bobmarley1

I've actually seen many many job postings looking for people with a PhD in Data Science which is truly mindblowing because there are only 2-3 such programs in the Country and most of them just started so none of their students are even on the job market yet.

That's rather sad considering the degree isn't going to say Online and Georgia Tech is top 10 in the world in Computer Science and online or not that credential carries real weight for people in the know.

Well not according to the people who constantly talk about Supply and Demand. If there's a massive supply shortage as implied there ought to be a corresponding increase in Compensation no?

Yet it still has a massive first mover advantage.

Or you know maybe investors have smartened up and are unwilling to give money to the 20th "Uber for X" idea from some Stanford bros.

Edit: Seems I hurt the feelings of Silicon Valley brogrammers selling their Uber for Dog Grooming with Blockchain AI startups lol.

Harvard's legal argument isn't that they are racially discriminating and that it's legal. They know it's not.

Grutter v. Bollinger 2003 Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

Sorry but that doesn't really have bearing on the Harvard case, the decision upheld that scoring systems and quotas are unconstitutional.

Of course you seem to be ignoring Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 1978 that ruled that race could be used as a factor in admissions but struck down quotas.

In fact Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

Hmm sounds like Harvard's argument. So the law is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be.

It's actually not at all clear if it's legal hence the court battle. In fact AA is literally legalized discrimination that benefits Minorities so you really don't know what you are talking about.

Not sure how this could be downvoted. It's factually accurate. FB, Snap and Insta astroturfers must be out in force.

Yeah totally, the Snap and Facebook short sellers are astroturfing anti social media bias duuuude.

If you don't see how spending all day on Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram could be affecting your mental health then obviously you won't understand everyone else's concerns and distaste for Social Media.

The data is pretty clear and teenage anxiety, depression etc are off the charts and can be directly attributed to Social Media. The problems are real.

Seriously? Find me the politicians who haven't accepted campaign donations(bribes) from insurance or healthcare companies. Good Luck.

Lolwat the entire purpose of Arbitration is to give a massive advantage to corporations.

Like in Education the glut of "Administrators" is certainly not helping.

Millions of people no doubt.

Idk if I would recommend Griffiths, his texts are usually extremely rigorous. I can't speak for this one but certainly his ED and QM books.

If you aren't a professor and you are teaching classes you are an Adjunct/Lecturer which is a dead end career-wise. Maybe nice as a side gig or when you retire but a horrible position to be in otherwise.

Edit: I actually don't know what you are arguing, I think the point is that you won't get a job as a Professor without a PhD, getting teaching offers is completely different and happen to people in industry without PhDs all the time.

See Betsy Devos and Mick Mulvaney. They are literally gutting their respective Departments for the direct benefit of private corporations. You can tell yourself that they are just trimming fat all you want but please explain how removing protections for student loan borrowers or dismantling consumer financial protections helps anyone but corporate bigwigs?

I wonder how this applies to Part Time PhDs. They are exceedingly rare in the US and it usually comes down to having a very supportive Job and an unusually open minded Advisor, I've seen people at UNC and Duke doing part time CS PhDs. It also seems much more common in the UK/EU. I know Oxford, ICL and others offer part time programs.

Seems to have all the upside and none of the downside, you keep your industry pay, continue racking up experience and after a few more years than normal get a PhD to hang on your wall.

Both their classes are offered online for free, I fail to see the conflict?

This would never happen in the us where average PhD stipends are $30,000 at great schools and even a two bit programmer in the middle of nowhere USA could make $50k easily.

Several of the examples in the article of people without PhDs work at Google Brain so you are literally wrong in this case. They are obviously outliers but either way you aren't right.

Sounds like an Adjunct position which I hate to break it to you is no where near Professor. You will likely make less than minimum wage, I have seen salaries of $3,000 per class taught, and have essentially no room for advancement.This is a common end point for PhDs that didn't get a Tenure track position and have no other choice.

Malthusian overpopulation stopped being a serious scientific theory years ago.

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_...

How else can you convince someone to fund another useless product if you don't tell everyone the founders went to Stanford and worked at Google??

Frankly I've found both days completely underwhelming and the only companies that have even a hope of approaching unicorn territory are the Pharma startups and even then they don't seem terribly groundbreaking.

YC has gotten stale.

Must be fun spending years in academia getting your Phd in Machine Learning and Computer Vision only to create an Emoji app. How much talent is being wasted on worthless trash like this??

What are you insinuating? Booz Allen isn't even a cloud provider at all. They will likely inevitably be involved in the rollout regardless of who the gov goes with, AWS, GCP, Azure etc. but I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm also genuinely confused by Oracle being pulled into this, are their execs really so deluded that they think they could actually win this contract or is this just a wild guess?

The connections between Neural Networks and the human brain are superficial at best and it's unwise to abuse the analogy beyond it's limit. The author's make no such claims and I don't think you have the standing to either.

All the Major AI conferences are published in English, are you concerned about that as well? English has long been established as the lingua franca of Science, it's not discrimination it's just reality.