noname123

Hoping when J2EE/Java Beans of the late 2020's consultants from Accenture takes over and makes a million ClaudeHelloWorldFactoryBuilder, there will be a profitable niche in the Haskell and Erlang of 2020's for the rest of us!

It makes me wonder if the current app dopamine/gold rush will be similar to the Sora/MidJourney dopamine hit in 2023 or the AI "make me a story to make fun of my friend on Discord" dopamine hit in 2022. "We have never been able to make more images, movies and now apps... but they don't seem to have made a single killer art, film... or dare I say app?" Maybe just maybe, the novelty will wear off and people realize how artificial and soul-less these AI-tokenmaxxed app's are, with their temu Cyberpunk aesthetics, California minimalist Dashboard UX flow and mid-witted Rust stack.

I wonder what is the equivalent in 2026 of what Dave should do to be a human cosmonaut to go against the transformer VAE probability-based machine we call Claude.

Lol you literally clipped my quote (citing the exact candidates) - so thank you for being you! Just a pro-tip, politics is not changing the minds of ideologues, addressing directly to the middle and silent majority and letting them observe your political opponents make their own mistakes. Thank you again for the engagement in my top comment thread.

Thank you for your kind words. It's mostly because this particular American thinking is driven by a sense of belonging to an in-group and need to feel that they are good people (versus actually doing good and staking something of value, which I respect completely regardless if I agree with someone's politics or religion or whatever). I push back on them because (a) most of time, ad-hominen attacks mean they have already lost the argument and (b) for people who are too timid to speak against the toxic group-think. Life is too short to live and placate this type of mentality held by people who don't really like you or mostly don't really believe in it themselves, just go along to get along.

My post may come off disgruntled (point taken). But my point is to completely dispel any romantic notion for someone who is young and want to make the switch into life science research, if they learn all of these ugly things and still want to do it - then they made the right decision and I've done my job. Kindness imho is not being polite and then taking advantage of people's passion/enthusiasm later (nobody so far has disputed the -EV nature of the field itself just my tone) - it is doing right by people from the jump, not serving the institution or my interest in it. And I'm not sayin you're wrong either or that you are not dedicated (by default I presume everybody is in the research), just sharing my perspective, hope you have a good one.

Thanks labrat! I appreciate your comment - when you made a living "shaving" p-values, shrinking fat tails and crafting a narrative in the life science industrial complex, maybe it's easy to make the switch to exposing bad risk/reward payoffs in the manic and /r/wallstreetbets-driven options and binary options casinos??? Best of luck to you!

Appreciate your comment and opinion, I can't say I agree but I really do respect the honesty and where you are coming from!

I'm not sure who is the next DSA candidate versus the Democratic establishment or Republican candidate (e.g., Francesca Hong v. Dave Crowley, or Abu Sayed v. Mike Rogers). But I encourage you to go to the "machine" (Polymarket, Kalshi) to take position and express your opinion!

I think it says more how you read things and where we are coming from - I meant int'l students earn my respect for being cleared eyed and pursue both their economic and academic interest. For the feminists professors, I'm actually shading the sciences by saying that a lot of times, the so-called tangible and much well-funded science departments produce just as little tangible value as the intangible humanities. But don't get me wrong, I also understand your comment - hope you get social capital up so one day you can stake it in the future to help an immigrant or a feminist stranger for real.

My original point is to make a point that biology or academia in general is very romantic to outsiders - but it's not a very +EV play unless (1) you are already very independently wealth, or (2) you are really really into the subject and know what you're signing up for (the long odds, hours and politics). 99% of the people will take this as a pessimistic view and stop there but 1% will actually pursue option (2).

RE: your political point, I submit to you many institutions are very left-leaning and "Woke-1" was defeated by its emphasis on shaming tactics and identity politics - which ironically brought upon the identity politics of the right and the current "regimen's" backlash on defunding DEI initiatives, which hurts ironically the sciences most due to its outsized reliance from NIH/NSF/DARPA etc. And I welcome actually "Woke-2.0" where DSA is actually focused on kitchen table issues such as grocery and health insurance cost; and anticipate that our political pendulum will swing to the left at the next cycle.

Yes for me, it's mutually beneficial and gives me a quick way to polarize, filter out people I don't want waste time associating with (and vice versa too - people who are institutionalist, professional managerial class (PMCs); thank you for making my point!)

This is a very romantic view of life sciences.

Speaking as a guy who made the pivot to research in life sciences (as a "data scientist") from "full stack software engineer", yes the data and mission is very sexy to a nerdy guy like myself, applying deep learning algorithms to spatial or epigenetic sequencing data of cancer cells to figure out the secret markers or mechanism of cancer cell mestasis or human immune response.

The realistic or unromantic view is you are a cog in the life science industrial complex where you are underpaid and under-appreciated; research often takes years and unclear if you are making progress or scamming the taxpayers like a humanities professor in women's studies (yes even STEM sometimes feels like that); and in computing, unlike tech, you are not the center of attention, most wet lab scientists treat you more like a resource, a grad student they need to make their pvalue or figure panel pop nicely versus a "full stack software engineer" - And if you don't like it, hundreds of thousands of post-doc's or grad students are waiting to take your place for their shot - not in pursing their passion but for a visa in America.

The real value I learned from my pivot from pivoting away from tech and pivoting into Biology is ironically how to gamble. I joined a Discord/Slack sub-channel for #options-trading, #sports-betting and #poker during my studies for a Masters in data science with other degenerate students who loved gambling, and how to identify, automate and size +EV plays in gambling or derivatives trading. I make more than 2-3x what I make in W-2 from my capital gains and W2-G than my W-2 for past the 6 years. But that is not put shade on biological sciences and rather giving credit to Biology for teaching me how to analyze data and gamble.

QQ for all the pro players out there, for 6 or 9-ring poker, can solvers really solve every scenario - or there is simply too many permutations.

The other question I have is how do human players adapt to GTO play now? Like in other games, humans have adapted to novel strategies - I'm curious for poker whether there's ways to exploit GTO solvers (ie, if you put your opponent bot on the GTO range and chase the fat tails). And is the poker community's fair play detection algorithm good enough to catch players who use solvers like chess community - or it's easy to evade by making a few deviations. Much thanks!

As a Chinese-American, I feel rather ambivalent about it - dare I say even positive emotion at the West's current propaganda. Due to the quote - "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win", with the only caveat that West doesn't laugh but rather "coddle you as the savior". So in another word, I don't expect NYT (or Fox News for that matter) to "accept" or "approve" Chinese people - as much as I can't wait for Japan to apologize or ask reparations for IJA 's action in Asia during WW2; when China has overtaken Japan in GDP decades ago. (which is by the way of due to Plaza Accord which is an tangent but not really on the subject matter of self-reliance and global unilaterism vs. multilaterism).

Not sure when we will see this but when we have the Century of Africa, I'd love to see the spin on the front-page of NYT then. I predict something similar to the shade like "Nationalism/Hinduism by Modhi" when he won't play ball with the West on Russian sanction; when African countries rise up with their own ambitions and visions for their own people.

My apologist response would be that Polymarket isn’t the root cause—it’s more of a mirror. It simply makes the incentives and speculation already present in late-stage capitalism more transparent and accessible for anyone to participate in.

You argue that platforms like this encourage speculation about things like celebrity deaths. But celebrity culture is already heavily monetized—think Page Six, Access Hollywood, livestreamed royal weddings, or endless coverage of Taylor Swift’s personal life.

Conceding the point to you that death pool bets increases a significant security risk to celebrities (never mind the appeal to emotions), would that such a risk acceptable to have a more accurate and non-biased informational poll of who might be next U.S. president or who/when will US/Israel strike next made available to the wider public?