Datasets:

DialogueCharacter
/

english_preference_stanfordnlp_SHP_unfiltered

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 113k rows

chosen stringlengths 46 41.2k	rejected stringlengths 36 39.3k
user: why is academia such a hated field? i've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. this sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "it pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. even profs themselves are like "yeah, i'm really lucky to have this job, but..." genuinely sorry if i sound rude. didn't mean to though. it's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. i understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? i have doctors and vets in my family. they seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. why don't people in academia feel the same way? even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. they think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. it isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. then why isn't our work appreciated? aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? bot: also, this is reddit. people come here to complain. people who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. don’t think reddit provides a full picture.	user: why is academia such a hated field? i've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. this sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "it pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. even profs themselves are like "yeah, i'm really lucky to have this job, but..." genuinely sorry if i sound rude. didn't mean to though. it's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. i understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? i have doctors and vets in my family. they seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. why don't people in academia feel the same way? even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. they think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. it isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. then why isn't our work appreciated? aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? bot: i work at a vet school, and the vets complain just as much about hours and pay and the way clients treat them... like academics, just because you complain doesn’t mean you don’t love your job and believe your work makes a difference.
user: why is academia such a hated field? i've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. this sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "it pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. even profs themselves are like "yeah, i'm really lucky to have this job, but..." genuinely sorry if i sound rude. didn't mean to though. it's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. i understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? i have doctors and vets in my family. they seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. why don't people in academia feel the same way? even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. they think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. it isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. then why isn't our work appreciated? aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? bot: the issue is actually pretty straightforward. we - on the whole - love our research, and love our teaching. however, we work in a system which is administered by people who don't actually value those two things particularly. the metrics we are gauged against are not good metrics of performance or achievement. the people who manage us are not trying to help us improve in those two things, but to manoeuvre us to increase our ratings on these crappy metrics in more cost efficient and profit-making ways (profit for the organisation, not the people doing the work). the pay structure in academia has stagnated on the academic scales, while senior management pay rises have been ludicrous. there has been a drive toward the casualisation of staff, whereby trying to get contracts to employ colleagues on permanent (us tt) style contracts is ever harder, and instead we expect junior staff to exist on a sequence of fixed-term contracts with limited opportunities to climb the - already deflated - pay spines, and, as a result of their temporary contract status, hinder their ability to even apply for grants which might help them find better positions. in terms of research funding, the amount of funding becoming available has been cut and cut. the methods of allocating funding have become comical. for example, int the uk, the natural environment research council, who award all government funding for geology, earth sciences, environmental sciences, etc had so many people applying for funding, and so little money to give out that they started requiring universities to filter who was applying., so now to apply to nerc you have to first of all go through an internal review process. and many universities are limited in the number of grants they can submit each round (perhaps as few as 1 or 2). so you can be in a situation where you ahve a department of 10 or 15 people, but only one of you can submit a proposal to nerc each round. once you get through that filter your success rate at the nerc panel is currently about 7 or 8%. proposals are graded from 1-10. in the past if you scored a 7 or 8 you had a fighting chance of getting funded. these days if you don't have a 9 you have no chance, and even a 9 just becomes a roll of the dice as to whether you get fuinded. our work - when we do publish it - gets used by publishers to sustain a toxic model of publishing houses; our grants get squeezed for publication fees, while our university libraries get charged to access the publications that we end up having to pay to publish. the he sector got co-opted by suits in the 90s and they are milking it to death. that said, there are few other opportunities for me to work in my field, and no other opportunities for me to teach at this level.	user: why is academia such a hated field? i've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. this sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "it pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. even profs themselves are like "yeah, i'm really lucky to have this job, but..." genuinely sorry if i sound rude. didn't mean to though. it's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. i understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? i have doctors and vets in my family. they seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. why don't people in academia feel the same way? even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. they think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. it isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. then why isn't our work appreciated? aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? bot: i work at a vet school, and the vets complain just as much about hours and pay and the way clients treat them... like academics, just because you complain doesn’t mean you don’t love your job and believe your work makes a difference.
user: why is academia such a hated field? i've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. this sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "it pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. even profs themselves are like "yeah, i'm really lucky to have this job, but..." genuinely sorry if i sound rude. didn't mean to though. it's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. i understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? i have doctors and vets in my family. they seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. why don't people in academia feel the same way? even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. they think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. it isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. then why isn't our work appreciated? aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? bot: the issue is actually pretty straightforward. we - on the whole - love our research, and love our teaching. however, we work in a system which is administered by people who don't actually value those two things particularly. the metrics we are gauged against are not good metrics of performance or achievement. the people who manage us are not trying to help us improve in those two things, but to manoeuvre us to increase our ratings on these crappy metrics in more cost efficient and profit-making ways (profit for the organisation, not the people doing the work). the pay structure in academia has stagnated on the academic scales, while senior management pay rises have been ludicrous. there has been a drive toward the casualisation of staff, whereby trying to get contracts to employ colleagues on permanent (us tt) style contracts is ever harder, and instead we expect junior staff to exist on a sequence of fixed-term contracts with limited opportunities to climb the - already deflated - pay spines, and, as a result of their temporary contract status, hinder their ability to even apply for grants which might help them find better positions. in terms of research funding, the amount of funding becoming available has been cut and cut. the methods of allocating funding have become comical. for example, int the uk, the natural environment research council, who award all government funding for geology, earth sciences, environmental sciences, etc had so many people applying for funding, and so little money to give out that they started requiring universities to filter who was applying., so now to apply to nerc you have to first of all go through an internal review process. and many universities are limited in the number of grants they can submit each round (perhaps as few as 1 or 2). so you can be in a situation where you ahve a department of 10 or 15 people, but only one of you can submit a proposal to nerc each round. once you get through that filter your success rate at the nerc panel is currently about 7 or 8%. proposals are graded from 1-10. in the past if you scored a 7 or 8 you had a fighting chance of getting funded. these days if you don't have a 9 you have no chance, and even a 9 just becomes a roll of the dice as to whether you get fuinded. our work - when we do publish it - gets used by publishers to sustain a toxic model of publishing houses; our grants get squeezed for publication fees, while our university libraries get charged to access the publications that we end up having to pay to publish. the he sector got co-opted by suits in the 90s and they are milking it to death. that said, there are few other opportunities for me to work in my field, and no other opportunities for me to teach at this level.	user: why is academia such a hated field? i've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. this sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "it pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. even profs themselves are like "yeah, i'm really lucky to have this job, but..." genuinely sorry if i sound rude. didn't mean to though. it's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. i understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? i have doctors and vets in my family. they seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. why don't people in academia feel the same way? even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. they think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. it isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. then why isn't our work appreciated? aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? bot: reddit gives you a very skewed perspective on the matter. many people use reddit to vent about the negative aspects of academia. in reality, many people are happy - with their pis, with their labmates, their projects, their fellow faculty members, etc. those people aren't posting here. that's not to say negative environments don't exist. just remember that a lot of people use reddit to vent, and while they deserve a place to vent, they are not representative in general.
user: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? bot: looking at papers that cite mine, there are many where it’s clear they have only read the title and misinterpreted it.	user: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? bot: i've always wondered about this myself. in my case, what typically ends up happening is that i would have read about 30% of the papers i cite in detail and are closely related to the central points being made in the paper. another 30% that i have read but not in great detail. this leaves about 40% of the papers where i have only read the "relevant bits" and are my attempt to situate my work in a broader setting. if the paper has a large number of authors, then sometimes coauthors cite papers i have never read based on their expertise and i trust that they are relevant and cited appropriately. i'm not saying this is the right/good way and i do worry i somehow screwed up in the citations i did not read in great detail.
user: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? bot: looking at papers that cite mine, there are many where it’s clear they have only read the title and misinterpreted it.	user: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? bot: it really differs based on the field, even subfield. some fields you are expected to cite every paper you looked at while writing, others you only cite papers that you take exact quotes from. it also depends what you’re citing it for; if it’s a situation where you’re citing work on an algorithm by someone you’ve previously collaborated with, you’ve probably read the paper in-depth and perhaps even discussed it with the author. if it’s the equivalent of a footnote where you just cite the paper in the introduction as evidence that someone else has looked at a similar topic before, you might have only even read the title. there isn’t really a single answer to this question.
user: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? bot: for long time, i thought i must read and understand every bit of the paper. it was a kind of idée fix for me. this was utterly devastating, and sometimes i couldn’t finish one paper in a week: it always felt that i didn’t read enough, that i don’t understand it fully, so i reread, start to procrastinate - and... you know the rest. anyway, i guess, the most efficient way is to read diagonally and try to find the bits that suit tour purpose, not the rest of it. most usually, i spend now from 15 to 40 minutes for one paper	user: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? bot: depends on the type of paper and the point you are putting across through tge citation. if you are doing a literature review, reading all the papers is essential. however if you are just stating that this theory has been applied to other fields in the recent years, reading and understanding the abstract will do. the primary reason for citing is to show that whatever you are saying is backed up by peer reviewed papers. sometimes i read the abstract, methods and the conclusion of papers if i am in a rush. if the paper is good, figures often explain the results much better than the text.
user: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? bot: for long time, i thought i must read and understand every bit of the paper. it was a kind of idée fix for me. this was utterly devastating, and sometimes i couldn’t finish one paper in a week: it always felt that i didn’t read enough, that i don’t understand it fully, so i reread, start to procrastinate - and... you know the rest. anyway, i guess, the most efficient way is to read diagonally and try to find the bits that suit tour purpose, not the rest of it. most usually, i spend now from 15 to 40 minutes for one paper	user: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? bot: the first time one of my papers was cited it had absolutely nothing to do with the paper, or even the sentence it was used as a citation for, other than the patient population was the same (cancer patients).
user: tackling misogyny as a female phd researcher how to tackle misogyny from senior white male professors, as a female phd student who is about to defend her thesis? the comments range from passing crude comments on my nation of origin and criticizing my computational skills on a course (without any feedback where i can improve) and similar. i have mostly tried in my phd years to stay away and stop most communications with these persons, but now since they are the principal investigator in my phd project, i need to face them. i see myself as a hard-working person trying to learn and improve, but i cannot work with people who have decided not to work with me because of me being a woman. field of research: theoretical particle physics, country: sweden. bot: this would not be my advice in general, but in this particular case, and thinking only of your personal well being and achievements, if you are "about to defend [your] thesis" then i'm inclined to say keep your head down and get through the defence. i would hate to think that your attempt to confront their behaviour could result in them failing you in retaliation. that isn't to say that that has to be the end of the story. document every instance of bigotry and inappropriate behaviour that you can (if you have any of this in written form, e.g. emails they've sent where they make these crude comments, all the better), and once your phd is secure make that available to whoever at your university oversees conduct (if your department/uni has an equality and diversity officer then they'd be a great resource). this definitely needs to be addressed, but there is a great power imbalance here, and you are in a very vulnerable position with respect to obtaining your phd, so i think it would be better to wait until you're less vulnerable, and get the help of someone with more power in your institution. i want these people to face consequences for their actions, but i don't want you to suffer consequences for their actions.	user: tackling misogyny as a female phd researcher how to tackle misogyny from senior white male professors, as a female phd student who is about to defend her thesis? the comments range from passing crude comments on my nation of origin and criticizing my computational skills on a course (without any feedback where i can improve) and similar. i have mostly tried in my phd years to stay away and stop most communications with these persons, but now since they are the principal investigator in my phd project, i need to face them. i see myself as a hard-working person trying to learn and improve, but i cannot work with people who have decided not to work with me because of me being a woman. field of research: theoretical particle physics, country: sweden. bot: hello, i have been the victim of misogyny and harassment in academia, and sexual harassment in the industry. i am also working in stem, in europe. in my experience, you need to speak out and reach out somebody who is higher-up than them. the reasoning is the following... if you are lucky enough and you tell them directly to stop with the help of a male coworker, they will. the male coworker part is important, because if a man is involved on your side, they will listen. (i hate that it works like this; but it does). if you are less lucky, this does not work. then, you need to reach out someone with power. a man or woman, both work. explain, provide proof(s), show that you have done your very best to handle the situation in a peaceful manner, but now, you need support. for your phd project, can you reach rh about this? or the people providing the money? or any other person that has more power than them? good luck. you are strong; you can make it. you have the right to report unsafe or unpleasant situations. you have the right like anybody else to a safe, trustworthy and healthy workplace. those are your feelings; and nobody can tell you how to feel differently. in my experience too, reporting those behavior is always scary because of the consequences. but, i am so proud i did! even if i had to change of job twice because of that, i gained friends and respect when telling those stories. i feel like i can stand for a healthier workplace because i have been there; i can put limits so much more easily.
user: tackling misogyny as a female phd researcher how to tackle misogyny from senior white male professors, as a female phd student who is about to defend her thesis? the comments range from passing crude comments on my nation of origin and criticizing my computational skills on a course (without any feedback where i can improve) and similar. i have mostly tried in my phd years to stay away and stop most communications with these persons, but now since they are the principal investigator in my phd project, i need to face them. i see myself as a hard-working person trying to learn and improve, but i cannot work with people who have decided not to work with me because of me being a woman. field of research: theoretical particle physics, country: sweden. bot: > crude comments on my nation of origin what does this have to do with being a woman > criticizing my computational skills on a course what does this have to do with being a woman	user: tackling misogyny as a female phd researcher how to tackle misogyny from senior white male professors, as a female phd student who is about to defend her thesis? the comments range from passing crude comments on my nation of origin and criticizing my computational skills on a course (without any feedback where i can improve) and similar. i have mostly tried in my phd years to stay away and stop most communications with these persons, but now since they are the principal investigator in my phd project, i need to face them. i see myself as a hard-working person trying to learn and improve, but i cannot work with people who have decided not to work with me because of me being a woman. field of research: theoretical particle physics, country: sweden. bot: you are the expert. you are the expert. don't let them you think otherwise. you are the expert. you put in the work. you are the expert. it's your research. you could talk about it in your sleep. focus on the research and the work. i'm rootng for you. if i could i'd be in the audience cheering you on. remember....you...are...the...expert.
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: et al. i enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: capital (t)ruth
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: et al. i enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: et al. i enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: the best name for a term i've seen yet is 'the oracle inequality' in machine learning. it's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n)
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: et al. i enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: (re)
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: there is an indo-european mythological kingship ritual that has been variously attached to a few different, disparate cultures. in it, the prospective king is purported to have had sex with a white horse, who is then butchered and put into a large cauldron. the prospective king also gets into this cauldron and a soup is made from the horse and the king that the attendees of this ritual then all eat from. i have heard this described by multiple academics, colloquially, as the "sexy horse feast," and it is one of my goals to continue this tradition (though i, as of yet, have never the opportunity to teach said ritual.)	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: capital (t)ruth
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: there is an indo-european mythological kingship ritual that has been variously attached to a few different, disparate cultures. in it, the prospective king is purported to have had sex with a white horse, who is then butchered and put into a large cauldron. the prospective king also gets into this cauldron and a soup is made from the horse and the king that the attendees of this ritual then all eat from. i have heard this described by multiple academics, colloquially, as the "sexy horse feast," and it is one of my goals to continue this tradition (though i, as of yet, have never the opportunity to teach said ritual.)	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: there is an indo-european mythological kingship ritual that has been variously attached to a few different, disparate cultures. in it, the prospective king is purported to have had sex with a white horse, who is then butchered and put into a large cauldron. the prospective king also gets into this cauldron and a soup is made from the horse and the king that the attendees of this ritual then all eat from. i have heard this described by multiple academics, colloquially, as the "sexy horse feast," and it is one of my goals to continue this tradition (though i, as of yet, have never the opportunity to teach said ritual.)	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: the best name for a term i've seen yet is 'the oracle inequality' in machine learning. it's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n)
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: there is an indo-european mythological kingship ritual that has been variously attached to a few different, disparate cultures. in it, the prospective king is purported to have had sex with a white horse, who is then butchered and put into a large cauldron. the prospective king also gets into this cauldron and a soup is made from the horse and the king that the attendees of this ritual then all eat from. i have heard this described by multiple academics, colloquially, as the "sexy horse feast," and it is one of my goals to continue this tradition (though i, as of yet, have never the opportunity to teach said ritual.)	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: (re)
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: "i'm going to push back on that" - as a non-confrontational way to disagree	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: capital (t)ruth
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: "i'm going to push back on that" - as a non-confrontational way to disagree	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: "i'm going to push back on that" - as a non-confrontational way to disagree	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: the best name for a term i've seen yet is 'the oracle inequality' in machine learning. it's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n)
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: "i'm going to push back on that" - as a non-confrontational way to disagree	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: (re)
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: in my field, there's a conference management software system called hotcrp, but people orally refer to it as "hot crap"... even though it's pretty good!	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: the best name for a term i've seen yet is 'the oracle inequality' in machine learning. it's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n)
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: in my field, there's a conference management software system called hotcrp, but people orally refer to it as "hot crap"... even though it's pretty good!	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: (re)
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: something along the lines of "we would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "we resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2."	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: unity instead of one! maybe i’m just not mathy enough to understand why we do this?
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: something along the lines of "we would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "we resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2."	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: “sacrificed” (or sac’d) as another way to say “euthanized.” depending on your pov it’s either an acknowledgment of the sanctity of life and the loss that occurs during the course of research, or an acknowledgment that success of experiments feel like they are dictated by a random number generator in the sky.
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: something along the lines of "we would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "we resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2."	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: the ways in which
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: something along the lines of "we would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "we resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2."	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: (re)
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: something along the lines of "we would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "we resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2."	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: mmhmmmm, let's workshop that a bit. or, one of my favourites. mmmm, yea. okay. we've got a draft here! good, good.
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: i have to suppress a sophomoric giggle when i see something from the proceedings of the national academy of sciences. one point in my phd defense was an argument between committee members on “significant” vs “statistically significant.”	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: (re)
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: "is that an epistemological or ontological take on that?" no one knows what those are, good grief.	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: (re)
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial”	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: (re)
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial”	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: mmhmmmm, let's workshop that a bit. or, one of my favourites. mmmm, yea. okay. we've got a draft here! good, good.
user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: saying "the way(s) in which" instead of "how." this sentence structure: "it's not that [x]; rather, [y]. indeed, [elaboration on y]." neither is exactly problematic or even objectionable, they're just so ubiquitous in my corner of academia they drive me crazy. all the words in the famously fucky english language and people really can't come up with anything else?? oy.	user: what is your 'favorite' academic jargon? from my grad advisor years back: 'not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. bot: (re)
user: what do you all think of neil degrasse tyson? this is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. lately it seems like he goes on twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. while i can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. i really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. however, from what i can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). i guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? bot: i think he is just so caught up in always playing the role of the educator that he doesn't have discussions with people, he just "tells them how it is" as if he knows literally everything, even on controversial topics on politics or quantum physics where he certainly is not an expert. this has led him to be commonly perceived as a pretentious and condescending douche who just relentlessly talks at/over someone instead of having a discussion. he just is such an unpleasant person to listen to - like when he was on jre last time: https://youtu.be/egikak3suie. this is not to say that he isn't a great educator - he certainly has been a strong and beneficial promoter of scientific literacy in general. it just stands out to me that a lot of people think he is a dick because of his interviews.	user: what do you all think of neil degrasse tyson? this is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. lately it seems like he goes on twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. while i can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. i really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. however, from what i can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). i guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? bot: he is great at that part of science that is often overlooked: outreach. and i think that outreach is fundamental part of the economics of research. at the end, most of the hardcore theoretical science is funded by the government, aka the taxpayer, so it is very alarming, in my opinion, when they have little to no idea of what science is doing or what is the purpose. as the gap between frontier knowledge and the average joe widens, plus the current populist wave, i can see a future where the people start asking, wait, why are we funding all of these pretentious people that won't even take time to explain themselves? luckily there are people like neil degrasse.
user: what do you all think of neil degrasse tyson? this is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. lately it seems like he goes on twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. while i can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. i really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. however, from what i can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). i guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? bot: its funny until this post i thought my feelings about neil were uncommon. he comes off as a complete narcissist which is doubly bad when he is (frequently) talking about shit he doesn't understand. my favorite example is when he mentioned to joe rogan that there are multiple sizes of infinity which is technically correct. then he went on to "explain" several examples of this, each of which was completely wrong and/or utter nonsense.	user: what do you all think of neil degrasse tyson? this is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. lately it seems like he goes on twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. while i can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. i really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. however, from what i can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). i guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? bot: he is great at that part of science that is often overlooked: outreach. and i think that outreach is fundamental part of the economics of research. at the end, most of the hardcore theoretical science is funded by the government, aka the taxpayer, so it is very alarming, in my opinion, when they have little to no idea of what science is doing or what is the purpose. as the gap between frontier knowledge and the average joe widens, plus the current populist wave, i can see a future where the people start asking, wait, why are we funding all of these pretentious people that won't even take time to explain themselves? luckily there are people like neil degrasse.
user: what do you all think of neil degrasse tyson? this is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. lately it seems like he goes on twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. while i can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. i really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. however, from what i can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). i guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? bot: its funny until this post i thought my feelings about neil were uncommon. he comes off as a complete narcissist which is doubly bad when he is (frequently) talking about shit he doesn't understand. my favorite example is when he mentioned to joe rogan that there are multiple sizes of infinity which is technically correct. then he went on to "explain" several examples of this, each of which was completely wrong and/or utter nonsense.	user: what do you all think of neil degrasse tyson? this is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. lately it seems like he goes on twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. while i can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. i really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. however, from what i can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). i guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? bot: here’s my take on it: he’s become dogmatic about science. kind of like religious folk who proselytize their viewpoint and have no room for the understandings of life from different shoes. unwilling to listen and respect, rather just talking at you, self-assured of their righteous beliefs. i see neil degrasee tyson like this and that’s why i can’t bear to listen to him anymore. i think i agree with the majority of what he says, but to listen to his condescending tone puts me off.
user: what do you all think of neil degrasse tyson? this is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. lately it seems like he goes on twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. while i can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. i really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. however, from what i can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). i guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? bot: its funny until this post i thought my feelings about neil were uncommon. he comes off as a complete narcissist which is doubly bad when he is (frequently) talking about shit he doesn't understand. my favorite example is when he mentioned to joe rogan that there are multiple sizes of infinity which is technically correct. then he went on to "explain" several examples of this, each of which was completely wrong and/or utter nonsense.	user: what do you all think of neil degrasse tyson? this is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. lately it seems like he goes on twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. while i can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. i really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. however, from what i can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). i guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? bot: i lost all respect for him after paying 85$ to see one of his 'talks'and all he did was show us pictures of space-patterned dresses and funny pictures from 9gag, i shit you not
user: what do you all think of neil degrasse tyson? this is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. lately it seems like he goes on twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. while i can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. i really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. however, from what i can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). i guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? bot: he contributes to the great physics tradition of dumping on disciplines he doesn't know anything about, e.g. philosophy, and generally speaking on anything (including far afield from physics) as if being a physicist qualified him to have a worthwhile opinion on any of it.	user: what do you all think of neil degrasse tyson? this is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. lately it seems like he goes on twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. while i can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. i really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. however, from what i can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). i guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? bot: here’s my take on it: he’s become dogmatic about science. kind of like religious folk who proselytize their viewpoint and have no room for the understandings of life from different shoes. unwilling to listen and respect, rather just talking at you, self-assured of their righteous beliefs. i see neil degrasee tyson like this and that’s why i can’t bear to listen to him anymore. i think i agree with the majority of what he says, but to listen to his condescending tone puts me off.
user: what do you all think of neil degrasse tyson? this is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. lately it seems like he goes on twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. while i can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. i really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. however, from what i can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). i guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? bot: he contributes to the great physics tradition of dumping on disciplines he doesn't know anything about, e.g. philosophy, and generally speaking on anything (including far afield from physics) as if being a physicist qualified him to have a worthwhile opinion on any of it.	user: what do you all think of neil degrasse tyson? this is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. lately it seems like he goes on twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. while i can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. i really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. however, from what i can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). i guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? bot: i lost all respect for him after paying 85$ to see one of his 'talks'and all he did was show us pictures of space-patterned dresses and funny pictures from 9gag, i shit you not
user: is scihub a good thing or a bad thing? it's blocked at my university and i was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. happy saturday. bot: for the most part, the only people i've seen who have strong negative feelings about scihub are those involved in the academic publishing industry. there are vague concerns i've seen others express about whether copies of papers downloaded from scihub are legit (i.e., that someone may have uploaded a fake paper using the doi of a real paper, etc), but i've never seen anyone provide an example of this actually happening. ultimately, there needs to be some middle ground. the economic model of most academic publishers is not sustainable and it's extremely exploitative, but at the same time publishers do add value to manuscripts (not anywhere near enough to legitimize what most charge) so there needs to be some mechanism for publishers to at least recoup their losses. scihub fills a niche at the moment, but the hope that most of us have (i think) is that it won't have to exist forever as more authors, universities, and funding agencies push back on the academic publishers and we more toward a more sustainable model.	user: is scihub a good thing or a bad thing? it's blocked at my university and i was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. happy saturday. bot: good. making these articles available to people without the means to access them through publishers asking ridiculous prices is important.