caddemon

There is no legitimate reason to make an illegal move in chess though? There are reasons why a good doctor might intentionally explain things imprecisely to a patient.

I've never heard of a surgeon going to jail over a genuine mistake even if it did kill someone. I'm also not sure what that would accomplish - take away their license to practice medicine sure, but they're not a threat to society more broadly.

You don't need to sacrifice the rigor to have a more balanced community, at least not at the total size Caltech is. There's a large component of college admissions these days that is somewhat arbitrary. High school resumes (at least the type that applies to these schools) have become absolutely cracked. Like it used to mean something to have a research internship, now it's weird not to.

Nah, sorry you had a shit college experience, but college is the place I made most of my close, lifelong friends. And had an awesome time. While also learning, they're not mutually exclusive. It's a shared experience you can't replicate just going to the bar.

It's not like they're taking women that can't hack the coursework. They could replace the entire incoming class with select people amongst the rejected and the class would still be successful. College admissions is partly a crap shoot. If they tilt the crap shoot part in a way that makes the community better, who cares?

I don't think it's purely an optics thing. College is a community not just school. Do you want all your social groups, living area, etc. to be 75+% male as a college student?

Fair enough, I knew they owned a lot of entertainment/media related companies but didn't realize they owned additional properties that weren't explicitly advertised as such.

Though in the case of Disney Springs they actually don't own the restaurant, just the property, so I'm not sure what liability they have regardless of this motion. If Disney technically owns the property but independent operators are involved, Disney isn't really the right party to bring a suit against anyway (though obviously they are large and people tend to file broad lawsuits).

Disney uses an integrated account system now, if you sign up in order to buy park tickets or use the Disney world app you are probably clicking through a similar agreement anyway. And if you were never going to visit Disney in the first place I'm not sure what other control Disney has over you from these terms.

To be clear I don't agree with this motion to dismiss, I just feel that's hyperbolic. If Disney were to win they only "have you over the barrel" as it pertains to your use of Disney products. Which if you're only using Disney+/going to the movies I'm not sure how severe of a dispute you can have against them. And if you're going to the parks it would be unavoidable regardless of subscribing to D+. Though I'm guessing this won't be upheld.

Sure that overrides the disclaimer for the restaurant, and I'm inclined to agree with you there because every restaurant has some disclaimer like this that if enforced would make any "allergen-free" claims worthless everywhere.

But that would still make Disney less liable, because the in person conversation with staff/chef has nothing to do with Disney here.

Although it is interesting that the restaurants operated by others still use the "cast member" language. I do think Disney tries to have a bit of an illusion that everything on property including Disney springs is them. I still wouldn't consider it enough legally here but there is at least an argument about assumption of oversight.

This defense is absurd, but also there are no tickets for the mall and Disney doesn't own most of the stores/restaurants in the mall. The restaurant in question is a tenant and the company that owns it is also being sued.

No, though maybe there is a reasonable assumption they enforce more oversight on tenants than a typical mall would. They do publish the restaurant menu on their website (including allergen info) and you can make reservations through their app. But the restaurant is ultimately a tenant operated by someone else in Disney's free to enter outdoor shopping mall. The original source of the incorrect info was definitely the restaurant, and the restaurant is also the one that doubled down on the incorrect info when the woman asked IRL. The main reason to sue Disney here is they're much richer than a Florida Irish pub chain.

Also Samsung has been innovating with hardware. I'm not the hugest fan of their flavor of Android but I absolutely love my flip phone and would not consider switching back to iOS or pure Android unless Apple or Google were to make a flip.

Obviously most scientists are not going to be interested in null results from adjacent subfields, but when it comes to specific questions of interest it is absolutely useful to know what has been tried before and how it was done/what was observed. I know a lab that had documentation not only on their own historical null results but also various anecdotes from colleagues' labs about specific papers that were difficult to replicate, reagents that were often problematic, etc.

That is a non-ideal way for the scientific community at large to maintain such info. Trying to go through traditional peer review process is probably also non-ideal for this type of work though, for reasons you cited. We need to be willing to look at publication as something more broadly defined in order to incentivize the creation of and contribution to that sort of knowledge base. It shouldn't be implemented as a normal journal just meant for null results - there's really no need for this sort of thing to be peer reviewed specifically at the prepub stage. But it should still count as a meaningful type of scientific contribution.

It's meant for kids so parents would be the ones paying. Obviously they're trying to profit and it does seem a bit overpriced (though there are extra logistical costs for anything to be medically approved, so it's not comparable to a normal game). But I highly doubt there was any intent to take advantage of people here.

It's not just a corporate phenomenon. Academic research has increasingly shifted towards a goal of regularly churning out papers for the sake of getting publications, rather than being driven by curiosity and a desire to share knowledge. There isn't a proper long view in academia either and I think their heuristic for the greedy algorithm is even worse than just maximizing near term profits.

Don't grants still tie you to government pay structures? I know in biology most academic research labs may as well be government entities because that's the main way to get funding, and that funding has various rules attached including e.g. the max pay for a postdoc.

There's definitely a genetic component but it would be interesting if those environmental factors impacted prevalence or severity.

Autoimmune disorders in general might be worse/more common in countries where kids grow up in clean environments. There's already some discussion on this with regard to allergies that I think has some credibility.

Humans are actually born with blurry vision as the eye takes time to develop, so human learning starts with low resolution images. There is a theory that this is not really a limitation but a benefit in developing our visual processing systems. People in poorer countries that get cataracts removed when they are a bit older and should at that point hardware-wise have perfect vision do still seem to have some lifelong deficits.

It's not entirely known how much early learning in low resolution makes a difference in humans, and obviously that could also relate more to our specific neurobiology than a general truth about learning in connectionist systems. But I found it to be an interesting idea that maybe certain outcomes with ANNs could be influenced a lot by training paradigms s.t. not all shortcomings could be addressed with only updates to the core architecture.

Makes sense, it'd still be kinda harsh as a strict graduation requirement for EECS though wouldn't it?

In biology I've seen a lot of more recent theses where a couple of the chapters are from middle author works with a bit of extra context on what the student did, and only 1 first author chapter. But besides being slower to do generally, bio still has a lot of people that don't believe in shared first authorship. Sometimes what is technically a second author chapter was pretty close to 50/50 in what the student actually contributed.

That's certainly the systemic pressure. And it's hard to avoid having that approach as a postdoc. I think PhD students, especially in the first couple years, can benefit in the long term from OC's advice if they have a supportive department. Even if the long term goal is an academic career, but perhaps moreso if not. Faculty like to think of PhD students as employees but really they are trainees, and the primary goal should be strong capability to do good independent research by the end of the program. Immediately pushing for pubs is often not the best way to gain an independent research vision.

4 first author pubs? Maybe this is field dependent but that sounds like a pretty extreme requirement. The most I've seen formally required in my field is 1 first author peer reviewed pub, but many programs don't even set that as an official requirement anymore.

European PhD programs generally assume you already have a Masters in the subject so they skip most of the grad level courses and they typically don't do things like rotations either. You have a lab and some project to start on day 1. It's still overall faster to finish in Europe but the difference isn't as extreme as it sounds, assuming you do go for the Masters first.

I doubt they had the right technology back then to actually investigate for physical brain trauma. Even today CTE diagnoses are made post mortem. And one can end up with CTE without ever having a full blown concussion.

The music part is just scaling in a different way, but that's not the reason the iPhone is so successful. The leap from iPod to iPhone was definitely not just scaling.

Shark attacks isn't really p-hacking though, that's about misinterpreting/misrepresenting a real correlation. P-hacking is finding a fake correlation due to chance because you tested a lot of different things in a smallish dataset, and then reporting that correlation as meaningful without mentioning your negative results or properly explaining your entire process.

Straight up fabrication is more common than we'd hope, but probably not systemically threatening. I'm much more concerned about how poorly replication goes even when authors are not malicious/generally following the "status quo" for methodology in their subfield.

There isn't enough incentive currently to publish reproductions, starting a new journal using the same general publishing model isn't going to change that. But with money to burn you could add some incentive, or you could at least do things to improve publication quality like actually paying for good peer reviewers.

Taking away the phone for 2 weeks is different than never having a phone for the entirety of high school though.

I think the bigger issue currently is we understand so little about the brain. For something like Schizophrenia there is very obviously biological origins - not that environment doesn't have an impact as well, but you're not solving that with behavioral therapy alone. However I think biological psychiatry has sorta thrown the baby out with the bathwater in the way it tries to study these disorders, lumping everyone with psychotic disorders into one basket and doing some one dimensional studies on that.

Since we don't really have a foundational understanding of the brain and these are complex (probably multiple distinct under 1 umbrella) diseases, it's difficult to draw many real conclusions. Unfortunately on the flip side it is rare to see professionals that focus on the human side of things think much about biology. So you get a weird gap where people with fancy biology tools are studying very ill-defined phenomena, and people who work on unpacking the psychological phenomena are entirely ignoring the critical underlying biology. Maybe one day the fields will be better bridged, but research that is currently done isn't really abstracted in a way where it's feasible for the two sides to meaningfully inform each other. Plus there are cultural barriers in place.

Company loyalty was already mostly dead in big tech before the layoffs. It was also the fault of the companies, but more to do with the ability to get raises via job hopping versus internal promotion, not job security.

His foundation also donates a lot to neuroscience research, particularly for Autism. I think there was a family reason for that, so probably at least some of his scientific philanthropy will continue for awhile. But yeah it's extremely hard to create a structure that would perpetuate without the remaining people at the top truly buying into and understanding the mission.