More like head spinning, like when you look at the stars are you loose your reference frame

Not his first fall and not unexpected either. That’s someone that can’t walk unassisted anymore.

About the “guaranteed to fuck up on the first go”, I got strongly encouraged to first apply to positions I wouldn’t love (but was okay with), just to learn the ropes of interviewing. Once you have done one or two, time to shoot for your dream job!

I’m seeing it in my current job as well. The quality of the job is slowly going down the drain because we get more and more tasks each time someone leaves or retires. We have been under replacement levels for 5-7 years now :/ lost at least 10% of the work force with no decrease on the expected production output. Just a directive of being more efficient. Obviously, shit is hitting the fan. I’ll have to see if this new wave of shit is enough to change the course, but I am serious considering if it’s worth staying in the long run. Shame because i really love the job (when I’m not drowning)

An additional hot take: online communities create weaker links than in-person communities. hear me out please

Not because the connections themselves are less strong, but because they don’t tie to any other connection. If I met someone in real life, chances are high they are going to meet my family and create connections with them too. On the other hand, if I met someone online, they would most likely not meet my partner and definitely not meet my broader family. What in real life could be a merging of social groups, and therefore a strengthening of everyone’s social nets becomes online the creation of a single link, that is therefore that much easier to break off.

In general, it’s not a great article because it doesn’t excitation much at all, just that Poland grew. Btw the comparison with other EU countries in the graph is also interesting. Overall, a stagnation, with Poland a significant outlier

Always pick a book to the left and one to the right! Is it useful? Likely not, but you’ll never know if you don’t!

Let us not!

Low yield due to overly specific conditions that are hardly met

Low yield due to short production window

Low yield due to long growth time

Low yield just because

Resist cultivation or have some other undesirable properties. Often low yield, short harvest, low yield, difficult picking or transporting.

A favorite example of mine: oak’s acorns are sometimes edible. Roughly one in ten oaks produce edible acorns. They are indistinguishable from inedible ones unless you try them out - but inedible ones are fairly poisonous. The gene for edible acorns is recessive and it takes at least a decade before you know if a newly planted oak produces edible acorns or not, with a 10% probability of the former. It is just practically impossible to select for this criterion. Thus, we don’t eat acorns.

You are incredible.

You might not feel like it, but you are handling so much! I have no advice, I’m sure you know your situation best, but I’m rooting for you!

It really depends on the field. I will talk about fields I know: fundamental math - one paper every 2-3 years is a good pace, every paper 50-100 pages. AI - a paper a month is the usual, with a hard cap at 10 pages, often less.

Talking from the standpoint of “I recently got a position and won quite some grants considering my age”: you really have to balance the two. Going out and doing the research you want to will make you do good research and make you appealing to fellow researchers, but you also need a bit of a catchy title from time to time and a lot of networking, everywhere, all the time. That often includes planning your own symposium/workshop/whatever. Then getting a small grant always helps, and that is a “skill” on its own: selling your research to people that don’t know anything about it while feeling like you are completely waisting your time.

That’s insane! It also seems like a figure of diminishing of returns. If your company puts out the only ad out there, that will be incredibly effective. But one in 4K? Does it really make a difference?

That’s definitely how the government would like us to work. But we would like piles on cash in the form of a living wage, thanks

Do you really want to be that person? I rather enjoy being with similarly funny and smart people

Horrible, but I can’t say I am against it… my approach of “let’s wait and see before making a judgement” is usually completely drowned out…

Because the system wants it that way.

Only rant on the internet 🤣

Yeah, they can do what they want with no oversight that I know of, but the Nobel Prize is considered the holy grail of world wide scientific research, while it is very skewed in its selection process and its results.

This article raises so many more questions than it answers!

1. why are they still calling people? It’s 2025!

2. I thought runner ups were informed?

3. how long is their off the grid hiking trip?

4. why is 9 hours time difference such a problem? (Related to 1 and to the European centralism of the Nobel prices that I don’t really want to rant about)

I have been mulling it over since the previous post. I got taught that French was read-as-written and repeated it. But now, I realize there is more.

Mangent is like rangent but not like gent - because mangent is a verb and is pronounced practically without the -nt. On the other hand intelligent is like gent, because it’s not a verb. The question is also obfuscated by nge being a different sound than ge and that intelligent and gent have the accent on the last syllable, while mangent and rangent have the accent on the one-to-last syllable.

For a better example of the difference in pronunciation between verb and noun, mangent and tangent would be better and there is indeed a difference.

Furthermore, (I think) tangent needs to have the accent on the last syllable because gent is a long sound here. While in mangent the last syllable is not long, therefore the accent recesses.

My teachers lied to me and I blindly believed them. Sorry