t_serpico

12 ms·

91.
by t_serpico 7y ago
this 1000%.
92.
by t_serpico 7y ago
"Being successful in software is rarely about being able to write clever solutions. It almost always comes down to being able to consistently grind on problems that are repetitive enough to be boring, but unique enough that there isn’t
93.
Life's Irreducible Structure [pdf](informationphilosopher.com)
9 points by t_serpico 7y ago|2 comments
94.
by t_serpico 7y ago
Biotech is a giant field, so it really depends what you want to do. I did my undergrad in CS but spent the past ~4 years working at a molecular diagnostics startup, where I do software engineering/stats/machine learning work. Alon
95.
by t_serpico 7y ago
I'd wager that it already is falling out of fashion, at least among young people (say 30 and under).
96.
by t_serpico 7y ago
Grants at a coarse level attempt to serve this purpose.
97.
by t_serpico 7y ago
In the backwards method, did you account for people potentially colliding?
98.
by t_serpico 7y ago
you can think of every journal having some set 'perceived value' and 'safety' parameters (e.g some journals will tune down safety to allow flashier papers to enter while others will tune up safety at the expense of flash
99.
by t_serpico 7y ago
I would also add that journals like Nature or Science are aiming to publish high quality, high impact work in a manner that is highly specific (i.e they can be confident such work is high quality and high impact) and hopefully communicable
100.
by t_serpico 9y ago
+1 for title