1) https://web.archive.org/web/20101012105003/http://blog.bumbl... since the original piece is timing out
2) shalmanese, how would you relate this back to platforms like Reddit that are driven both by community members as well as volunteer janitors?
5 karma · joined June 18, 2024
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/bryant; my proof: https://keybase.io/bryant/sigs/-R8Ky9MLcrIhyNpFXZWTI6B6qQdfdG5dt89OuG-Jxv4 ]
2) shalmanese, how would you relate this back to platforms like Reddit that are driven both by community members as well as volunteer janitors?
Compared to what specifically? It helps to find relevant, comparable examples of electives in major areas of economic impact and demonstrating how these modern electives fail to do what you described.
> vs a lot of folks coming out today without any practical knowledge, just theoretical.
This isn't a direct comparison. But if we were to make this comparison more direct (e.g "more people were prepared in 1907 for application of practical knowledge than today), it's also in need of substance. How much is "a lot"? What is practical knowledge, and how can you be sure that the knowledge taught isn't practical?
From the modern curricula linked elsewhere in the thread, it looks like quite a few courses are directly relevant to operationalization in their domains.
Security and compliance benefit heavily from this approach, and I'm sure it can be extended elsewhere as well (architecture reviews etc).
It's in poor form to do citizen-policing pretty much anywhere let alone an internet forum, but I won't begrudge the user their frustrations over something that's undeniably a problem.
Heh.
> which, if you're going into finance, consulting, public policy, or political ideology, look great. But if you want to understand or manage a real-physical-world company? Maybe Econ 1745 - "Corporate Finance" would be useful?
Are you saying that the "Railroad Practice" elective is directly comparable to the "Corporate Finance" elective of today?
If anything, I'd say that Railroad Practice is best compared to "Using Big Data to Solve Economic and Social Problems" in that they're both focused on some of the biggest economic facilitators of their respective days, rail and data science. And Harvard's other electives seem similarly tailored, allowing people to get a grasp of fields of practice that can yield them a substantial advantage in practice, e.g in leveraging globalization or serving underserved markets.
Your other points aren't comparative to the Harvard of the day but rather speculative ("a puny fraction" and its suggested impact), so there's not much I can do to speak to them.
---
Tangent: it'd be an interesting analytic exercise to compare courses and curricula year by year and see what percentage of electives have generalized, what percentage have specialized, and to get a better grasp of how a school's programs are both adapting to and anticipating current and future economics landscapes.
Meta-question on the emphasis above: are you (uoaei) and bell-cot the same user?
Have they? What's changed, specifically, in Harvard's various programs in the last 118 years that lead you to your implied conclusion that their business and economics curricula have worsened?
Microsoft's security reputation prior to the recent (5ish years?) failures was largely built up on top of the work stemming from the Trustworthy Computing memo.
https://www.wired.com/2002/01/bill-gates-trustworthy-computi...
Wishful thinking. Linked is the more common reason (lobbying), but I'm looking forward to more institutions recognizing the talent we have in the DC region.
Ripe for being gamed but is probably the only way to do PoW without becoming wildly intrusive with personal devices.
Let me see if I can articulate it.
You know how a human conversation can have multiple threads? And ten minutes in, you find the topic has totally changed and you're trying to figure out the original topic? Sometimes you can get back to it, sometimes you can't, right?
Obviously it's not quite the same when you can see prompt history, but the conversation is still pretty linear. This pre-empts that problem by letting you fork thoughts.
Not sure, but the counterpoint is the housing crisis. So painting it as something exclusive to healthcare suggests that there's no possibility of it being a systemic problem with Private Equity.
https://www.propublica.org/article/when-private-equity-becom...
One of the other comments raised said "because you don't have to go to those places," and it intuitively feels correct that basic needs are ripe for price gouging when supply is limited. But I'm out of my depth. Happy to hear other comments.
Grants got me through school, so I'm content being taxed up the nose. But I'm an outlier in my tax bracket for that opinion.
Speaking of assumptions, looks like you made an assumption the OP bought this laptop themselves.
Being able to use two external screens is practically an expectation of any laptop at this point. I can understand the OP's point that this is ridiculous.
Which essentially means the hallucination problem needs to be solved, which is a ways off.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ozempic-glp-1-drugs-m...
Here's a good piece running through the failure modes in lay terms.
That's why I made the heroin comparison. People underappreciate the addictive properties of refined sugars.
Edit: people also looked at the opiate angle too, apparently. https://pennstatehealthnews.org/2024/04/qa-can-weight-loss-d...
Here, I'll pontificate a bit. For instance, study 1 finds that Ozempic is associated with a reduced risk of X. Study 2 is now funded to see if the association can be experimentally reproduced to establish a causative relationship. Competing institution gets Study 3 funded to test competing drug Mounjaro, reaches same conclusion. Study 4 by another institution finds same conclusion with a drug that acts in an entirely different manner, Buproprion. Study 5 by yet another institution finds similar results with amphetamines. Study 6 is funded on the premise that there's an underlying mechanism that needs to be explored, gets funding to study caloric restriction, gets similar results. Meanwhile, study 2 finds a causative relationship between Ozempic and X, concluding experimentally that Ozempic achieves X by inducing calorie restriction, which concurs with study 6.
I'm oversimplifying. But you see where I'm going with this. Much easier to both control and fund the smaller studies than a giant one, and you develop more knowledge in the process.
---
Also, I'm not an academic, so I could be wildly off base. Would appreciate a gut check by someone who actually does this for a living.
An aid to help clear the noise in the brain seems to be unsurprisingly useful, then, in achieving these outcomes.
Really? Nothing? Not even really clear-cut use cases that are already in production at a bunch of companies like rapid document templating or surfacing esoteric yet relevant internal documents and knowledge?
Those use cases alone have saved seven figure sums at companies where I've seen them implemented. And those savings allowed the positions to be repurposed in more useful ways e.g threat hunts rather than document prep.
---
Lots of adjusted goalposts in the comments below. The fact that I can simply ask an LLM to bake me a template and adjust as needed — or ask it to fetch me an internal policy document describing compliance requirements I might need for a new mobile app — and get either of these answers in literally seconds makes them the best tool for the job by a wild margin. And the fact that I'm seeing hiring managers rework their positions for different roles as a result of implementing GenAI to obviate mundane job responsibilities supports this.
Many practitioners across many fields have their blinders on with regards to the risk of disruption to their own disciplines. Surprised I'm seeing those blinders on here too.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/14/media-blocked-threatened...
Although VoA is the USA's state sponsored news outlet, they have reasonably good analysis on what led up to the 2013 ban. https://www.voanews.com/a/al-jazeera-iraq/3306460.html
It's easy to just claim something, but it's crucial to back your point up front when it's particularly sensitive so as to not inadvertently spread misinformation. You may be correct, but that's why the citations are needed.
This is an interesting assertion. Many, many people acted responsibly during the pandemic, and in a worst case scenario such as what you described, it's even more likely that a sizable population will gravitate to any source of reliable information.
The government is usually the source of last resort for many, many things. Whether it's as a lender (e.g bailouts) or as a source of information (emergency broadcasts), it's at the scope of the nation state where extreme contingencies exist and must be accounted for. I imagine AM radio is perfect for this precisely for worst-cases, e.g where someone might seek to make a crystal radio, but I'd be out of my depth thinking beyond this.
I actually was neutral on this until I read your comment and thought it through far enough to reply, so thanks for that.
In the sentence "See, I can do silly categorical statements too," the adjectives "silly" and "categorical" both modify the noun "statements" and are not themselves related to one another. That's why OP used both of them. If the two words were synonymous, only one would be required.
It's fun nitpicking nitpicks.