You don't. You have to travel here to participate in events that take place in the bay area, but you don't have to move here. Founders with labs set up elsewhere have sometimes participated by traveling back and forth.
As a fellow midwesterner, I agree. It might make sense if the requirement was to move to a bio-rich region (such as San Diego or Boston), but the bay doesn't seem like the place to be for a lab.
I agree, and if they were required to move, it would take more than the 3 month batch to prepare items for movement. Why not just leave in their location?
It seems that in a lot of cases of "unhelpful medical treatments" is a result of doctors forgetting the basics. If the doctor overlooks basics like lifestyle factors, electrolytes, vitamin deficiencies etc. then medications are of limited help in treating conditions like depression.
Pretty interesting experiment by Radiohead. Kinda bored with their music but I'll be curious to see how this plays out. Should start conversation and the value of always being connected online.
That's a bit harsh--many academic scientists can't do much to change the status quo. I would love to submit to open access journals, but I also really like eating, having a place to sleep, and other indulgences that having a job provides.
As a grad student, one basically doesn't have much say. Postdocs have a bit more latitude, but need to "play the game" to land jobs; pre-tenure faculty are in a very similar position if they want to keep theirs. Even tenured PIs are in a pretty precarious position: many are on soft-money positions (no grants, no salary), all of them need grants, and their trainees also presumably want to move up the grad student -> postdoc -> faculty ladder.
Getting this to change is a massive collective action problem and it's really going to need a push from institutions and the big names at the very top. This holds not just for publications, but a lot of other issues with academia too. I'd love to spend more time making our code solid and publicly available, but there's essentially no payoff for that either.
If you haven't seen it, you should watch "Print the Legend", a documentary about a few 3D printer startups like MakerBot, FormLabs, etc. It's on Netflix streaming: https://www.netflix.com/watch/80005444
I actually wrote this comment 2 days ago. It's interesting that HN corrects this to "2 hours ago" to fit the post timeline, which was also originally 2 days ago. Note, the original post didn't make it to the front page unlike now. Weird stuff.
Facebook executed very well on mobile after their post-IPO slump, while Twitter failed to create an easy onboarding experience that would enable them to move beyond their early adopters (the tech industry, the media industry, and celebrities). The Twitter executives were too busy squabbling to move the product forward (see the book Hatching Twitter).
The purpose it was made for has become irrelevant. Everybody got smart phones, so the SMS character limit became moot, as well as the need for a lightweight interface. Everybody got Facebook, which satisfies all the text based posts people make. Everybody also got instagram, which is a much better image platform than twitter could hope to be.
The exception to all this is Twitter bots (but not MS' Tay), which are probably the most entertaining, unique, and valuable accounts that could not be mirrored on another site with the same effectiveness.
Except, they treat their researchers like total crap. Taking 2/3 of all grant money for overhead? Salaries for 45 year olds with 20 years of experience that are the same or worse as 25 year old with zero experience in private sector. Publish or perish? This whole thing you say these schools focus on, research? Pathetic. And trust me I know I've been at all the top schools and am now a professor.
It's strange to me that you're a professor but the things you're saying aren't true. The 2/3 grant money thing I think you are talking about indirect costs? That's not money off the top of received grants, it's computed like a tip, where when you receive $1 of grant funding, the university receives $0.66. And only on non-equipment, non-tuition (for funding students) items. So it usually works out to being about 35%.
And Ivy League universities pay their faculty quite well, especially in computer science. I don't know of any cases where a entry-level software engineer is paid even close to what a full computer science professor makes on even their 9-month salary.
This makes me ask, have you really "been at all the top schools and am now a professor"? I feel like any assistant professor would know these things.
Let's make sure to compare apples to apples, even when discounting the 9-month salary (no CS professor truly gets the summer off, that isn't how the academy functions):
* Entry-level software engineers have 0 months experience.
* Full professors in CS have 5 yrs of a Ph.D., and perhaps 2-4 years of postdoctoral experience, and 5-7 years of professorial work.
Totally agree the comparison isn't equal. But what I'm saying is that the 9-month salary is already way higher than an industry salary. If they worked the 3 summer months funded by a grant, it's like getting a 33% bonus on top of their 9-month salary.
Yes. Cmon man. You're being overly literal. I'm just starting as a professor in biomedical sciences, where you probably know the terribleness reaches its peak. I'm also nearing 40 so the duration of "training" required is also a total bullahit factor especially in my area.
The general point is true: the financial incentives in academia are blatantly terrible. The quality of what's produced isn't much better. So this whole thing about universities being all about their research missions? Sadly for all those hundreds of billions the hedge funds are generating, produces a depressingly small output.
Okay, fair enough. Sorry for being a bit antagonistic. I guess I'm just a lot less pessimistic about academia, having worked in industry before as well. The financial part isn't as good as it could be for what we think we do, but I feel that it's a nice institution in many ways. A lot of lifetime academics don't appreciate the flexibility they get in terms of what they spend their time on, how they do their work, who they work with, etc.
Coming from an outsider, having heard about how much sifting there is in Academia, couldn't that be because there's more people that want to be researchers than there are research positions? Someone who works in a sub-field without private sector research positions and with post-docs pushing up against them doesn't seem to be in the strongest negotiating position.
