar company cares about your feelings or people in general simply because it has come up with its own dictionary of acceptable words for concepts then go right ahead. What truly has Twitter done for humanity? Allowed racists and monsters to verbally assault anyone they choose, hiding behind anonymity? This is classic virtue signaling, concealing an absolute void of concern for people.

This is not a good decision. The WHO advice has been contradictory to the common sense of anyone with a basic scientific background.

This would be magnificent.

I've often wondered about this idea.

However, it seems that the most probable things come to pass in nature -- at least more frequently than less probable events. So, what makes matter more probable than antimatter (assuming this statement is even true)?

True enough, but CNBC is primarily a US audience, I believe. Correct me if I am wrong.

If I could pick one of the things to optimize all of society around, it would be sleep. I believe that many of society's ills can be traced back to people being sleep deprived on average. Modern society both ignorantly and through sheer foolishness undervalues sleep. I understand the emotional motivation for a statement like, "you can sleep when you're dead," but I do despise this prevelant sentiment which has become a culutre.

Headlines like this irk me. I expected it to be a Google employee in the Bay Area, or a major US city, not Switzerland.

I truly appreciate thinkers who are able to think about God in their own original terms. His particular description of the notion of God is quite similar to my own, so this is quite nice to read.

Bittersweet news -- but he lived a productive and long life.

I came upon parasitic numbers by researching Freeman Dyson one day. Very cool. Read up on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_number