vkk8

Assuming the only purpose of universities is to serve the job market. I'd argue that the primary function of the university system is to transfer the collective human knowledge forward. The fact that some of it is sometimes needed in jobs is a secondary effect.

But you're right that there should be schools that teach the practical programming skills. But it's the the trade schools that should be developed towards this goal, not universities.

Anecdotally, I was (as probably many here were) ahead of the curve in digital devices usage when I started hanging out in IRC and various web forums as a teenager in early 2000s. At some point I noticed that just using computers induced some amount of anxiety compared to "old tech"; whenever there was some period of time when I used my computer less (like christmas, vacations, etc.) and joined back to the "world of the normal people", I felt much calmer and happier. Even though I noticed this, it was difficult to log off during normal times since most of my life was in the internet.

Now everyone is using digital devices all the time and the "normal people world" has ceased to exist. Also almost everyone is anxious and/or depressed. I think this is not a coincidence. However, I do not think that this is due to social media per se, but using digital devices for anything (social media being just the reason why most people use them).

My theory is that just using digital devices for anything is somewhat stressful; you have to keep the eyes focused all the time (Can you think of other activities that require this? There aren't many and they are all somewhat stressful), you have to navigate all the various applications and menus, you have to occasionally solve minor problems that you run into when using the devices, etc.

Using digital devices is the same for your brain as heavy, repetitive physical labour is to your body; in small amounts it might even be healthy, but several hours every day is going to destroy your body/mind.

Really? Here in Finland I see a lot of products in the supermarket that claim to be made out of "100% recycled plastic". I can't really compare volumes of plastic waste vs recycled plastic products, but it seems that at least some of the recycled material is put to use.

> As a layman non-scientist, I wonder why we see so many relatively low-value observational studies in diet/nutrition, often with results that get contradicted or fail to replicate a few years later.

On my peak fitness enthusiasm I kept a rigorous food diary for some time and it was such a pain in the ass that I don't believe for a second that food diaries coming from people who are not 100% committed and interested in keeping one are accurate at all. People would often forget to log small snacks they have, or estimate portion sizes completely wrong, or neglect logging sauces, oils, condiments, etc.

> "People who consumed more than 20% of daily calories from processed foods had a 28% faster decline in global cognition and a 25% faster decline in executive functioning compared to people who ate less than 20%,"

I wish they just showed a graph of "decline in cognition" vs "percentage of calories from processed foods" instead of making me try to parse the relevant information out of sentences like that. What 10% of my calories come from processed foods? I'm I completely safe or is the effect linear in percentage of calories or what?

Indeed. I hate the term "ultraprocessed" so much, because I have no idea what to look for if I try to avoid it.

If I chop my potatoes before boiling them, is that processing? If not, which steps in cooking count as "processing"? And how many of those steps need to be included for the food to be "ultraprocessed"? How can I avoid accidentally "ultraprocessing" my food when I cook it at home?

This is a bit crude way to put it, but maybe you're right.

At least for me, becoming a father changed my perspective on everything so much that it's almost like I'm not even the same species anymore as I was before having them. Sometimes people without children feel like they're not even proper adults even if they are older and/or more senior at work or whatever.

> Maybe, but again, I don't see why that should be necessary. Tesla should not have been able to do this, period.

Maybe you're right. However, much of the modern hardware business operates this way. At least Nvidia and Intel have been known to sell the same chips as different models, but just some part of the chip disabled via firmware.

> Sounds like all around bad decisions. The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90".

To be fair, for people not intimately familiar with the craziness of modern tech business, it's reasonable to assume that whatever capabilities the car has at the moment of purchase, are going to be there indefinitely. On the face of it, cutting car battery remotely via software patch sounds about as reasonable as remotely removing a room from a house you purchased.

Totally different context, but at my company, they started reusing some IDs that are supposed to be unique because they ran out of them and the old-as-fuck computer systems can't handle longer IDs.

Coming from theoretical physics background, I find the mathematics and physics side of game development quite easy. Is this considered a real advantage if I wanted to pursue a career or something in game development? Is there some way to leverage my physics/math skills to do this stuff as a serious hobby, perhaps even making small amounts of money from it?

Like probably many people, I've wanted to make games since I was a kid, but somehow there is never enough time or energy to start doing indie development seriously and I always imagined there's no way I could get hired in a game company without a good developer or arts background.

I have been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and I feel the same way about it. It's not an illness, it's simply a maladaptation to the kind of world we live in.

Most milder mental disorders are probably like this; it doesn't make any sense from the evolutionary point of view that a significant proportion of the population would have largely genetic trait that is only harmful in all situations. It's just that traits like ADHD and high levels of anxiety probably were helpful - or at least not harmful - in our evolutionary context, but are not anymore.

This is, I think, why simple things are so difficult to do in large corporations and everythings costs about 10-100x more money than you would expect. Often, it would be much easier to change the processes and workflows than the software.

Is this how software development in corporations really works? I'm not a software developer, but I've contributed to some large open source projects and I thought it would be similar. Maybe with the difference that the issues would be raised by a Q/A team or other people in the company instead of random people across the internet.

How do you get a software engineering job as a physicist? I'm one and I tried applying for a few (mostly with titles like "machine learning engineer", etc.) and mostly received no responses. For comparison, when applying for "data scienist" or "quantitative analyst" (in finance) jobs, I got many offers. Around here, the SWE people seem to assume that physicist can't write good code.