If they put the sign up first, you wouldn't know how much more information you'd need to give before doing a search (just a string), and that seems like it would undersell themselves.
This seems a lot better than those quizzes or quotes that ask a bunch of questions first and then ask for your email at the end -- or worse -- a payment.
Mostly because the definition of decent life has shot upwards way faster than economic standards.
From fixed standards, the median kid being raised today is doing way better than 100 years ago, even though people chose to have way more kids 100 years ago:
- Cars were death traps.
- Dying in infancy and 20s, 30s was common.
- Very few people went to college.
100 years ago, no one felt "indecent" to raise a kid they can't afford to send to college, or knew at a 1% chance of dying due to malnutrition. Now, for many people, they would feel indecent bringing someone into the world in that state.
> Now, for many people, they would feel indecent bringing someone into the world in that state.
I think you're overdramatizing how prevalent such a concern is, and would wager that's mostly relegated to people in a certain social class and who've been instilled with the idea that University specifically is the key to success.
Otherwise, many people in certain geographies aren't having kids because the prospect of being able to continue putting a roof over our own head seems tenuous at best, and we're just not so driven to have kids that moving quite far out of our communities is worth it, which leaves us in a limbo state of having scarce upward mobility but access to other valuable attributes, and the ability to keep that going for a while.
Granted, I'm not personally driven to have kids anyway, but if my early thirties starts catching up to me, my first concern is not going to be whether I can pay for their college, it's whether or not I have a stable mother in the picture, and whether or not having a kid is something we're equipped to shelter, feed, cloth, and support through basic public education. Considering that even getting a separate room for ourselves would nearly double our rent, and buying a place with one could cost nearly 850k (without leaving even approximately where we currently live) it's not looking good.
Historically (agrarian), children meant more work could be done, because there was always low-skill manual labor that provided sustenance and value.
More children = more workers = family better off
If we're going to switch the economy to high-skill, we should realize that decreases the value of children to the family, which means we need to backfill that with entitlements (e.g. free childcare, SNAP, public school and college, etc).
Agree that this is how papers are often judged, but strong disagree on how this is how papers should be judged. This is exactly the problem of reviewers looking for the keys under the lamp post (does the paper check these boxes), versus where they lost the keys (should this paper get more exposure because it advances the field).
The fact that the first doesn't lead more to the second is a failure of the system.
This is the same sort of value system that leads to accepting job candidates with neat haircuts and says the right shibboleths, versus the ones that make the right bottom line impact.
Basically, are "good" papers that are very rigorous but lead to nothing actually "good"? If your model of progress in science is that rigorous papers are a higher probability roll of the dice, and nonrigorous papers are low probability rolls of the dice, then we should just look for rigorous papers. And that a low-rigor paper word2vec actually make progress was "getting really lucky" and we should have not rated the paper well.
But I contend that word2vec was also very innovative, and that should be a positive factor for reviewers. In fact, I bet that innovative papers have a hard time being super rigorous because the definition of rigor in that field has yet to be settled yet. I'm basically contending that on the extreme margins, rigor is negatively correlated with innovation.
You are right. I often got told "You don't compare with anything" when proposing something very new. That's true, because if you are literally the first one attempting a task, there isn't any benchmark. The trick then is to make up at least a straw man alternative to your method and to compare with that.
Since then, I have evolved my thinking, and I now use something that isn't just a straw man: Before I even conceive my own method or model or algorithm, I ask myself "What is the simplest non-trivial way to do this?".
For example, when tasked with developing a transformer based financial summarization system we pretrained a BERT model from scratch (several months worth of work), but I also implemented a 2-line grep based mini summarizer as a shell script, which defied the complexity of the BERT transformer yet proved to be a competitor tought to beat:
https://www.springerprofessional.de/extractive-summarization...
I'm inclined to organize a workshop on small models with few parameters, and to organize a shared task as part of it where no model can be larger than 65 kB, a sort of "small is beautiful" workshop in dedication of Occam.
I don't consider clearly stating your model and meaningfully comparing it to prior work and other models (seemingly the main issues here) to be analogous to a proper haircut or a shibboleth. Actually I think it's a strange comparison to make.
Papers are absolutely judged on impact - it's not as though any paper submitted to Nature gets published as long as it gets through peer review. Most journals (especially high-impact for-profit journals) have editors that are selecting interesting and important papers. I think it's probably a good idea to separate those two jobs ("is this work rigorous and clearly documented") vs ("should this be included in the fall 2023 issue").
That's (probably) good for getting the most important papers to the top, but it also strongly disincentivizes whole categories (often very important paper). Two obvious categories are replication studies and negative results. "I tried it too and it worked for me" "I tried it too and it didn't work" "I tried this cool thing and it had absolutely no effect on how lasers work" could be the result of tons of very hard work and could have really important implications, but you're not likely to make a big splash in high-impact journals with work like that. A well-written negative result can prevent lots of other folks from wasting their own time (and you already spent your time on it so might as well write it up).
The pressure for impactful work also probably contributes to folks juicing the stats or faking results to make their results more exciting (other things certainly contribute to this too like funding and tenure structures). I don't think "don't care about impact" is a solution to the problem because obviously we want the papers that make cool new stuff.
This is post hoc thinking but impossible a priori. You're also discounting the bias of top venues, in that the act of being in their venue is a causal variable for higher impact if you measure by citation counts.
I'd also mention that ML does not typically use a journal system but rather conferences. A major difference is that conferences are not rolling submissions and there is only one rebuttal available to authors. Usually this is limited to a single page that includes citations. You can probably imagine that it's difficult to do an adequate rebuttal to 3-4 reviewers under the best of circumstances. It's like trying to hold a debate where the defending side must respond to any question from the opposition, with clear citations, in a short time frame, and there is no limit to how abstract the opposing side's question need be. Nor that their is congruence within the opposition. It's not a very good framework for making "arguments" more clear or convincing, especially when you consider that the game is zero sum.
I definitely agree with your comments about how other types of useful communication (like null results) are highly discouraged. But I wanted to note that there's a poor framework for even "standard" works.
Your argument is that if a paper makes a valuable contribution then it should be accepted even if it's not well written. But the definition of "well written" is that it makes it easy for the reader to understand its value. If a paper is not well written, then reviewers won't understand its value and will reject it.
Well written and rigor aren’t highly correlated. You can have poorly written papers that are very rigorous, and vic versa. Rigor is often another checkbox (does the paper have some quantitative comparisons), especially if the proper rigor is hard to define by the writer or the reader.
My advice to PhD students is to always just focus on subjects where the rigor is straightforward, since that makes writing papers that get in easier. But of course, that is a selfish personal optimization that isn’t really what’s good for society.
Rigor here doesn't have to mean mathematical rigor, it includes qualitative rigor. It's unrigorous to include meaningless comparisons to prior work (which is a credible issue the reviewers raised in this case) and it's also poor writing.
Qualitative rigor isn’t rigor at all, it’s the opposite. Still useful in a good narrative, sometimes it’s the best thing you have to work as evidence in your paper.
Prior work is a mess in any field. The PC will over emphasize the value of their own work, of course, just because of human ego. I’ve been on way too many papers where my coauthors defensively cite work based on who could review the paper. I’m not versed enough about this area to know if prior work was really an issue or not, but I used to do a lot of paper doctoring in fields that I wasn’t very familiar with.
Yes -- all the people I know withdrawing from small banks are going to Chase or Morgan Stanley. These largest banks have to mark-to-market their losses and have a lot of cash (short duration) assets, and are literally too big to fail.
Confusingly, the two banks you named are JP Morgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley. JP Morgan Chase is the biggest bank there is, but Morgan Stanley is far smaller (but still ginormious) and doesn't rank in the top 10 banks. The top 3 banks are JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citigroup.
Within JPM Chase, the "JP Morgan" or "JP Morgan Private Bank" brand is used for (V)HNWI banking and the "Chase" brand is for retail (although Chase does have a Chase Private Client arm for almost-HNWIs). Due to the nature of catering to VHNWIs, "JP Morgan" of course offers wealth management services.
Morgan Stanley is a completely different company with no (current) ties to JPMC.
The reason JPMC and M-S share the name "Morgan" is because the investment and retail sides of the bank were split during the Great Depression due to Glass-Steagall, almost 100 years ago.
And, more importantly, are national banks regulated by the occ so they can't do the same kinds of risky things that svb & co can do. (They can do other risky things that they come up with historically, especially pre dodd-frank, but not this)
Does this show that current markets are working? Seems like the lowest cost energy storage solution are NG peakers, and it does seem like the US has a lot of gas energy production: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
> Does this show that current markets are working?
Depends on your definition of working. It wasn’t explicitly stated, but I think it’s implied that natural gas is bad, or at least, less desirable than renewable only.
I think something missing from the article’s analysis is that solar power can be, in a lossy manner, sent (north) eastwards in the US. If California is close to producing a surplus of solar power, then why not send it to seattle/Arizona. Northwards accounts for unbalanced solar load, and eastwards lets excess daytime Cali sunlight fuel the post-sun evening boom towards the east.
California has a unique opportunity to pioneer a lot of renewable energy tech. The (on average) rich population can afford higher costs, to buy at-home solar and battery packs. The geography and climate means plenty of renewable energy. The localization of energy production and storage could make the grid resilient, and distribute costs so there’s no government mega projects to politically grapple with. Unfortunately a lot of that won’t translate well to the rest of the Us, especially the Northern regions with much less generous weather. Unless California can find a way to export their energy, the rest of the US won’t benefit nearly as much.
If this were a concern, a user can easily bypass this by having a work-for-hire person add a minor transform layer on top of the DALL-E generated images right?
A lot of replies on twitter critique dang on moderating their comments. But in reality, I think this is a good thing. There are already enough near-total-free speech zones on the Internet (and we see how many of them turn out). It's far more personally interesting to me to see how a conversations in a space moderated above a certain threshold evolves.
Ah okay thanks for replying. That's great to hear you're speaking from experience then. Did you need to convince your spouse of it or was your spouse for it all along? Sometime I think having these conversations is hard. Also do you act as if you're married or is the relationship "looser" in many ways (like living apart)? I'm genuinely curious because I do think the institution of marriage is a little dated in many ways.
It is operationally the same as being married, the relationships are not looser in any sense. Unless a longtime couple tells you about it, you often don't know. People assume you are married because you "look" and act how people expect married people to. Anecdotally, this is most common among people who were previously married, and therefore often have pragmatic and non-idealistic views of marriage, and both professionals; they already did it once and don't see the purpose or benefit. I know several couples that I discovered have been in this state for decades.
I do think this selects for relatively affluent couples who gain limited leverage by combining assets. For people with few assets, the benefits of combined economics are much higher.
Probably the biggest difference is that assets are not commingled by default and asset transactions do not require the signatures of both parties. Finances aren't just practically separate but also literally separate. Joint purchases are explicitly contracted as such. However, many well-off professional married couples also keep their finances approximately independent in practice, so this isn't unique though messier if they split up.
My situation is somewhat more interesting than most, but no I didn’t need to convince my partner(s) of any of this and everyone thinks of it the same way. That was one of the things that attracted me to the person with whom I have been living for the past several years.
This seems a lot better than those quizzes or quotes that ask a bunch of questions first and then ask for your email at the end -- or worse -- a payment.