andrew_eit

How is it that, in a country which values precision and 'doing things right' to the extent that you will be told off by bystanders for crossing an empty road at night on a red light, there could be such brazen, unethical and scaled corruption at a corporate level.

Like, at a community level, the average German citizen takes it upon themselves to speak out when they feel anyone is acting anti-socially. Which I admire!

But then Dieselgate, the Wirecard scandal, and a bunch of other non-nonsensical activities (immense coal energy industry, buying gas from Russia and general lack of large scale green policy) just seem so far removed from the Germany I know.

I really don't understand how something like Dieselgate can happen at the scale that it did. And Wirecard too - with BaFin even stepping in to harass the investigative journalists from the FT.

Is there something I am missing here?

Good point, I updated the title to generalize

I wish we as a culture/society, acknowledged the luck and timing factor more as a factor in career development.

Idolizing people like Musk, Bezos and Gates, brilliant though they certainly are, only serves to put "just work hard/smart" blinkers on young career professionals, when sometimes, you really just need to introduce some chaos, roll the dice again, or divert effort into opening new pathways for yourself via networking or some such activity, instead of spending those extra hours on polishing technical skills.

Case in point, I've had several internships as a student. My first one, I landed in a team that effectively did product management of a backend system, whilst my coursemate landed into a role assisting a high-up VP on innovation projects.

Later, as a consultant, my first project was on some dying database system that needed to be kept alive a short while longer. In this case, I'd learned already, that you don't have to always accept your circumstances as they are. I politely complained to management that this is not what I was hired for and did not match my skills, and was transferred to a way more interesting and career rewarding project.

I think the cornerstone of luck in career comes down to a few things:

1) Always Ask / Register interest - good things can't come your way if no one knows that you're looking

2) Keep an ear to the ground - so much information spreads via word of mouth. Being in chatrooms/groups or just having friendly relationships with various people in a company or sector, is like having sensors planted all around, alerting you to new opportunities

3) (polite) STUBBORNNESS - I can't emphasize this enough. Rejections, or unanswered job applications don't have to mean anything. After looking objectively at yourself and your attempt, to see if anything could have been improved, it pays you to then be stubborn and just keep trying. I recently got a brilliant job because my application was rejected from the 10th job posting of my favourite company, but a recruiter saw my application and forwarded it to another internal position that was based in another location and offered remotely. Everything clicked from there and I eventually got an offer. This happened because after the 9th rejection and I said "F*k it" and sent out another CV.

I disagree.

Firstly, the question needs to be narrowed down. The topic of a master's degree in Europe vs in the UK and in the US varies, hugely: 1) The UK and the US have a great focus on the elitism of the university name. Countries like Germany do not, a masters from a (known) university with good grades, is pretty much as valuable as all the others. 2) Fees in Europe its free (as has been mentioned countless times here) so there's less of a "shopping" market here, in terms of looking for the most elite degree to graduate with, and much more about content 3) It depends on what you want to do as a career. In Europe, scientific and engineering fields do look for postgraduate degrees as a minimum. Companies like Amazon, hire data scientists mostly with PhDs in Germany or on exception, highly talented engineers.

But the main "pro masters" degree argument for me, is the learning experience.

My master's studies, was so intense, so stressful and so unbelievably intellectually rewarding that it shaped me and my character in a way that my bachelor's did not come close to.

It gave me that confidence to approach fields and advanced topics, where I am not familiar with the notation, the terminology and don't know where to start, and it taught me how to dive in deep, in a self-motivated and self organised way. I really felt the whole time like an independent researcher, picking up books where I needed to, learning mathematical tools and programming skills I never thought of using to solve new problems. And participating in the latest SOTA research, in a way that has made me quite intellectually fearless now, going forward in my career.

How bleak are our prospects as a civilisation when we reduce the value of a higher education in the arts, such as literature, to something as rudimentary as a waste of tax money. It is short sighted to think that since a "degree in poetry" won't yield a substantial dollar-value return economically, that it therefore has no value. Especially when several of recent history's social and political movements were in fact born of literature, writing and the kind of written articulation that characterises such academic fields.

And to your point about "free" education in Europe. The act of decoupling the pursuit of education and knowledge, from a high financial cost, is a crucial mechanism to ensure that institutions retain the freedom to pursue knowledge for its own sake, and to not be (solely) steered by the industrial interests of the status quo.

I've actually had the opposite experience.

After 'scraping' some forums via their APIs for weeks, I ended up realising that the data and metadata given to me by the API was so restricted (e.g. providing 'recent comments' instead of all comments) that a pure vanilla web scraping approach became the preferred option.

I agree with all the points you mention about the shortcomings though and your argument is sound. This is my opinion in the other direction, APIs come with an element of trust.

Great initiative! How long did it take you to parse through all the papers etc and build this tool?

I think you are talking about two different environmental issues.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Paris Agreement covers climate change, carbon emissions, energy production, etc.

The topic of single-use plastics, while related to sustainability, covers an entirely different emerging issue, namely: the infiltration of micro-plastics into our environment.

Besides the environmental effects that microplastics already seem to have, such as hindering plant growth [1], microplastics are also entering the food chain, and making their way back to us. The long-term affects are as far as I know, quite unknown.

[1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b01339

I have strong feeling that in the coming decades we will see strong growth in the re-usable / repairable product market.

It's high time we got more creative in the products we mass produce, we've grown complacent, something as simple as the plastic bag or the plastic straw have caused such environmental destruction yet can actually be phased out with behavioural modifications.

I would also argue that reusability and repairability is a part of the equation of 'long-term economic mass production', at least for day-to-day necessities where sterilisation isn't paramount.

Seriously, just looking at what I have lying around at home, even something as mundane and as simple as a broom seems to have special plastic elements (plastic hook on the top to hang on a wall, plastic lining in on the pole).

There's a lot of unnecessary un-recyclable waste out there and while banning Single-Use plastics is a great step in the right direction, we need a paradigm shift in how we think about the objects we construct.

Is it still common in the UK to find portioned or chopped servings of fruit, vegetables and food items in plastic packaging? I always found that a bit excessive, though convenient. This is something that I rarely see in Germany.

This may be a just factor of culture and attitude.

In Germany, single use plastic bags have not been allowed in supermarkets for several years now and it has worked quite well IMO.

Yes you can buy thicker re-usable bags (sometimes made out of textiles or a mixture of textiles and plastic) but by far many people bring their own bags, or just load the stuff into shopping trollies and take it to their cars (unfortunately the petrol/diesel car culture is still going strong :( ).

Also, in places like Lidl and Aldi, it's quite normal to just look for an empty box of some product on the shelf(e.g. a box that had some canned goods) and use that as your 'basket', stuff your items there, pay, go home and dispose of the box in the paper recycle bin.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention, as an example of culture/attitude: plastic bags are still available for fruit & vegetables but even then, people do make their own choice to just take the produce without a bag, and place it 'loose' at the cashier for them to weigh.

Please explain what law you are referring to - I have not heard anything of the sort.

AFAIK Germany's anti hate speech laws revolve around the use of national socialist related lexicon and symbolism. I think it is perfectly reasonable that a line is drawn in this case, regarding where free speech goes to far - i.e. fascism is never OK.

Whether the goal of these censorship policies in other countries / companies, is something that should probably be determined on a case-by-case basis. Generally your question brings to mind 2 more questions I would ask you in turn for elaboration:

1) Do you think there should be a line drawn anywhere to say that this is the absolute limit of free speech? E.g. being able to say that some people are less valuable as human beings arguably brings little value any discussion. 2) Do you believe that symbols may change overtime to represent ideas that perhaps do not relate as much to their original meaning as a symbol? I'm talking about the confederate flag here. Granted, I'm not a US citizen, but I do not understand want possible purpose the confederate flag could serve in today's age, other than as an acknowledgement of antiquated values and ideas no longer endorsed by today's culture? Maybe 20, 30 years ago, not as many people really cared whether the confederate flag had anything to do with racism or slavery. But now, its meaning is arguably more hostile, just due to the way it is used as a counter to the BLM movement and other related anti-racism movements.

So, why would some one honestly use the confederate flag as a artistic symbol in this way today? Just as no-one would use the SS lightning bolt as an icon or symbol in Europe and expect to not get a reaction from people. In these cases, I would argue that doing is more an act of ignorance than it is an act of freedom of speech.

Disclaimer: I am a EU resident in Germany who knows next to nothing about censorship law in this country - this is my humble and probably misinformed opinion. Any knowledgeable Germans please feel free to correct my interpretation.

"Maybe the reputable organizations have a more comprehensive approach because that approach is more effective?"

This is exactly the issue and I am in no way doubting that these approaches are more effective. However, at some point, a decision was made to choose between a fundamental trade-off of "maximizing the effectiveness of the experience" and "minimizing the barriers to entry".

I have heard of discussions in Germany (using as an example because I know what's going on) around whether the top tier universities (there is no real top-tier, they are all very good, but some have made a particular name for themselves) should charge more so that they can offer a more varied and dynamic experience.

But there are strong arguments on both sides, in particular against this approach because it goes against the fundamental idea that financial means should never become a barrier to entry - at any level.

At the end of the day, if you are lucky enough to end up at a brilliant institution, you will find a way to cope and get the most out of the experience (maybe you must rely on less support, and activities and events are more in the hands of self-organising students). That, in my view, is a better scenario than having potential students/classmates not be able to engage with each other due to means that are (often but not always) outside of their control.

"Do universities actually make sense anymore? "

I think the question is better phrased 'Do universities IN THEIR CURRENT FORM actually make sense anymore?'.

I used to share your opinion, especially after completing my bachelors but now that I am back in the system doing a masters (in the EU), I 100% see the value of university education (though I believe it should be free for all).

The idea that you can meet in a room, full of likeminded individuals and be taught by experts in their fields, given deadlines, exam pressure, assignments and struggle together with other students carries weight. Most especially if you are interested in science and research, in investigating and discovering, you will be taught the rigour and discipline involved in this.

Science is as much about the community as it is about the subject itself. All research builds off of previous ideas/experiments and many well-known scientists often conferred regularly and deeply with their counterparts around the world.

I think universities are an important place where young generations of future minds can come into contact with the members of these communities.

It is the same in Germany currently, although the spread is well under control, most education institutions are still highly skeptical of reopening for the semester after Summer.

"Classes are only a fraction of the in-person university experience in the USA today."

It's ironic isn't it. What would the cost of purely attending classes and exams be? $2,000 or $3,000 a year?

But no, if citizens wish to educate and certify themselves (from a reputable institution I might add), they must purchase the full package including all the bells and whistles that come with societies, events, parties, support, guidance councillors on the side.

It's really time to introduce a "I just want to learn and sit for exams" package for those unable or unwilling to pay for the extras.

Let me see if I understand this correctly (feel free to provide other perspectives):

Universities are afraid that by charging students $20,000 per year in tuition for an online degree, people will begin to question its value and possibly turn to other alternatives (perhaps, maybe also enrol in universities abroad that have low or no fees). Thereby pulling the curtains on the whole tuition fee charade, which is that the lion's share is used to find non-academic related expenses (I'm guessing: administration, outreach, marketing, a nice website) [1]

Universities that rely heavily on large sums of money from student fees are now faced with 2 choices: 1) Charge close to the same amount of tuition fees for an "online" university experience 2) Re-open and continue with business as usual, hoping the risks of Covid-19 transmission can be mitigated

Option 2 apparently seems like the more attractive version to maintain the status quo, which leads to attempts at convincing people that restarting face-to-face teaching is a reasonable way to go forward.

If this is what is going on, then this is yet another issue with universities that rely too heavily on income from tuition fees to survive.

The primary functions of (public) universities is to educate the population and conduct research. The ability to perform those functions must be prioritised and subsidised via public funds to guard against the influence of financial stability creeping into the decision making process on how to conduct activities for these primary functions.

I have studied in both the UK (9,000GBP/Year) and Germany (<€500 per year) and noticed a massive difference in the way both were run and my life as a student in each.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/nov/22/less-than-...

Can you elaborate on your reasoning? You are stating that everyone should suddenly start exercising caution w.r.t. scientific evidence, which is quite a broad over-arching, determination.

Curiosity and the desire to do things which I enjoy. I also like learning and 1 year ago moved to Germany. I now speak exclusively in German as an IT consultant here after only 2 years of learning.

That said. I don't put too much pressure on myself. I have goals but I'm also human and don't want to take life too seriously. I don't think it necessarily matters if I reach all of them or just a few. I see them as simply markers of directions I could move in that might make for some sort of exciting experience that lets me experience the joys and sometimes struggles of being alive.

I feel as though you missed the point of the article by advocating for people to make meaning and purpose in their lives by doing something that scares them. I think this type of thinking gives way to the mentality that leads to the problems described in the article.

It is not about working hard to make meaning or to 'fix' things that are broken or that you are not happy about but rather to 'let go'. To let go to the fact that you cannot control everything and that you cannot always have it your way. Yes do your best and do what you need to do in life but you must acknowledge at some point that things are generally out of your hands. Once a person realises this, then the pressure of not succeeding or reaching their goals, is lifted and a more realistic perspective on life starts to form. One rooted in reason, realism and the fact that we are all human and that sometimes even if we can do better, it may just not be the time, that other things are in play that keep us from reaching these goals and that it is entirely not the case that the person is not trying hard enough.

Thanks mindcrime, I'll have a look at that book!

Hey Mindcrime, thanks for your insight. That's exactly what I think about the situation too. An SNA product on its own serves no purpose unless it is applied to some sort of specific (pre-defined) problem. Similar to data analytics I guess, one needs to know why and what they are analysing before building the solution.

Yeah I use the notebook idea! Very useful.

Out of curiousity, how are you finding working with SNA? I expect that your market/customers are primarily large companies with lots fo data.