Frankly, I am sick of "it's all just marketing and attempt to do regulatory capture, and this is obvious to me, a smart person" on every single discussion related to safety.
There could be an element to truth to it, but it's certainly not the entire story and is just so tiresome at this point.
I’m on the opposite side of the spectrum. I’m 23 and have experienced a solid number of partners and committed relationships.
After my last long-term relationship however, I realized how much time and energy these commitments take. I’ve noticed that after a while, I tend to lose myself in long term R’s, and I hate the feeling.
This ends my relationships. It starts out fine, with healthy and strong boundaries with regards to personal time and energy. Over time, the compromises eat away at me, and I find myself with very little time for my own pursuits and personal growth.
It’s odd too, because I’m quite aware of my boundaries and strong with them. Something about relationships or my partners slowly erodes them.
Near the end, I feel so suffocated that I’m usually becoming distant and breaking things off.
Singlehood is liberating, but I hate that I love my partners and I can’t figure out a way to stop repeating this harmful pattern. It’s either something wrong with me, or something wrong with how I pick my partners.
I have been single all my life (I'm in my early 20s). I don't know if I have any desire to be in a relationship with anyone at this time.
It may be selfish, but there are so many things I want to do with my limited time and I feel like a relationship will just hold me back from doing what I want to do.
I guess it is a fear of being tied down to something and impose on my current, practically unlimited, freedom.
It's not just social pressure, it's simply a biological fact. For each year after ~30, the chance of having something wrong with a child during pregnancy goes up. On average in relationships, women's greatest value is their youth and beauty (early/mid 20s), men's greatest value is when they've progressed in their career and are amassing wealth (mid/late 30s). There's nothing wrong about pointing this out, they're just the realities about modern relationships. Yet we can never honestly discuss them because people have a hard time controlling their emotions about it.
I actually disagree, but maybe not for the reasons you're expecting. I actually disagree because the reviews are unreasonably reasonable. They are void of context.
It's tough to explain, but I think it's also something every person who has written research papers can understand. How there's a big bias between reading and writing and how our works are not written to communicate our works as best as possible, but in effect how to communicate to reviewers that they should accept our works. The subtle distinction is deceptively large and I think we all could be a bit more honest about the system. After all, we want to optimize it, right?
The problem I see is all a matter of context. Good ideas often appear trivial once we see them. Often we fool ourselves into thinking that we already knew this, but do not have meaningful evidence that this is true but may try to reason that x = y + z + epsilon, but almost any idea can be framed that way, even breakthroughs like Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, or Relativity. It is because we look back at giants from a distance but when looking at works now don't see giants, but a bunch of children standing on one another's shoulders standing in a trench coat. That is the reality of it all. That few works are giant leaps and bounds, but rather incremental. The ones that take the biggest leaps are rare, often rely on luck (ambiguous definition), and frequently (but not always, especially considering the former) take a lot of time. Something we certainly don't often have.
We're trained as scientists and that means to be trained in critiquing systems and letting questions spiral. Sometimes the spiraling of questions shows how absurd an idea is but other times it can show how ingenious it is. It's easier to recognize the former but often hard to distinguish the latter. It is always easy to ask for more datasets, more experiments, and such, but these are critiques that can apply to any work as no work is complete. This is especially true in cases of larger breakthroughs, because any paradigm shift (even small) will cause a cascade of questions and create a lot of curiosity. But as we've all written papers, we know that this can often be a never ending cycle and often is quite impractical. The complaint about Table 4 is a perfect example. It is quite a difficult situation. The complaint is perfectly reasonable in that the question and concerns are quite valid and do warrant further understanding. But at the same time they are unreasonable because the requisite work required to answer these is not appropriate for the timescale that we work on. Do you have the compute or time to retrain all prior works to your settings? To retrain all your works to their settings? Maybe it doesn't work there which may or may not be evidence that the other works are just as good or not. What it comes down to is asking if these questions being answered could be another work in their own right. I'm not in NLP as deep as I'm in CV, but I suspect that the answer is yes (as in there are works that have been published answering exactly those questions).
There are also reasonably unreasonable questions in other respects. Such as the question about cosine distance vs Euclidean. This is one that I see quite often as we rely too deeply on our understanding of lower dimensional geometries to influence our understanding of high dimensional geometries. Such things that seem obvious, like distance, are quite ambiguous there and our example is the specific reason for the curse of dimensionality (it becomes difficult to distinguish the furthest point from the nearest point). But this often leads us in quite the wrong direction. Honestly, it is a bit surprising that the cosine similarity works (as D->inf cos(x,y)-> 0 forall x,y in R^D because any random vector is expected to be orthogonal meaning that to get cos(x,y)=1 means y = x + epsilon with epsilon -> 0 as D->inf. But I digress), but it does. There definitely could be entire works exploring these geometries and determining different geodesics. It is entirely enough for a work to simply have something working, even if it doesn't quite yet make sense.
The thing is that science is exceptionally fuzzy. Research is people walking around in the dark and papers are them communicating what we have found. I think it is important for us to remember this framing because we should then characterize the viability/publishability of a work not as illuminating everything but if the things found are useful (which itself is not always known). Because you might uncover a cavern and then it becomes easy to say "report back when you've explored it", but such an effort may be impossible to do alone. It can be a dead end, one that can take decades to explore (we'll always learn something though) or it may lead to riches we've never seen before. We don't know, but that's really what we're all looking for (hopefully more about riches for humanity than one's self, but one should be rewarded for sure).
This is why honestly, I advocate for abandoning the journal/conference system and leverage our modern tools like OpenReview to accelerate communication. Because it enables us to be more open about our limitations, to discuss our failures, and write to our peers rather than our critics. Critics are of course important, but they can take over too easily because they are reasonable and correct, but oft missing context. For an example, see the many HN comments about a technology in its infancy where people will complain that it is not yet competitive with existing technologies and thus devalue the potential. Oft missing the context that it takes time to compete, the time and energy put in by so many before us to make what we have now, but also that there are limits and despite only being a demonstration the new thing does not have the same theoretical limits. The question is rather about if such research warrants more eyes and even a negative result can be good because it can communicate that we've found dead ends (which is something we actively discourage, needlessly forcing many researchers to re-explore these dead spaces). There's so much more that I can say and this is woefully incomplete but I can't fit a novel into our comments and I'm afraid the length as it is already results in poor communication to the given context of the platform. Thanks anyone who has taken this time.
The trick for me is to apply engineering to the kitchen. You can actually enjoy really elaborate meals if you simply make more each time and utilize pyrex+freezer. Why make only 6 servings of spaghetti when there's still 50% free space available in your instant pot? (that 'max fill' line is but a polite suggestion :D) Planning ahead, logistics, etc. can make all the difference in the world.
Imagine spending one hour in the kitchen to only feed yourself one time. That would be peak insanity to me today. I used to live it for about a decade myself. Ate out about every other day as a consequence. Ordered in a pizza once a week. Today, I eat out about once a month. I haven't ordered a pizza in 3+ years.
I absolutely hated cooking until I learned about terms like "mise en place" and realized that manufacturing/lean/six sigma principles work just as well in my kitchen as they do on a factory floor. Also, tools like the humble pressure cooker can take your 2 hour process cycle down to 20 minutes. It arguably tastes better in many cases too. Cooking is not a mystical process. Much of it (not all) is science and engineering. You can robotically produce incredible meals. And I argue you should - The food on America's shelves and restaurants is only worsening in my estimation.
I made a small script to get weekly recipes with certain macronutrient composition from chatgpt, then i linked the ingredient list with my supermarket’s api so every monday I get delivered everything
This was what I did for acquiring the Japanese language. I definitely credit it for my success. After seeing how successful it was, from both an efficiency perspective and from a motivation/accountability perspective, I promised myself to be proactive in hiring 1:1 teachers for various subjects/hobbies/sports for my kids later in life.
From what I've gathered by listening to women, there are fundamentally different problems. "Attention" is not valuable in itself. Getting spammed with dick pics is about as appealing as any other kind of spam. No one looks in their spam folder and thinks "Gosh, all of these advertisers think I have money to burn! What a great compliment!". It doesn't show any personal interest. It's not a sign that the other person is going to treat you like a human being instead of a sentient (flesh-)wallet.
The difference in experiences starts early in life. For boys, girls showing interest in them is often an exciting and empowering experience. For girls, often as not, the first sign of sexual interest is a creepy older man making uncomfortable comments at them when they're 11 years old. IIRC this shows up in mental health statistics -- boys who start puberty earlier tend to do better; girls who start puberty earlier tend to do worse. And of course there are different social standards applied to men's and women's sexuality.
Women also have much bigger safety concerns than men do, and have a harder time getting anything done about attacks afterwards.
I think all of this does make it harder for women to understand the destructive loneliness that a lot of men (particularly young men) face. I've been there, and I remember that trying to talk about with my female friends was a frustrating experience. But over time I've come to see that women don't really have it any better than we do. We're wandering through a desert looking for an oasis; they're swimming through a lake of garbage looking for an intact water bottle.
There could be an element to truth to it, but it's certainly not the entire story and is just so tiresome at this point.