You have clearly never actually done “hard sciences” research in any meaningful way if this is your take. And computer science does not count as a science at all, it is more like engineering. Mathematics is a “hard science” that can be implemented through computer science, and physics is a “hard science” that can be implemented through electrical engineering (and as a subset computer engineering).

But even then mathematics is closer to philosophy and logic than any of the physical sciences. The physical sciences like physics, chem, bio are very different due to their experimental nature, and how sensitive they can be to specific conditions of the experiments. And the more complex the system being studied is, the harder it is to control variability which is why the social sciences like psychology and economics are working on incredibility difficult problems in systems we do not currently fully understand, and are more vulnerable to difficult reproducing and replicating the conclusions.

This is in contrast to computer science where we fully understand the system because humans have built it, and it is a machine built on the principles discovered by physicists and implemented by electrical engineers to run calculations that are created by mathematicians.

Sorry, just meant that for biochemistry it was the “lowest level” you could take. It was usually a 3rd or 4th year class. Anything 4000+ level for us was a graduate school level class. I was just saying I had the same experience as you to some degree but it’s possible different schools/professors have different expectations.

This may be a university to university and course to course difference too. My intro 3000 level biochem class didn’t have us memorize structures but my 5000 structural biochem class did and certain nucleic acid structures and stuff. Can’t remember shit now but I definitely had to memorize them at some point in undergrad.

I assumed they’re not reusing bags, but I guess I’m not sure

Dang even fiction writers shitting on social sciences now

This is crazy. I wonder what the context was for making up reviewers. Because it sounds like the paper would’ve maybe still been published without the fake reviewers

I agree with medium gray’s interpretation

If you change your orientation, this could still be clockwise

I just always say P-N-A-S

I know you’re referring to a VR headset but my mind immediately started imagining standalone over-ear headphones that can play all PC games through a purely audio interface. Imagine the accessibility possibilities lol

There’s a white color. You can tell they erased it from the legend

It was a poor reference to a quote from the TV show Community. The half Palestinian character Abed says that his father’s falafel restaurant had been struggling for a while because “9/11 was pretty much the 9/11 of the falafel business”

9/11 was the 9/11 of the Jenga business

It counts as another reference for whatever you’re writing at the moment

Hasn’t this always been a possibility? People could always record their screen or take screenshots during meetings or whatever

Maybe the problem is a lot of their marketing relies on the dominance of their search engine (ie sponsored search results, and ads based on user searches, as well as tracking user web usage via their search click throughs and other cookies). If open ai’s products become the go to for questions and basic searches, they will eventually be able to use that dominance to include marketing results in their answers. I think this threat is why they want to try to compete with them to be able to offer an alternative. Because it doesn’t actually have to be better than chat gpt. It just has to be similar enough for people to continue using Google rather than change their habits to use chatgpt, or Microsoft’s implementations of it. Especially with windows 11 where copilot (basically Microsoft rebrand of chatgpt) is built in and you can use it from the task bar. That ease of use may steadily decrease people’s reliance on Google search, which will eventually hurt their ability to sell targeted ads.

GPT is just trying to get a good tip.

Never too old to learn. I think Python is a great beginner language. It has fairly broad applications, and easy to set up an environment (don’t have to download/install a thousand things, you just install python and can run the text files in terminal). I also learned by doing starting in late middle school/early high school. I always found YouTube videos to be the most engaging way to get started. I used to like thenewboston. Once I had a handle on the basic programming language, I would do easy programming challenges where you have to solve some sort of basic problem. The challenges helped me learn basics like taking in input, changing the input based on the various rules and conditions of the challenges, then outputting the proper results formatted in the right way. Also helped me to think about algorithms, etc. After that, I started learning programming through a textbook. This was helpful for understanding some of the more technical aspects, basics of memory management, what different variable types are really for, OOP, abstraction, algorithms etc. I found that leaving these advanced topics till after I had a working understanding of the programming language helped understand the concepts better, and helped me understand why it’s important to learn the concepts in the first place. I was using Java for learning most of this, which might also be a good place to start for you, but I feel like python has simpler syntax to start with. In the end once you learn one language, I recommend learning more and not being stuck to any particular language. Every language has it’s own strengths and weaknesses, and understanding the commonalities and differences will only make you better in the long run.

Edit - now I use Go, python, JavaScript, R, Java, Julia, rust based on what I’m actually doing. It’s fairly easy to switch languages once you get used to basic syntax.

I have a question about rigid curriculums. This is mostly for high school. Many of my teachers had curriculums and syllabi that they had been using for years and kept them basically the same, and then there were the AP classes where the curriculum was determined by the AP exam. I felt that I learned really well in AP classes and we would get through much more advanced material in the AP classes than in others. And I also felt that the teachers who had developed somewhat fixed curriculums from experience taught much more efficiently than those who hadn’t. It never felt like the teachers were changing their curriculum for each class whether it was an AP class or not because most had their curriculums kind of figured out over the course of teaching for many years. And most of the teachers I had in high school were excellent. So my question is, why is it believed that rigid curriculums don’t work? Because in my schooling experience, whether the rigid curriculum was developed by the individual teacher or by an external organization (like AP), the class seemed to benefit from having fixed goals for the year.

10/10 write up