tnecniv

My guess is that it’s an open secret kind of thing. There’s not a big sign that says “nukes here!” but when you see stuff like the previous poster mentioned, you can guess what’s going on.

Yeah and the league hates it, so they deadened the ball two years back. Just enough that close homers would go for fly outs but not enough to change the math so players would change their approach.

Also, if you’re Mookie Betts, you’re big on both

Yeah or the other way around. I thought I saw orcs kek’ing as an alliance character. They’d mangle text spoken in languages you didn’t know, and horde / alliance did not have any language overlap.

Kind of funny given the guy who invented pasteurization

I think that was the original idea of the term in the West as well, we just got it distorted via sci-fi over time

In hindsight, that’s because high school calculus doesn’t teach you how things work and just teaches you a bag of tricks so you can grind through problems. There’s a certain number of tricks you should know, I.e., you should be able to take some simple integrals and derivatives, but for higher math, you run into complicated things where the tricks don’t work or don’t exist. Some of the tricks are actually really useful, but you have to fully internalize where they come from, e.g., integration by parts just comes from rearranging the chain rule, and, if you know that, you can apply it to more exotic derivatives.

I did well in HS calculus but struggled in college math because the bag of tricks approach doesn’t work there. It took a lot of effort for me to undo the bad habits I learned from K-12 math and learn the good stuff, but it paid off.

Also, it’s well known that eventually professional mathematicians hate certain kinds of math. There’s the classic divide between analysists (those that do calculus-type stuff) and algebrists (those that do things like group theory, and linear algebra goes here). You don’t have to like it all, and something you don’t appreciate the first time you see it, you may enjoy later

In fact, a lot of such users would find the revolt offensive because it interrupts their regularly scheduled memes

Or you get distracted and move on to a different project. Thats the biggest reason I never followed up on my future work ideas in papers.

I advise doing what the others said. Encourage him and have fun and don’t worry about whether or not a game gets made. When he’s playing games, you might point out how you think the developer implemented things (even simple things).

I got into coding when I was 13. The only game I ever really made was a top down shooter with SML because I 1) learned that games are hard work 2) had no idea where to get assets besides ripping sprite sheets which I didn’t have the attention span for 3) I found more joy in the coding itself than making a game. I always had some dinky project going and it was almost never a game. Hell, I had more fun making a GameBoy emulator than making games!

These days, now that I know what I’m doing, I have an idea for a game I’d like to make. I wonder if I’ll ever get around to it? It’s ambitious, but I think doable solo (minus the art). It’d probably be a 5-10 year project. A big part of the reason I haven’t started it is I know how much not fun parts there are involved, like tuning algorithms.

To be fair, that’s a common enough problem in games it’s developed a name: ludonarrative dissonance

This phenomena gets more interesting when you considering increasingly global markets for things like TV and movies. For example, I read about ten years ago (so I don’t have the source, sorry), that humor in big Hollywood movies has been transitioning from dialogue to visual humor because the latter is much easier to translate for a global audience.

Something I noticed before I found that article was also that, at least in my anecdotal experience is that older movies often had quicker moving dialog (characters talked faster, talked over each other, etc.). I’ve wondered if that’s been just a style choice or driven by the global market as well, since slowing dialog down makes it easier for non-native speakers to follow and presumably makes translation easier.

I don’t know if it’s true or a common myth, but US soldiers in the Battle of the Buldge would ask possible spies baseball questions. Even if you were an American that didn’t like baseball, it was absolutely massive back then and would know some things about recent seasons.

Actually religions, or at least the ones I know about in some detail, don’t model that much. For example, Christianity doesn’t really model the afterlife beyond being Heaven being in the presence of the Lord. I think Eastern religions are similar in that you reach enlightenment after many lifetimes and ascend to rejoin some greater plane / consciousness instead of being reborn again.

Catholicism even celebrates various “mysteries,” which are things like the trinity which they do not think can be understood fully by mortals.

I messed around with Go early on but haven’t touched it since (I mostly do numerical work these days) but this tracks with what I expected from the language. It felt reactionary to the C++ monster. It felt like the early goal was to make the language as simple as possible, like C, and add quality of life improvements that don’t increase complexity, especially for parallelization with the go routines.

Here, u is presumably utility and t is time

That’s the programming part. As others have shared, the “Dynamic” part was made up by Bellman so it sounded important and politicians wouldn’t try to cut his funding. It’s often applied to dynamical systems, but that’s a coincidence.

I think that CS classes also teach it really poorly. I did not understand it at all until I took an optimal control class and it instantly made sense

I also agree with one of the parents that Villevenue’s was sterile, however the book itself is kind of sterile — as lots of SF of the era was. The world building is incredible, and Villevenue captures all that well in the sets, costumes, and such. However, characters and dialog are not a strength of that book in my opinion.

I love the book though, and I enjoyed Villevenue’s adaptation because it was exactly how I visualized the book when I first read it. However, having such a direct adaptation means you inherit the flaws as well — in this case some dryness and the pacing issue that you mentioned.

My memory in the naming traditions was also that men got their own names but daughters were just given the family name with a nickname to distinguish, which is incredibly dehumanizing.

I don’t know about fights like that but gladiators often didn’t fight to the death. It’s shockingly like major sports today — they sold commemorative cups and other art at the stadium for popular gladiators. Contestants dying was bad business.

It’s certainly the best of the symbolic computational tools that I’ve tried. However, my problem with such tools is that that they work great for simple examples in my experience but scaling them to work with non-trivial systems is rough. It may be user error on my part, but the path between simple and complex is non-obvious.

Eh I think there’s a good chance they’re less vocal about it. My father is a lawyer and he chose between going into a legal career and doing a PhD in philosophy. If you asked him, he’d tell you he wished he didn’t latter now that he’s nearing the end of his legal career. I think that 1) there’s a smaller percentage of people that made the choice between academics and industry and chose industry 2) they’re not vocal about it for one reason or the other. Most of the people I went to undergrad with whom I thought could succeed in academia had zero interest in doing research at any level.

Academia is definitely not for everyone, but when I weighed my options I am happy I did my PhD regardless of how I feel at the moment. It’s a peculiar thing for peculiar people and the attraction does not correlate with intelligence.

When postdoc positions first were created, they were illusive and of high prestige. Then the idea got abused to add labor for professors to varying degrees depending on the field.

I just wanted to comment regarding the rule you mentioned and wanted to say that I was always told that, unofficially, you can always move up but only a tier at a time and you don’t want to move down if you can avoid it because then you likely have to move back up. The calculus does get harder though the longer you’re in the game — you might elect to move down because you’re significant other gets a promotion or you don’t want to uproot your family, etc.

When I was still a PhD student, my advisor lamented that he couldn’t find postdocs to hire because big tech was paying them more for the same role with minimal constraints. If that kept going for a while, I imagine it’d put pressure on at least some parts of academia (CS and engineering don’t expect you to do a series of postdocs like biology does, and pure math has their own system of seniority I only know a little about). The money dried up though.

That does always seem to work in the movies

Coincidentally, I was rewatching the first season of True Detective last night and they were talking about this in the show. I almost turned it off because it was too real for me at the moment.

Well I should clarify. There are jobs that I can do certainly, but very few that I’ve thought would given me the internal satisfaction of what academia used to give me (and I think could give me again). Before I was hired as a postdoc I applied for various research scientist positions at places that would still let me publish, but then all the hiring freezes happened. Whether that counts as academia is in the eye of the beholder but at least they pay better.

The only other gig I can think of that would excite me is being a statistical analyst for a baseball team. I know more than one person who made that transition after getting their PhD. Something else is probably out there, too, but I haven’t discovered it for myself yet.

Yeah I’m not sure I’d go the tenure route anyway. I’d rather do research than manage people doing research on my half-baked ideas. Fortunately, in my field, there’s options to publish as an industry research. Unfortunately, those jobs dried up last year along with all the other tech jobs when I was searching.

I guess the tricky thing (maybe it suggests it’s not burnout but some other source of depression) is that I haven’t been motivated by my hobbies either. It’s been hard to find much joy in anything as of late.

I started my postdoc in August, but the burnout started earlier, a few months before writing my dissertation. Congrats on finishing your degree (almost)!

I also have kind of esoteric interests in my field but it mostly hasn’t bothered me. It certainly doesn’t help with matters though when sometimes I’m trying to motivate myself and go “what’s the point?”

I will say that one thing I’ve learned as a researcher is that it’s hard to know what people will and will not like. I’ve received compliments on some of my least favorite papers I’ve written. My advisor always told this story about how, as a student, he won a best paper award for a paper that almost decided not to publish because they thought the results weren’t strong enough.