"There is huge genetic IQ gaps, lol. Some cats are so smart they blow your mind, others are mouth breathers. The normal distribution is real."
I'm very curious about how well someone with a "lot of experience in digital advertising" is positioned to define "genetic IQ gaps", "smart", etc. as it applies to cats & others. Perhaps instead of throwing these terms around like they're candy, you should submit your findings to an scientific journal (and get rejected :) ).
Intelligence is not well-defined even for humans, and we have little understanding of what goes on in an animal's "mind", yet people like you use terms like IQ for cats like they're established facts. For all we know, it could be that some animals/cats just don't "care" as much about interacting with humans. Just like some humans do.
I don't know your situation but I while there are certainly ultra-competitive CS programs (e.g., Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, CMU), there are many research-focused universities in the US (R1) that are totally good-enough for doing research and getting a recognized degree. In a lot of less competitive universities, there is no admission committee per se; you just email the faculty you're interested in and if he wants to recruit you, then it's basically done.
There are good research universities in the R2 list as well (RIT, IIT, etc.)
The PhD stipend is well above starvation levels and you can go to internships during summer to earn more money and accumulate experience. I have seen many, many people in FAANG with PhDs in SDE/DS roles and they can relatively quickly reach senior levels as well.
Especially in biosciences. But it’s probably the case that the hardware that Apple produces don’t use fancier methods such as DL/RL that much and depend on more traditional methods. You need capable GPUs for the state of the art stuff (e.g. DLSS by Nvidia).
No, especially in fields that have as much citations and papers on average as ML/DL/RL.
If a paper in any other field was cited 44k in ~8 years, it must have made life-changing discoveries. Maybe some of the early papers on COVID-19 will reach that number.
"ML is starting to fizzle out as a “savior” of the industry after lofty promises were never fulfilled."
What? Siri, text completion, all the health- and activity-tracking features of Apple Watch, computational photography, Photos app, Face ID, and many, many more depend on machine learning. And let's not forget the Neural Engine in M1.
Wow, reading a few pages of mostly spiteful & angry (at Mr. Goodfellow) replies on macrumors.com was really eye-opening. Ordinary people seem to have no idea at all how much in-demand someone at the level of Ian Goodfellow is.
Isn't there a tax deduction aspect to a lot of these donations?
Anyways, 100 more Nature-level articles about climate change is not going to change the situation if there is no political will (or if it seesaws every 4-8 years at best).
"If it's from Stanford, pretty much whatever you want."
That not true at all. The name of the university can only get you so far. For example, if you have a climate-related degree, can you really compete with Stanford CS majors for a SDE job? Or with ME majors for a product design position?
IMO if you get into Stanford and can pay for the degree, it would be a waste to spend it in a major like that unless you're really passionate and have very specific goals.
"So, basically, investment banking or data science"
Well, those are definitely not "whatever you want".
I have not had the time to read the paper and see how the authors address this, but the biggest flaw of this study is relying on subjective reports by the owners. Almost all dog owners I know are used to playing down the severity of their dog's aggressiveness.
This is not a silver bullet, even for recently published Nature/Science papers. You need to convince 3-4 people to get your paper published in the end. For many controversial papers, there is a lot of back and forth about the validity of the results (e.g., "Matters Arising" in Nature).
The biggest flaw of this study is relying on subjective reports by the owners. Almost all dog owners I know are used to playing down the severity of their dog's aggressiveness.
"There could be plenty of reasons why pitbulls feature highly in the dog attack stats (severity making attacks more noteworthy, type of owner increasing likelihood"
Well, the severity of their attacks is essentially a results of their genetics. As for the type of owner, it the same logic used against gun control, saying that they pose no danger if the owner is responsible.
Whatever the combination of factors, the end result on a large scale point to pitbulls as the most dangerous breed of dog to humans and banning them should be a no-brainer.
But is writing a (somewhat pathetic) open letter really trying? Perhaps organizing a strike would convey more meaning, although I don't see that happening at all.