the wired article is bad start to finish but also contains one of the most depressing sentences ever publishedpic.twitter.com/ag8kYZLdHh
Show this thread
like i really don’t judge individuals who jump to tech bc there is legit interesting work and also before tech all the physicists just became quants on wall st anyways but “stopped researching the cosmos to build recommendation algorithms” is a hell of a way to put it
-
-
I 100% agree— my response to the article was similarhttps://twitter.com/tanmayis20/status/1181758527250956288?s=21 …
-
Science is what fuels innovation not increasing one more sale for stichfix or increasing their conversion flows. Such a waste of talent
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Our best data scientist (
@beckermr ) left last year to go *back* to studying the cosmos and that was pretty cool -
It's a little sad for so many people to spend their brainpower figuring out how to get people to click on ads, but yeah it beats getting them them consume shitty financial products. But entirely possible the quantity of "interesting" + socially useful work is just ... small.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
isn’t it true that only like 1% of astrophysics phds get jobs in their field? or is it 1e-21%
-
Doesn’t seem too far off the mark. If a professor’s career lasts 50 years, they graduate a student every 18 months on average, and the number of professor spots is fixed (which is mostly true in the US), only 3% of PhDs would get a professor job. So 1% could be the real number.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.