I just can't think well on interesting problems while someone's talking to someone behind, someone at my face at the cubicle trying to hit a conversation. Hence, WFH.
Don't like team because finding good team 10xs everything but bad team 1/10xs everything.
It's way more likely the team is a misfit in real world unless of course there are no hiring constraints due to elitism.
> What companies want is team players who are often fun, light and friendly, actively work to build trust with a team through socialization, promote good practices and patterns and don't begrudge the fact that a portion of their day is to be spent in meetings, reviewing others' code and generally communicating.
It seems ok for a company to seek these from their engineers. I think, I want these too. I just don't like forced standups and sync up meetings. If someone did something cool and want to pull me aside to show? I'm all in. If someone wants help on something, I'll be there..
but it's just that the way things are managed is just dull.
let's do a standup meeting for 15mins where people explain
- what they did yesterday
- what they will do today
- what are impediments
I propose an idea and the TL arbitrarily pulls off a blog post reference to shut down by saying "there's no business value".
I think it's fair to expect interviewee to solve 2 LC mediums in 45 mins given by the candidate. That's the current FAANG expectation. If a bad candidate is too costly for a company, so are a bad company too costly for a candidate.
I just don't understand why Apple Music search is so bad. Sometimes only exact match returns albums. It's so bad that appending "Apple Music" in google works better.
Rate of change:
Enrollment increased by 4 times.
Population increased by 100 times.
> How do you double elite universities?
Doubling elite universities: I mean more outreach from let's say T10 with next 10-20. This doesn't happen.
Ex: Top 5 won't cite papers written by someone in the middle. It happens but that's quite rare.
Ex: Faculty recruitment does not propagates from bottom ranking institution to top ranking institution. It's super rare.
Ex: Research collaborations are very clubby.
> It's more like we have an eliteness gradient (T10, T20, etc...) and the masses together decide what's "elite enough".
Masses opinion doesn't count. Eliteness is determined by elite. Consider an elite club exists at the beginning. Every 5 years new members are inducted into the elite club. Their opinion matters way more than everyone's simply because they are elite.
In most departments, the state of the art is a qualitative measurement. Something is great because a bunch of great people think it's great. There isn't a better approach anyway. But that comes with bad biases.
Ex: It's rare to have a Supreme Court justice coming from outside Harvard and Yale.
Ex: Some departments in Harvard would never hire someone as faculty just because they aren't from Harvard, Yale or a couple of other places.
The US population increased 100 times since 1800s from 5M to 500M. Harvard enrollment increased 4 times since 1800s from 1.5K to 20K.
The number of universities in the US did grew greatly during these 200 years, but the funding distribution to these universities is as skewed as the income inequality in the US. For instance, 60% of NIH funds go to <10 institutes in the country.
The scholarly work at these elite universities might not appear deserving of the preferential treatment from the funding agencies, if we start poking around reproducibility crisis, data hacking etc.
It seems fair to assume doubling elite universities would not be catastrophic to elitism.
> However, I think it's extremely unprofessional to write a blog post saying that your supervisor is superficial or your research group is performative art.
lol. You don't know the weight of crushed aspirations and a two year opportunity cost.
> I don't say this because I think we should just take the venerable professor's word for it, but because accusations in general, if they're vague enough, are impossible to defend against.
again lol. publication game is well know.
> I think if there's enough substance to make your comment specific, you should. Maybe even write a paper explaining why what they're doing is nonsense. If you're right, this would genuinely be a contribution to the field. If you can't be specific enough to be scientific about it, just keep it to yourself.
again lol. this is a very academic answer. Actually, I'm not sure university administrations write a paper on policies and ask for peer comments before making changes. They just do it, in the most brutal, authoritarian/top-down/corporate way possible. But the top brass needs papers from the bottom. Show me how much academia has been optimized by writing papers about academia. Well, even if they did they are useless.