austenallred

> deep learning vs crypto is a clear divide of rotators vs wordcels.

"deep learning vs. crypto is a clear divide of math people vs creative people."

> the former offends theorycel aesthetic sensibilities but empirically works to produce absurd miracles

deep learning doesn't seem like it should work to people who are entrenched in theory, but somehow it produces great results.

> the latter is an insane series of nerd traps and sky high abstraction ladders yet mostly scams

crypto is full of interesting technical challenges but mostly produces scams.

File a chargeback on the credit cards

1. You can add more

2. New RAM is not like old RAM.

Macs are dramatically more optimized than they used to be.

I have a MacBook Air (M1) with 16GB of RAM and it runs more smoothly than older systems that had twice that much.

8GB of RAM today feels like what 32GB of RAM used to. 8GB of RAM can handle very process-heavy tasks, like... running Chrome ;)

The stuff isn’t hand-wavy, the number of “this is a living wage” is

Or

- Spend less on stuff than they assumed is necessary in a hand-wavy calculation

For me half of the point is that I can just dump everything into one place and not categorize or think about it

Yes, but crypto didn’t steal billions of dollars. Individual companies did.

A lot of people are still reasonably very excited about Bitcoin and crypto.

A16Z didn't invest in FTX

It's extremely, extremely regulated!

> I don't think the people cheating ever got far enough to actually effect job stats.

Yeah, some do a remarkably good job of cheating and would get into hiring stats for sure, but I think we've almost entirely cut that out now.

Edit: It's too late to edit my comment, but I noticed an error we have sold ISAs with minimal recourse not at enrollment, but at the point of _graduation_; we would sell half at an extreme discount at graduation (based on likelihood of being hired) and keep half on our books.

850 actual hours, butt-in-seat and required, or 850 scheduled hours?

If I am interpreting the parent's comment correctly, he's referring to TAs (we called them "team leads") not instructors. Based on the context of the comment I'm assuming that this was a time when we had a TA for every 8 students on top of a layering of instructors for each cohort, and indeed the TAs would do a lot of the 1:1 interaction. There has never been a time we didn't have qualified instructors, though I would readily admit the quality of our instructors has improved over time as we got better at instructional design and hiring.

I love the idea of CIRR but it is largely a failed institution. Their measures have changed dramatically over the years (the last CIRR event anyone at BloomTech attended resulted in the notion that anyone who adds anything new on LinkedIn could be considered "hired," even if it was a portfolio project or self-employment), and are used very differently from school to school, resulting in every major school I know of stopping to work with them.

For example, we used them for our first outcomes report and paid extra to have them "verify" our outcomes report, but they literally never opened the Google Drive file we sent them.

I think it was a great idea set up by well meaning people, but the self-governing aspect and comparisons created ended up in weird incentives that resulted in it falling apart.

The review sites are perhaps marginally better, but the positivity of reviews are almost 100% correlated with how hard schools work to farm for positive reviews, and their business model is selling leads to the schools, so the incentive isn't for objectivity there either.

Honestly the best way, though it requires more work, is to find a handful of recent grads on LinkedIn and ask them about their experience.