lewis500

I write little academic papers for a living as a professor. I think this is good advice on how to write like cormac mccarthy. More important is to pick an academic writer whose journal articles you love and copy them. One of my favorites is Paul Krugman. He’s not in my field but apparently he’s good enough that people want to read him. He uses lots of semicolons and punctuation. I understand where this advice is coming from, though. Lots of academics are truly horrible writers and believe complication itself makes their writing erudite.

Me too. I think that because of the meta programming capabilities we’re going to see a lot more development in that direction. Recently I started using Turing.jl, which uses a sort of declarative syntax that was easy to write and understand.

I just thought it might be nice if you did a breakdown of the physics of traffic and maybe how you coded that part. As for teaching, I think it could be used to teach about like signal timing etc in a fun way.

Do you have a writeup of the traffic simulation rules that you're using? I peeked in the code and saw the intelligent driver model is being used for acceleration. I suppose you also have a lane-changing model and such, too.

Your architecture could be very useful in teaching.

I agree I would recommend industry to almost everyone. In fact, engineers ask me about grad school several times per year and I almost always discourage them. Too many people think of grad school as sort of a vague "next step" that will "open doors" or else a way of "leveling up" as though life is an RPG and a grad degree is a special badge or skin you can get. I encourage them rather to think concretely about what academia specifically entails: reading abstruse papers, writing papers with little chance of being appreciated, debugging software, writing grants, giving presentations, etc. Academia is only appropriate for a rare type of person, like being a classical musician.

I don’t think they’re excuses. They’re explanations of how things happen. The asymmetrical relationship especially explains how professors can get away with treating students badly, but it isn’t a justification. If you read Bad blood, for instance, E Holmes and sunny treat everyone horribly, but ultimately lots of people quit because they have other options.

The pressure on the professor and the selection for obsessiveness explain motives.

I’m a professor. I have a few thoughts about this.

First, the grad student/professor relationship is inherently asymmetrical, much more so than most employer/employee relationships. The degree has to last years or else you get nothing, and there are no hard and fast terms of the relationship like there is in many jobs. The professors recommendation might be the most important thing you get, and that is always running in the background. So many professors treat their students like robots.

Second, professors are essentially super students. We became professors because we have extreme standards. Your engineering manager became a manager because he was an engineer and got promoted, but having a professor as a boss is like if a famous open source developer was your boss. Nothing about becoming a professor selects for kindness or empathy, unlike a manager at an ordinary company who might be trained and evaluated—-especially in a large company—-on the happiness of his workers. So a lot of professors have essentially obsessive attitudes and no empathy. Add to this the fact that many students are escaping countries where they have little future. For example, the past few years, the Iranian economic crisis has caused a surge in Iranian applicants.

Third, the professors themselves are under extreme pressure. Everybody knows this.

Fourth, the work a professor outsources to students tends to be the stupidest and worst tasks, because the students usually aren’t good enough to make big contributions. This is depressing for the students: they’re smart people who signed up to work with a famous professor on work they cared about, but their day to day is to do things anyone could do for almost no money.

Finally, the professors are under pressure to create these huge labs. We don’t make profits, so things like funding and number of PhD students are taken to be metrics for evaluating. The US news ranking absurdly includes phd’s per tenure track professor as one of their metrics. So a lot of people are accepted who really shouldn’t be there, and the research is designed to have tons of busy work.

If supply and demand matters then it would seem employment does not exist because of societal wish for people to justify their existence with madeup jobs, but rather because of many independent decisions between workers and employers. This was my point.

“We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery…. He must justify his right to exist.”

This is a framing designed to get attention but is obviously empty. "We" don't "invent" jobs. There isn't some big council of job inventors we all sit on with the purpose of giving everyone a right to exist. People and organizations decide to hire people for various reasons, and people sign up to be hired---usually so they can make money. Jobs are agreements between people. This is true even of government jobs in a democratic society: people are hired by various government agencies which, with a couple of jobfare exceptions, hire people for reasons of their own---not because of a mandate to make up jobs for people. This is a plea to an imaginary decision-maker.

Why isn't it a flying three-wheeler?

This is the type of decision-making the authors of the Green New Deal need to grapple with. E.g., the Green New Deal calls for high speed rail everywhere. But when you actually try to build HSR people in affected communities file lawsuits and force decisions that increase the cost, slow down trains and delay construction. For the Green New Deal to actually happen, the federal government would need to override local decision-making.

The weird thing is that, even though a lot of policy is oriented toward making you a conscious consumer (high deductibles, coinsurance) in many cases you just can’t do it,at least not very well.

My wife got an allergy test at a local allergy clinic, but she had 20% coinsurance so we tried to figure out how much it would cost. Everyone there treated us like garbage. Even when we called the billing department in advance they told us there was no way to know in advance how much the basic allergy test would cost until she saw the doctor. So we went to the clinic (stupidly), and the nurses just acted like we were crazy. Finally one did tell us what the bill would be:$12k. I had researched these tests online and was floored; that’s way more expensive than it should be, and the doctor who gave her a referral had told us it would be a reasonable price. So we were in the awkward position of just leaving the appointment. The doctor then basically talked to us somberly like we were the poorest people on earth, and said “listen, most of the test is for allergens that don’t exist in northern California.” If I just give u the local ones it’ll be like $1800.” I started laughing. Later on I read an NPR story about a lady who had a$48k allergy test from there. Just a complete scam, much worse than a car dealer because at least there they will tell you a price and they will not sell you ten extra useless cars evenif you don’t explicitly say “don’t give me ten superfluous cars for no reason.” Anyway, we got the limited test, and at the end the doctor said “listen I’m not supposed to do this, but given the financial hardship I’ll make an exception. If I don’t put the results in the system you’ll only be charged for the visit.” And he just wrote the results on a yellow notepad paper and tore it out for us.

Tldr we were treated like annoying busybodies for asking the price at an in-network facility, and then treated like indigents when we balked at paying way more than anywhere else charges, for totally bs procedures.

Normally when markets have so much unsold inventory, prices fall to clear it out. But prices can be "sticky" and won't go down. All this unsold inventory makes you wonder why the prices are so sticky.

Here you can see one reason: "Shanghai homebuyers came out in droves to protest a developer's decision to cut prices in an apartment complex."

I'm sure there are others. Like if you're holding a loan for a giant apartment complex, and the owner cuts the price, it becomes immediately obvious that the loan is not going to be paid back in full. But say it's a 30-year loan: if you get the owner to keep the prices high and the units unsold a little long, maybe you can unload the loan onto some other bank or investor before the reckoning comes. Or maybe you're a bureaucrat who will be fired if the prices go down.

I have also heard that in China it can be difficult for person to rent out a vacant property. So people are holding onto empty units just as a store of value, like bars of gold.

It’s inaccurate to say that we “can’t” escape it. The federal reserve has been raising interest rates to slow inflation and growth in employment, and for years they have paid interest on bank reserves at the fed and constantly talked up plans to unwind their portfolio (selling off assets). If they had done less of all that we would have higher inflation.

Same is true of some other central banks. I always am frustrated when I hear about japan not being able to raise inflation rates much. If their activities have no impact on inflation at all, why not buy up all the securities and foreign exchange in the world by printing yen? The Japanese could live entirely off the dividends because of this magical property of their central bank.