Experimental Error: OMG, So Many Science Careers

By Adam Ruben

Last month, I spoke on two different career panels to roomfuls of young scientists. Every time a student raised a hand to speak, I noticed they all had the same question about jobs in science: “May I have one, please?”

As general as the panelists tried to keep their advice, the questions had a predictable undercurrent: Those aspiring young scientists didn’t just want to find out what it was like to work in science. They wanted us to say, “Okay. You win. I’ve got 50 open positions, and I’ll offer them to all of you today. Who wants health insurance?”

For example, there was the classic (and, in my experience, largely useless) question about how we each found our current jobs. I could tell that the students really wanted to hear stories about how we noticed a posting on Science Careers or Monster.com, answered an ad, and survived competition with 200 random applicants - because that’s their own best idea for how to land a position. Instead, each of the panel members talked about how we found our own careers through serendipitous meetings, friends-of-friends, and good old blatant nepotism.

And so we lectured to disappointed students - some of whom had actually come equipped with stacks of resumes - telling them how great our lives are, what a typical day at work entails (which was the opportunity for each person to say, “At my company, there is no typical day!”), and how they might find themselves in similar careers, most likely by killing us and taking our jobs.

What did impress me, though, was the breadth of careers available to scientists. Even though none of the panelists showed up looking to find new employees, apparently our science training prepares us for a number of semi-related careers beyond the usual few. For example:

Academic scientist

If you like grant writing, writing grants, and obtaining grants via writing, you may enjoy life as an academic scientist. You’ll also experience the thrill of teaching overly broad, university-mandated survey courses (“Introduction to Biology, Chemistry, and Physics Without Algebra”), flexible work hours (You work 22 hours a day, but you pick the 22 hours!), and doing the Tenure Tango (“You put your left foot in, you take your left foot out, you put your left foot in the grave.”).

Читать далее >>

Why the Best Days of Open Hardware are Yet to Come

from bunnie's blog

Recently, I gave a talk at the 2011 Open Hardware Summit. The program committee had requested that I prepare a “vision” talk, something that addresses open hardware issues 20-30 years out. These kinds of talks are notoriously difficult to get right, and I don’t really consider myself a vision guy; but I gave it my best shot. Fortunately, the talk was well-received, so I’m sharing the ideas here on my blog.

Abstract

Currently, open hardware is a niche industry. In this post, I highlight the trends that have caused the hardware industry to favor large, closed businesses at the expense of small or individual innovators. However, looking 20-30 years into the future, I see a fundamental shift in trends that can tilt the balance of power to favor innovation over scale.

Where we Came From: Open to Closed

In the beginning, hardware was open. Early consumer electronic products, such as vacuum tube radios, often shipped with user manuals that contained full schematics, a list of replacement parts, and instructions for service. In the 80’s, computers often shipped with schematics. For example, the Apple II shipped with a reference manual that included a full schematic of the mainboard, an artifact that I credit as strongly influencing me to get into hardware. However, contemporary user manuals lack such depth of information; the most complex diagram in a recent Mac Pro user instructs on how to sit at the computer: “thighs slightly lifted”, “shoulders relaxed”, etc.

What happened? Did electronics just get too hard and complex? On the contrary, improving electronics got to easy: the pace of Moore’s Law has been too much for small-scale innovators to keep up.

Читать далее >>

Toss Productivity Out

Post written by Leo Babauta.

For at least a couple of years, Zen Habits was one of the top productivity blogs, dispensing productivity crack for a nominal fee (your reading time).

I’d like to think I helped people move closer to their dreams, but today I have different advice:

Toss productivity advice out the window.

Most of it is well-meaning, but the advice is wrong for a simple reason: it’s meant to squeeze the most productivity out of every day, instead of making your days better.

Imagine instead of cranking out a lot of widgets, you made space for what’s important. Imagine that you worked slower instead of faster, and enjoyed your work. Imagine a world where people matter more than profits.

If any of that appeals to you, let’s look at some traditional productivity advice, and see why we should just toss them out.

1. Get Organized. Sounds good, but getting organized is just rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. It does nothing to stop the ship from sinking. Instead, simplify. If you have a desk with 5 things in it, you don’t need to organize. If you have a closet with only a handful of clothes, it doesn’t need a closet organizer. If your day has only one or two appointments, there’s no need for a detailed schedule organizer. Simplifying means making important choices about what’s important, rather than ignoring that question and just trying to cram everything into your day (and space) in a logical way.

2. Keep an Idea List. The idea is that whenever you have an idea, you should write it down. Then you’ll never lose an idea, and you’ll always have a list of ideas that you can come back to. Sounds great, right? Except in practice, the idea list is never filled with your best ideas. That’s because when you have a really great idea, you get so excited about it you jump up and want to work on it immediately. Your best ideas are ones that you can’t put off until tomorrow. That’s how you know it’s a great idea. The ideas that go on the Idea List are not your best.

3. Set a Lot of Goals. Only five years ago, I had a long list of goals for each year, and I was pretty decent at getting them done (better than 50% at least). Then I experimented with three goals a year, and I was even more focused. Then I did One Goal, and that was amazing, because it really helped me focus everything I did. Now I do No Goals, and it’s best of all. I let go of future-focused thinking, and focus on what inspires and excites me now. I get even more accomplished, but let go of all the time I used to spend on goal administration (it’s more than you might think) and all my mental energy is freed to do what I want to do right now. You might not want to do No Goals, but try One Goal or three goals.

4. Track Everything. If you want to change it, you have to measure it, right? If you want fast results, you need to track it. Except that’s complete crap. Why do you need such fast results in the first place? And who says you need to track something to change it? I’ve found more meaningful, lasting results when I don’t track, but focus on enjoyment of the activity. For example, if I focus on enjoying running, that makes me want to run more often, and that’s a habit that lasts much longer. If I focus on tracking the running (mileage, speed, VO2 max, intervals, etc), that takes the enjoyment away from the activity (running) and focuses on the results. If you are so focused on the results, the activity becomes only a means to an end. That makes the activity less enjoyable, and therefore less sustainable over the long run. I’ve become fitter than ever by not tracking, but instead enjoying being active. I’ve grown my site more now that I don’t track stats, but instead enjoy the writing. Over the long run, not tracking is better.

5. Be Productive When You’re Waiting. Lots of people do this — you bring a laptop or mobile device or some papers to do some work while you’re waiting at a doctor’s office or at DMV or on the train or in traffic. There’s nothing wrong with this, really, except in the philosophy behind it: that every second should be filled with work, or it’s wasted. I object to this. Sitting in a waiting room, doing nothing but sitting in silence or watching other people, is a beautiful way to spend your time. Reading a novel on a train, or taking a nap, is also wonderful. Waiting in line at DMV or the post office and eavesdropping on other human beings, or making conversation with someone, or just soaking in the sounds of humanity, is arguably more important than doing more work or reading work-related documents. Life isn’t only about work, and productivity isn’t everything. Try some unproductivity instead.

6. Keep Detailed, Context To-Do Lists. In the early days of Zen Habits, back in 2007, I did exactly this — I kept a series of contextual to-do lists for home, work, phone calls, errands, someday, and so on. This became too much work for me, and so instead of organizing, I simplified. I now focus on one or two things to do each day, and if when I get them done, my day is golden. Everything else I do that day is gravy. And the to-do lists gather dust, which turns out to be a very productive thing for them to do.

7. Work Hard in Bursts, with Frequent Breaks. Work hard for 10 minutes and take a break for 5! Or maybe 12 and 3? Maybe 30 minutes of hard work and 10 minutes of break? The exact numbers really depend on your flavor of productivity, but at their heart they miss the point: you shouldn’t be forcing yourself to work hard on something you dread doing, and then take a break to reward or relieve yourself from that dreaded work. You should work on stuff you love, so that you can’t wait to do it, and taking a break is just a matter of enjoying something else (maybe a nice walk, a nice book, a nice conversation with a friend). Life where you work hard in bursts, with some breaks, is dreadful. Life where you’re always doing something you love is art.

Source

Читать далее >>

Одностишия Ольги Арефьевой (в подражание В.Вишневскому)

О, не пиши так много одностиший!
Уж если изменять - так сразу многим!
Ты интерфейсом мне не угрожай!
Ну поиграй, хотя бы "Чижик-пыжик"!
Как много металлистов вышло в барды...
Ему гитару в руки не давайте!
О, не лежи так явно на постели...
Да, я звезда, а что мне остаётся?
Ну ты хотя бы ночью не кричи...
Он не стыдился песен в ля-миноре...
Хоть наши песни всё равно в народе...
Он раньше чаще попадал по струнам...
Ну хорошо, гремите, только тихо!
Зачем играть? Я без того известен...
Бывало, он настраивал гитару...
Мы невостребованы. Но и непродажны!
Громи буржуев! (Спонсоров не трогать!)
Ты б хоть постриглась, чтоб не быть как парень!
Куда ты наливаешь - это бонги!
При исполненьи хватит целоваться!
Свирепо глянув в зал, он дал по струнам...
И пусть нестройно - я авангардист!
"Виолончель" - звучит конечно гордо...
Что за привычка - как концерт - на сцену?
Постой, так ты играл не в ЛЯ-миноре?!!
Куда-то задевалось пианино...
Лишь тот играет правильно, кто громко!
Так это у него в кармане ...КУКИШ!
А, понятно, куда он так рвался...
Как подло на ремонт закрыть сортиры...
Ты можешь не играть. И так всё ясно.
Чем хуже голос, тем короче юбка...
Чего опять уставились на сцену?
Как выпьет - буйный, как не пьёт - зануда...
Как эротична форма микрофона...
А то, что пьяный - это так и надо!
Ну хоть милиции до нас есть дело...
Как ни визжи - не выйдет Джанис Джоплин...
Так вот чего в рояле так воняло...
Вчера ты вроде бы была без бороды...
Я так красива, что сама б влюбилась...
Величие заметно после смерти...
Я неподкупен. Но беру натурой.
А "гонорар натурой" - были гвозди!
Способностей лишён. Но сразу гений.
"Уйди, противный" - понимал буквально...
Докуда поднимаем эйфорию?
"Нахал" - совсем не значит "прекратите"!
Постой вот здесь. О нет, ложись скорее.
Люблю... Не лезьте ж, это я не вам!
Любить Вас с Вами легче, чем без Вас...
Какие мои письма не любовны?
Пусть у тебя вибрирует хоть пейджер...
Нас с поприща любовного попёрли...
Прижмись ко мне мобильным телефоном...
Как жаль, что поздно нам играть в бирюльки...
Какие зоны здесь не эрогенны...
Я ураган. Неважно, что в стакане.
Ну и к чему Вы приходили с розой?
Представим, что мы только что проснулись...
Сентенции мои сентиментальны...
Опять ты пишешь непереводимо!
Итак, попался. А теперь что делать?
Чего мы это с Вами врозь, да врозь?
Как эротично спать с тобою врозь!
Все гении в такое время дрыхнут.
Вчера нам низко пасть так и не вышло...
Звонить не надо - я и так всё знаю...
Вы клеились ко мне, не отпирайтесь!
Опять мы так бездарно артистичны...
Так поздно, что уже, похоже, рано...
Ну что, проснулся? Засыпай обратно...
Родимая... На мне ты как пятно.
Столкнула нас судьба и растолкнула...
Проснулись мы в различных помещеньях...
Проснулись в неприличных положеньях...
Влюблённые - такие идиоты...
Я не сдурела. Я вообще такая.
Я долго буду мучить Вас собою...
Бессовестный... Ты знал всё это сразу!
Лежать, молчать! А то я растеряюсь...
Забыла. Мы чего уединились?
Родной, ты так уместен в женском платье...
Всё. Сплю. Теперь уж Вам пускай не спится...
Не надо мне так сразу отдаваться!
Мне мокро жить, когда так крыша каплет...
И скользко жить, когда так крыша едет...
Звоните мне! Но только не по делу...
Как твой автоответчик возбуждает...
Мне колка дров уже не помогает...
Цинично одеяло отобрав...
Я слышу март по собственному "м я у!"
Презерватив - оплот самообмана...
Ты безопасен в принципе не будешь...
А одностишья - свежий вид интима!
И нам уж всё равно, что мы не мыты...
И вредной быть по-своему полезно...
И ты любви покорен? Это возраст...
Да. Мои шутки полностью серьёзны.
Я гений. Парадоксы - лишь прикрытье...
Нет, я людей практически не ем...
А мне легко всё время прибедняться?
Как абонент сети, неудержима...
В метро без нас хватает пассажиров...
Куда ещё нам расширять сознанье!
Звоните, всё равно меня нет дома...
Прелюдия порой главней финала...
Он любит борщ... Воспользуемся этим.
Мужик голодный - лёгкая добыча...
Как ты домой пойдёшь, весь мной пропахший?
Проснувшись от позыва к одностишью...
С утра коты помуркаться приходят.
Чего-то я без дела улыбаюсь...
На что ты намекал мне поцелуем?
Так радуешь меня, что просто плачу...
С восьми утра терплю у телефона...
Ой, не туда угрозы ты отправил...
Взят при попытке связи СМС-кой...
Я-то терплю. Но ты-то пожалеешь...
Бесценное теперь не стоит денег...
Режим спортивный ты нарушил мною...
Я в гневе офигительно прекрасна...
Нанюхалась тебя до одуренья...
Когда влюбляюсь - становлюсь опасной...
"Пять лет без секса" - не медаль, а орден!
С чем нас теперь застигли папарацци?
Мужчиною по вызову мне будешь?
Я думаю о Вас в опасных дозах...
Смываемся - пока не смылась краска...
Верни мои предметы фетишизма!
Любви моей не порти хмурой миной...
Влюбиться мне в тебя не расхотелось...
Не мне, отец, учить тебя - и баста!
Не Вам, сынок, учить меня - и баста!
Ты сэкономь энергию на мне...
Пока ты не со мною - не ревную.
Я влюблена, бесспорно. Но в кого?
Была с тобой, хоть ты со мною не был.
Я Вас люблю. И что же дальше?
И с Вами я - практически без Вас.
Я вру. Но это тоже способ правды.
И смена ритма - тоже способ джаза...
Люби меня. Но не по расписанью...
В "давай не надо" слышал лишь "давай!"
Хоть с розой был - жениться не обязан...
Мы оба не в себе. Вовне столкнёмся.
Люблю вас. Просто в очень редкой форме.
С печатью интеллекта под глазами...
Печать интеллигентности под глазом...
О, не мешай мне грезить о тебе!
Не слабость чувства, милый. Просто слабость.
Я занята, родной, не охладела...
Приду в себя - тогда уж и в себя...
Все формы связи, кроме сексуальной...

Источник

См. также здесь

Читать далее >>

Scientists and central planning

by Daniel Lemire

Overconfident individuals often win by claiming more resources than they could defend (Johnson and Fowler). If nobody knows who is strongest, whoever thinks he is the strongest might win by default. That is, there is no better way to fool others than to first fool yourself.

Accordingly, human beings are often overconfident:

  • The teachers know that lecturing is highly effective (even when it is not).
  • Sex partners know that they are great lovers (even when they are not).
  • Star scientists know that they are more often right than others (even if that’s not true).
  • Economists know how they economy work (even when they don’t).
  • The entrepreneur knows his new business will succeed (even when most fails).

In scholarship, overconfidence is a great asset. I routinely fool myself into thinking that I can make a lasting contribution  with my next research projects. By being overconfident, I take risks that I would not take otherwise. If I were more cautious, I would go work in the financial industry, make a lot of money and retire early. Instead, I keep thinking that my next research project might advance Science.

Thus, scientists often develop a God complex:  they somehow know that whatever theories they hold must be true. They also believe that they can accurately assess the significance of the work of others. This is not entirely conscious, of course. They know that it is impossible to make fair assessments. Yet they fool themselves long enough to believe that their assessments are largely correct (even when they are not).

This is somewhat ironic in that Science’s ultimate purpose is to tame our God complex. Yet the very people who pursue science have gigantic egos. They would never admit that Science is built on trial and error. They want you to believe that Science is driven by superior intellects. How can such pompous people be in charge of moderating our God complex? Because while the scientist might be driven by overconfidence, his tools keep him honest. The scientist is like a high speed train: he might have a huge engine, he is (mostly) forced to follow tracks. A scientist operating entirely based on his inflated ego will eventually be derailed.

The God complex leads us straight to the conventional peer review system: write a paper, send it to a journal where a handful of review will assess it. Can reviewers really tell whether the work is significant? Of course, they can’t! But they believe so, for a time. The scientific way is to try and verify. That is how, ultimately, scientists deal with their God complex. Hence all (apparently) correct research papers should be published. Work that has stood the test of time should form the foundation of a field, not work that has been selected by  (false) Gods.

But surely, scientists cannot try all possible theories? They must someone select the most promising directions. However, once we acknowledge the God complex, some natural strategies emerge:

  1. We should reject central planning. We must reject the authority of the few to decide the worthwhile research directions. We should choose to support many small projects rather than fund one large initiative driven by a handful of individuals. Results matter, not authority.
  2. We should test as many different ideas as we can. Scientists should be encouraged to try many different things.

If you think that these strategies sound sensible, consider that they are almost entirely the opposite of what is being done:

  1. Science is increasingly planned centrally around large government bureaucracies. We want to build scientific heroes who will direct other (lesser) scientists. Large teams focus on a narrow set of problems and directed by experienced researchers are the gold standard. Independent thinkers who try different things “waste resources”.
  2. We encourage specialization. One argument which is often raised is that if a professor tries his hand at a new topic, he will be unable to train new Ph.D.s in this new area, thus limiting our ability to produce more Ph.D.s. It is also frowned upon to try an idea, see it fail, and write up the results as a research report: every project should lead to a publication in a respected venue.

By analogy between Science and capitalism, it is as if  the government was funding large corporations at the expense of small shops. It is as if the government funded companies that are highly specific and inflexible at the expense of agile ventures because more stable companies can better train their employees. And, more importantly, it is as if the fate of start-up companies was determined by small secret committees of experts: unless such a committee concludes that the company will work, it cannot launch. It is as if we believed it best to direct the consumer to a few trusted companies, for fear that he might choose to deal with a young unpolished start-up.

In effect, the modern scientist has rejected the free market of ideas. He prefers state-directed communism where a few choose for the masses.

Wikipedia opportunity: There is no entry in Wikipedia for Garage science where independent researchers do bona fide research with modest means.

Further reading: The perils of filter-then-publish and Improve your impact with abundance-based design.

Update: The original title of this post was “scientists are communists”.

Читать далее >>

blogger templates | Make Money Online