Arun Niranjan

I've said it before, and I will say it again:

It's astonishing how emotionally aversive revisions are, even in the best possible case (reviewers are positive and have very actionable remarks).

Or at least that's how I work; if anybody has some good recommendations for coping, do let me know 😂

This is an excellent thread, and is a subset of the problem of "answering the question you want to, instead of the question you need to"

But to summarise, it was indeed a strategy for me because:
- it was a belief/plan I actively chose to embrace
- at a heirarchical level it guided sub decisions i.e. tactics

It unfortunately took a lot of work (therapy was a useful tool here) on myself to realise that I am indeed more than that.

Also the longer my career extends and I do different things, the easier it is to not be disheartened or take it personally when something doesn't work out

You say that but honestly when I was in academia I found this *incredibly* hard to do.

Especially as a young man, it's easy to feel like you are only worth your skill or economic contribution to society

Smaller iterations and faster feedback loops make it easier to learn and move on from critical feedback

Also as I have moved out of academia into industry, most of my work is reviewed in much smaller chunks, which limits the blast radius to my ego

You are absolutely correct that it is hard.

I find it easier as I get older to separate my personal worth from my work, which I think is my main coping strategy

I'll have a go. Perhaps it's because London has already had a lot of money spent on its infrastructure, so perhaps it doesn't need as much any more?

Difference between regular flows and absolute stocks in a system

Good luck Hanna 🙏🏾

Thank you for the original source!

Jfc

The distinction between selfish and self-ful is one I had not heard made explicitly before, and the last two paragraphs are just 💪🏾

A beautiful piece in its own right, there are so many nuggets of wisdom related to agency, selfhood and decision-making all wrapped up in a nice chocolate analogy.

I really wish bish had existed when I was a teenager, it's a great resource

"I will hang head in shame et c"

Are you ok?

Deep Work by Cal Newport is unintentionally one of the best software engineering culture books I have ever read.

Helpful if working remotely, critically useful if working in an office.

A lady at the beach said my dog looks like Clint Eastwood and I have never been more confused in my life

Congratulations 🎉

Among all the weird takes that seem to be popular online, the one that always gets me is that studying STEM somehow morally corrupts people and the solution is to make people additionally go through a humanities and/or social science curriculum at the university level.

Whilst I love (and agree entirely) with the sentiment, academia is so competitive I don't think we can blame anyone for trying to jump through the hoops with an assist, and then worry about the learning bit later.

The root cause here is scarcity of opportunity in academia

I also don't think the voucher is a big deal (in fact I think research settings in general massively undervalue the time of participants) - but the article makes a big deal of whether the presence of a voucher entirely precludes informed consent without coercion, which to me is nonsensical

On the involvement of corporations - the fact they have an ethics framework which documents the risks is a really good thing, and they were also *obliged* to involve industrial partners by the UKRI

I also agree on it needing to be clear on whether it's research or diagnostic - at the same time I believe the current advice to researchers if they notice something external and of potential cause for concern in a research trial is to note it and inform the participant?

I agree partially on the risk of over diagnosis - but it's a bit chicken and egg because we can't know if people have been over diagnosed or not unless we collect the data in the first place.

Screenshot of key paragraphs from the bmj article referenced earlier in the thread, discussing why OFH offers vouchers for participants to sign up

Honestly this seems pretty reasonable from the OFH side

I've been a fan of @mgtmccartney.bsky.social 's work in the past. I did think this article read a bit like:

1. Thing is bad
2. OFH explain why it either isn't, or they had to do a thing a particular way
3. Thing is bad without acknowledging the OFH response

How would you categorise yes minister here? Still a political comedy?

They are clearly plotting your downfall

Paper shaped objects is an excellent turn of phrase 👌🏾

Giving this another go!