Messages

16

Academic / School / Re: Anyone else still in school?

« on: March 17, 2013, 02:33:08 pm »

I think it's really hard to tell.  There are so many factors to consider.  I'm inclined to agree that on average, a PhD (even in CS/Stats) isn't going to help someone make more money -- they'd probably make a bit less, especially over 5-10 years, than someone without.  But at the very least, there will be a huge variance on that average. 

These comparisons can be quite subtle.  A PhD, and what one does during a PhD, could help someone who would not stand out from their undergraduate record/CV get a job that typically hires bachelors recipients.  He or she may make the same as  bachelors degree holders in that position, but they have a job they wouldn't have otherwise gotten.  Factoring these sorts of scenarios together makes it hard to say, even on average, what monetary gain a PhD will bring.  I know of someone who would have really struggled to get jobs with his CV after undergrad, but now has a PhD and a good publication record, and would really stand out on the job market.

In general, the connections can open a surprising number of doors in the long run. And after a few years, good quants can make $800,000/year.  But I wouldn't encourage a PhD to someone who wouldn't at least enjoy the process.

17

Academic / School / Re: Anyone else still in school?

« on: March 17, 2013, 11:31:36 am »

For what it's worth: "job security" in software jobs is a non-issue if you're even reasonably good. There are some positions that tend to only hire Ph.D.s or pay a little more based on degrees, but generally they're pretty rare these days. I'd say he's either confused/misinformed, wants to get tenure and slack off for the rest of his life, or is uncomfortable with the idea of leaving academia (most likely).

Getting tenure-track is hard, especially at a half decent university, much harder than getting a secure high paying job.  Once you're on tenure track, it's still a long road to a full tenured position, typically up to 15 more years of intensely stressful and relatively low paid work.  No sane person would go through that pain just to slack off once tenured.

I have seen rare cases of professors getting tenure and seemingly doing very little, but it's more a case of luck than anything.  You'd be better off buying lottery tickets.

On the topic of PhD-level jobs, they are actually quite plentiful, but you have to be in the "right" field.  If your PhD has a good mix of computer science and statistics, and it's from a prestigious university* (it's stupid but sometimes necessary, unfortunately), you're eligible for all sorts of high paying PhD-only jobs, particularly quant jobs at hedge funds, but also full-time "researcher" positions at Google, MSR, Amazon, Facebook, and startups.

*or you have a well known supervisor, or collaborator.

18

General Discussion / Processing an image for analysis

« on: February 03, 2013, 06:06:52 pm »

I'm wanting to process images of textures (e.g. repetitive patterns, like brick walls), for a regression problem.  The issue, most of the images are at least on the order of 2000 x 2000 pixels, or 4 million datapoints.  If significantly cropped, maybe 400x400, 160000 datapoints.  I need something more on the order of 1000 datapoints for the regression method I'm using. 

So I'm not sure if there might be some nice compression algorithms I can use, to decrease the number of pixels.

Let me know if you have any ideas, ASAP. (PM or reply to this thread).  If you have experience with Matlab, that's a plus.

Thanks

19

General Discussion / Re: Where is Rule's analysis of the election?

« on: November 22, 2012, 06:30:34 pm »

I have been busy making an intelligent GP. 

20

General Discussion / Re: Let's hear it!

« on: October 10, 2012, 09:18:21 am »

iago takes the win for creepy.

my buddy apparently isnt totally on board with his brother being homosexual. he accepts it and is fine, it just seems like its a shock. we were all at a wedding last week, and my bud got super hammered and he made some joke that ended with "gays arent people." it was totally joking, but I think it hasnt totally hit him.  we're all fairly conservative (more than fairly, but in a libertarian way). i think the news jacked with his perception of his family.  he is also army, and was against the ending of DADT.  to me, DADT seemed segregation-esque (bud is black). why exclude someone for what they are? beats me.

that said. I shared a fairly intense bro-kiss with a dude at the wedding. we're all mad-close, but just met him at wedding stuff. we all share bro hugs/kisses. well, this dude took the bro-kiss to a new level (ie, I was salivated upon). he is totally straight (apparently), but that bro-kiss was...yeah. my kips = closed,but his = open. since my gf has been out of town for about 5 weeks, it was the most action I'd had in a while. I felt weird. But, ya know what, it was bro-love. props that people can just be chill nowdays.

Yeah, I don't think you can really kiss someone on the lips in a nonsexual way... it is a sexual act.   But yeah, good not to be too uptight as long as it works for you...

I think there's a bit of dissonance about libertarians being homophobic... but welcome to politics, where nothing really makes sense.

I gave him a blowjob, but it was totally nonsexual. I didn't swallow. No homo!

Hahahaha

21

General Discussion / Re: Let's hear it!

« on: October 08, 2012, 01:55:36 pm »

Wake up

22

General Discussion / Re: Let's hear it!

« on: September 23, 2012, 01:54:16 pm »

iago takes the win for creepy.

my buddy apparently isnt totally on board with his brother being homosexual. he accepts it and is fine, it just seems like its a shock. we were all at a wedding last week, and my bud got super hammered and he made some joke that ended with "gays arent people." it was totally joking, but I think it hasnt totally hit him.  we're all fairly conservative (more than fairly, but in a libertarian way). i think the news jacked with his perception of his family.  he is also army, and was against the ending of DADT.  to me, DADT seemed segregation-esque (bud is black). why exclude someone for what they are? beats me.

that said. I shared a fairly intense bro-kiss with a dude at the wedding. we're all mad-close, but just met him at wedding stuff. we all share bro hugs/kisses. well, this dude took the bro-kiss to a new level (ie, I was salivated upon). he is totally straight (apparently), but that bro-kiss was...yeah. my kips = closed,but his = open. since my gf has been out of town for about 5 weeks, it was the most action I'd had in a while. I felt weird. But, ya know what, it was bro-love. props that people can just be chill nowdays.

Yeah, I don't think you can really kiss someone on the lips in a nonsexual way... it is a sexual act.   But yeah, good not to be too uptight as long as it works for you...

I think there's a bit of dissonance about libertarians being homophobic... but welcome to politics, where nothing really makes sense.

23

General Discussion / Re: Let's hear it!

« on: August 18, 2012, 06:24:21 am »

Turns out my brother came out of the closet. He was nervous about telling me and for good reason. That jerk ruined the stripper in a cake I was planning for his birthday! Of course, once I got over the fact a stripper wasn't going to come out of a giant cake, I'm glad he was finally able to work up the courage to come out.

Was it a surprise? How old is he?

24

General Discussion / Re: Request

« on: August 14, 2012, 11:26:47 am »

I don't understand why there is so much talk about exciting the "base".  Just not particularly being excited about Romney isn't going to stop them from voting for him, because their only other choice is voting Democrat, and that won't happen.

Staying home is always an option.

Yeah, but in this case the "base" seems to actually refer not to the average Republican voter, but to those with more extreme views, who would vote to keep a Democrat from winning, even without especially liking the Republican candidate. 

But that's just a wild guess.

25

General Discussion / Re: Request

« on: August 14, 2012, 05:47:08 am »

I don't understand why there is so much talk about exciting the "base".  Just not particularly being excited about Romney isn't going to stop them from voting for him, because their only other choice is voting Democrat, and that won't happen.

26

General Discussion / Re: Request

« on: August 10, 2012, 03:01:29 pm »

Ender has usually been considerate "when it matters", and I found the past trolling funny.  And he was responding to deadly, not dark_drake (who, coincidentally, is rarely provocative).

27

General Discussion / Re: Request

« on: August 06, 2012, 04:24:26 pm »

not really.

and now they reliably vote for more services and fewer taxes. people are fucking dumb, and i think there exists a solution superior to democracy. democracy fucking sucks.

yeah, yeah. i don't think this guy should be denied the uh... "right" to have a restaurant in an area full of people who think he's a prick. i'm just mad at people who think they're doing something good by buying chic-fil-a.

Ideally we would want an intelligent, rational, humane, and selfless dictator.  But I'm not sure how we could guarantee that.  Smart people aren't necessarily trustworthy or acting in the interests of society.

28

General Discussion / Re: Request

« on: August 04, 2012, 04:23:45 pm »

This is what goes through their minds, I think:

"I don't really like gay people, and I'm glad there's still an organization around that's not ashamed enough of their bigotry to say so out loud. support free speech"

That describes human nature pretty well in general.  I think most people rationalise their beliefs and allegiances, usually because they choose them before thinking about them carefully.  The thinking always happens in the wrong order.  The reasons people use in arguments are rarely the reasons they themselves have some belief. 

29

General Discussion / Re: Request

« on: August 04, 2012, 04:09:06 pm »

Can this forum stop being dead?  Argue with me or something.

Thanks

<troll>Frequentists have the right perspective.</troll>

I'd like to see a proper moderated debate between frequentists and Bayesians, but for some reason it seems like effort has gone into avoiding an interactive discussion from both sides.  Instead we just hear snarky superior sounding "end of discussion" sort of comments from both sides.  In particular, all of the frequentist complaints (that I've heard) about the philosophy of Bayesian inference seem just poorly thought out -- "where does the prior come from?", "where do you end the hierarchy in your models?", "isn't Bayesian inference just the same as regularisation?", "isn't it unfair to bias your answers towards the right answers?", "should we not just listen to the data?", etc.   On the other hand, I can see a good pragmatist argument against Bayesian inference in certain situations given the constraints of current approximate inference algorithms.

30

General Discussion / Request

« on: August 02, 2012, 02:46:15 pm »

Can this forum stop being dead?  Argue with me or something.

Thanks