191–200 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sounds like we should get on it
According to this radio programme[1] I was listening to at the weekend, scientists have been warning about the potential of coronaviruses to cause a pandemic for a long time, and saying we should work on general antivirals for them. Obviously that didn't happen. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000gvd1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment broke the site guidelines. Even if you're right, it is a problem to address another user this way, because the container isn't strong enough to hold that level of (let's call it) energy. When you post like this, you're breaking the already-weak bonds that hold this community together, which is what makes it a moderation issue. Would you mind taking a look at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.ht…
I agree, and I'm sorry. I can see how this kind of reaction to a nonsense statement can become problematic, if everybody uses it.
The writing is so good, I had to double check that it wasn't written by Derek Lowe.
It's interesting that chemistry for pharmaceutical purposes can involve similarly nasty substances.
The article also does a great job conveying how much of a frustration minuscule yields must be.
This article really reinforces my choice to drop ochem in college. It's funny how deciphering assembly code seems downright mundane compared to this jargon. Like, I get how given the process you could recreate things, or you could devise possible reactions based on electron shells and bonding tendencies, but how do researchers even figure out how to make these reactions happen? Especially when they require -100C, or…
I have a bachelor in chemistry and ochem was one of the most painful classes based on the amount of things you must know by heart for synthesis
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a great description. Compare how Wikipedia describes the same process [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine#Research ]: > The adenosine analog NITD008 has been reported to directly inhibit the recombinant RNA-dependent RNA polymerase of the dengue virus by terminating its RNA chain synthesis. This interaction suppresses peak viremia and rise in cytokines and prevents lethality in infected animals, ra…
Scientific articles on Wikipedia aren’t written for laymen, although some could be understood by laymen as a side effect. For example as a physicist/mathematician I expect precise and physically/mathematically accurate statements rather than hand-wavy analogues that the average Joe might be able to make sense of, and that’s how I edit. Now, it’s okay to also include more approachable explanations, but they’re not a m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scientific articles on Wikipedia aren’t written for laymen, although some could be understood by laymen as a side effect. For example as a physicist/mathematician I expect precise and physically/mathematically accurate statements rather than hand-wavy analogues that the average Joe might be able to make sense of, and that’s how I edit. Now, it’s okay to also include more approachable explanations, but they’re not a m…
I know Wikipedia has evolved considerably from its original intent, but isn't one of the quintessential goals of an encyclopedia to have an approachable summary of every topic?
random example: take a look at the Wikipedia article for "currying". [0] while quite accessible to someone with a math/cs background, this would be pretty much unintelligible to someone who wasn't familiar with the notion of a mathematical function. perhaps it could be rewritten to be even more accessible, but what would be the point of explaining currying to someone who doesn't know about functions and arguments in the first place? brittannica doesn't even cover this topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a great description. Compare how Wikipedia describes the same process [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine#Research ]: > The adenosine analog NITD008 has been reported to directly inhibit the recombinant RNA-dependent RNA polymerase of the dengue virus by terminating its RNA chain synthesis. This interaction suppresses peak viremia and rise in cytokines and prevents lethality in infected animals, ra…
Gibberish to someone with limited knowledge of biology, but significantly more informative for someone who is using Wikipedia as a reference source and not a textbook.
This article really reinforces my choice to drop ochem in college. It's funny how deciphering assembly code seems downright mundane compared to this jargon. Like, I get how given the process you could recreate things, or you could devise possible reactions based on electron shells and bonding tendencies, but how do researchers even figure out how to make these reactions happen? Especially when they require -100C, or…
Organic chemistry is basically doing constraint solving. E.g. you know a lot of different reactions (e.g. replace Cl by OH, add double bond), but some reactions cannot be done depending on the structure of the intermediates. I have a bachelor in chemistry and ochem was one of the most painful classes based on the amount of things you must know by heart for synthesis
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, there isn’t really. There is a treasure of info on that site though. I also have a CS background before I moved to the quant area. Things that might help pique your interest: - For both academic and practical problems: http://quant.stackexchange.com/ - For keeping tabs on new ideas in the blogosphere (generally average, occasionally something useful): https://quantocracy.com/ - Useful information on getting start…
Thank you for the list of resources. Given the current situation, this will make interesting reading/study material. If you're comfortable, could you please share how you made the transition to quant from a programming/SWE background?
1) Quant Developer: Trading infrastructure, working on research platforms, taking algorithms created by researchers & deploying into production. Wouldn't want to do this at a bank, but at a hedge fund or proprietary trading firm it'd be fun. Compensation is good, lower variability, but somewhat more limited upside. DE Shaw, 2 sigma, Jane Street, etc.
2) Quant Researcher: A high quality quant masters degree at a minimum (think Baruch MFE), but often a PhD. Working on systematic trading research, market making algorithms, optimal hedging for large books of derivatives, etc. Usually a decent salary, but total compensation varies wildly based on performance.
3) Trader: More and more similar to #2 these days, but more focus on execution of strategies and real-time action rather than research, and more directly responsible for PnL. Optiver, IMC, SIG, etc. A quant masters degree probably isn't required to get a foot in the door, but I think it would help in the long term (e.g. helps build more rigorous understandings of why what you're doing might be working).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, the instruments I was talking about are used to measure the properties of photocathodes. It's such a niche field that there's no off the shelf solution. Everybody makes their own device and ours is one of like two in the world with it's grade of sensitivity. There is one professional engineer in the lab my group is a part of, but they primarily work on the bigger projects. For this, I have to do all of the C…
I'll echo this too. Instrumentation is field specific. I was in bioeng, but my work was photo-chem/physics and optics. Basically, building novel nanoscopes. Pro-Tip: Want a 'quick' nobel? Do optics for ~3/4 years. Then never touch it again. Making new kinds of microscopes is crazy useful and high impact, but you either get lucky or you waste 45 years in a lab. Try it out for a bit, throw a few on red, then walk away…