schuetze

If you are reading popular books on social science (which many business books are), it is very likely that the author is pushing research they are personally invested in succeeding. They are often not trying to convey a nuanced understanding of a phenomenon. Furthermore, popular books are often not peer-reviewed to the same extant or at all as regular research literature.

A better alternative is to read review articles in journals. They are shorter than books and will also give a more reasonable estimate of the certainty experts have in a certain field of results. For example, in psychology there is the Annual Review of Psychology, which generally publishes ~50pg readable summaries of literature by experts in the field. For the love of social science, please stop reading popular books on the brain/mind.

As a psychologist/cognitive scientist (my identity depends on my mood/day), I was equally disappointed with the sections on psychology and neuroscience. Some of the questions have been answered (at least partially, such as the importance of domain knowledge versus "processing power").

Overall, it was a very odd look into a discipline that I am familiar with, which leads me to think that the ideas are not very promising for any of the fields I don't have expertise in.

Agreed. BiPaP to ventilator already seemed like a somewhat questionable transformation, and now we're going

CPAP ----questionable software hackery ----> BiPaP --- questionable hardware hacking ---> Ventilator

This is hubris. Ventilators are not iPhones circa 2010. It's irresponsible for non-medical researchers to not only pursue, but also disseminate, these jailbreaks. A significant portion of medical device RnD is related to creating technology that is hard to misuse and won't result in accidental death, and I just don't see that here.

From personal experience as a cognitive psychologist, I have found it prohibitively complicated (albeit possible) to implement randomly counterbalanced experiments in Qualtrics. Stimuli sampling and reaction time measurement are particularly hard to implement (unless they've added more functionality recently).

All three of these pieces of functionality are required for many common paradigms in experimental psychology.

Although the time to completion seems quite disparate between Europe and US, the difference isn't nearly as stark as it appears.

Nearly all Europeans enter PhD programs with a Master's degree in hand. At least in psychology (my discipline), US PhD programs will admit candidates directly from undergraduate. The overall time from bachelor's to PhD is similar when you account for these differences.

It also seems that Dropbox Plus somewhat recently gained "smart sync" capabilities, allowing for the storage of selected folders/files in the cloud only.

Thinking in Systems: A Primer by Donella Meadows

Once you start looking for positive and negative feedback loops in the world around you, it's hard to stop. In particular, Meadow's book is great because it also goes beyond +/- loops in isolation, and shows more complicated patterns, such as eroding goal patterns and traps that often cause public policy interventions to fail.

Do you have any evidence for these statements?

In my experience, it's generally the budget-strapped universities that choose to replace tenure-track professors with adjuncts.

On the other hand, private universities with very large endowments tend to be prestigious and part of maintaining this prestige means hiring tenure-track professors to teach undergraduates, mentor graduate students, and to do research.

Have you tried accessing the publications via the on-campus computers in the normal undergraduate libraries? I don't think you need to be in a medical building to have access to the online medical journals.

Well there was, but it was taken down by Daniel Webster in front of the US Supreme Court.

It’s a surprisingly common mistake though. I think I see Dartmouth University more often than Dartmouth College when reading non-Dartmouth materials.