You can always get your Masters if you get laid off. Jobs are precious especially for new grads. Do not make the mistake of passing over this job offer, it’s worth so much more than a masters degree. You can always get your master’s later on, for example if you get laid off from Amazon and can’t find another job.
haha, you CAN, but you WONT - here is why:
The thing is, when you leave university and you have tasted the first salary, it usually does not happen that you go back to university and have a 50-60% cut becuse of being a student again.
From my earlier cycles, NONE of the "i-will-finish-MA/MS-later-while-in-the-job" succeeded - and these were people much more intelligent than me: The minute you leave university and say "i-will-be-back", the future you imagine will never matrialize in 99.5% cases
Jobs are precious right now, especially at a name brand big tech company. That is worth much more than a masters degree. Having real job experience is hard to get right now so forgoing that for further education that is only incrementally useful over a bachelors degree is not worth it
So basically sending some people on worse routes for the sake of the “greater good”? I long suspected they did this and is not what I want. I don’t want to be forced to a worse outcome for myself just for the sake of the “greater good”. Taken to its logical extreme, lots of evil had been propagated because of the “greater good”.
As per one of the slides around 7 minutes in, there are many vaccines that show a 20-40% reduction in mortality and dementia.
The talk above basically says that “observational studies” may show great results, like the so-called protective action of the shingles vaccine against dementia. However when brought to a well designed RCT all those benefits don’t actually show up. And the speaker shows later on that the shingles vaccines shows a marked benefit for shingles but nothing for dementia.
There was a hard age cutoff in the UK study. Above a certain age, you weren't eligible. Below it, you were. People who were born in the "can get the vaccine" group have markedly lower rates of dementia. People in the "too old" group have higher rates. It's one of those studies where you don't even need to look at the p-value to see the difference.
Thanks very much for linking that substack, very informative.
But in your summary:
> People who were born in the "can get the vaccine" group have markedly lower rates of dementia. People in the "too old" group have higher rates.
I would change "people" to "women". I thought it was very interesting that the benefit of the Shingles vaccine eligibility for Alzheimer's was largely confined to women - men showed no such benefit per the graph in that substack article.
The video explains why the analysis is wrong and gives a very clear graph of how when you look at the proper data, there’s no benefit from the shingles vaccine for dementia. The signal is clear as day.
FWIW Eric Topol is an extremely unreliable source. He has “fame” but most of his stories end up being wrong because of his poor analysis like the review above. I subscribed to him during the pandemic when he migrated to substack but ended my subscription after countless bad articles.
Right. And RCTs not showing things than can be seen in larger observational studies seems plausibly related to the problems with RCTs, for instance statistical power being generally lower because n sizes are lower, attrition is an issue, etc… I want to believe the research though, especially since I like most smart people are going to get the Shingrix shot anyway.
So you have a 30 person RCT, half the treatment bails midway through, you include the assigned but not treated (ITT) in the analysis. That’s going to give you the power to make a definitive statement while a large scale longitudinal with n=50,000 will not?
This is wonderful. Hopefully this is an extinction level event for all of the toxic degree factories that were created just to take advantage of the non-dischargeable student loans. US tuition almost tripled in the last 15 years but the quality of education didn’t triple.
Trump himself took advantage of this by creating Trump university which was a for-profit degree mill.
All of those “schools” needs to be wiped off the map and hopefully get replaced by schools that show real value.
It was not a degree mill, it was a stupid real estate seminar scam like dozens of others. It's even exaggerating to call it a scam - it preyed on people who thought that Trump knew something about real estate that he could teach, and they pretty much got what they paid for (the wisdom of a known real estate failure who instead decided to become a brand.)
I happened upon her via Instagram around day 10 and watched her every day. It was really interesting watching her go through this every day and her authentic posts about what she was feeling. It’s truly great seeing people achieve their goals like this, she is amazing!
How can grok create a coding LLM at the same level as OpenAI or Anthropic when they don’t have the same amount of AI talent as the other companies by an order of magnitude? Is it really that easy to train a coding model like that?
Those two companies spend all their effort patting themselves on the back about "peer reviewed studies" and posturing immeasurables like security theatre and "trust and safety". It's really not hard to believe that Grok or Chinese models can show there is no moat.
"Notably, in 1974, Federal Reserve chair Arthur Burns felt it necessary to make clear that high nominal interest rates would need to continue “for a time” as an anti-inflation measure;"
"A later chair, Paul Volcker, having presided over a period of very restrictive monetary policy, chose in March 1982 to make an explicit indication that nominal interest rates would and should fall in the period ahead."
I’ve hated XML since 2004. The worst part about it is the tags vs attributes fights. They both do the same thing and the only difference is preference. Having two ways of doing the same thing invite and incite religious positions and cause unnecessary fighting. There should be one, opinionated way of doing things so you avoid confusion.
> The worst part about it is the tags vs attributes fights. They both do the same thing and the only difference is preference.
They're not the same thing. If you look at it as the extensible markup language for documents that it is, "tags" (i.e. inner content) would be visible and "attributes" would not. If your XML document was processed by an application to convert to another type of document (PDF, etc.), and it didn't recognize a particular tag, it would be sensible for attributes to disappear, but inner content ("tags") to remain.
It's only seems like a preference thing if you look at XML as a structured data format like JSON is.
In data structure terms, attributes do allow nodes to be decorated with additional information without forcing any change on existing parsers. In JSON, this would require swapping, eg. "str" -> {"value": "str", "attrib1": "..."}.
> If you look at it as the extensible markup language for documents that it is, "tags" (i.e. inner content) would be visible and "attributes" would not.
<input type="text" value="Is this text visible?" />
Translation: “My GSUs that I received at $35 and upwards for the last 10 years have made me enough money such that I can now finally make the “moral” decision that I’ve always wanted to do but was willing to swallow until I made enough money. Now I can pretend I was always the moral person that I purport to be, even though not much has actually changed except my financially-improved courage.”
This is needlessly cynical. Everyone has thresholds, and it may not be tied (at least exclusively) to money. Those that _assume_ that the morals of others are always at whim of financial gain are those that I trust the least.
He is worth well over $20M given his title and the skyrocketing of Google stock since 2017. He could have left years ago if he were really so morally outraged.
There’s nothing more useless than a multi-millionaire “finally” taking a moral stand on something. I guarantee that this same person without the money would not have posted this ridiculous manifesto declaring his moral piety.
If he donates all his wealth away because it was made “immorally” then I will change my stance. We both know he won’t and that’s how we know his courage is really just because he’s rich.
You can always get your Masters if you get laid off. Jobs are precious especially for new grads. Do not make the mistake of passing over this job offer, it’s worth so much more than a masters degree. You can always get your master’s later on, for example if you get laid off from Amazon and can’t find another job.
reply