In 2018 I attended one of Yann LeCun's talk, one person basically asked the same question than you, more precisely the question was "what advice can you give to young people/high school students who are about to start choosing their career?".
He explained that AI will mainly replace "basic" jobs like forklift operator or any job that needs repetitive tasks. Simply because these jobs have no value.
On the other hand, he said that at least two kind of jobs will survive : jobs where you create value (like artists, creator etc.) because people will always desire something that took someone's time and attention to make. And jobs where you take care of others (teachers, nurse etc.) because no one want to be taken care of by a machine (read Asimov's novel The fun they had on that matter).
Hi, thanks for this website, I'm goinng to use it a lot I think!
I'd like to add a suggestion, when we pick a book, you propose two links, one is Amazon and the other one is Goggle. Could you replace those links by DuckDuckGo and maybe Goodreads (or any other website that doesn't almost control the market)? It's just to avoid those big companies.
Someone proposed WeTransfer but there is also Tresorit Send (https://send.tresorit.com/) who does the exact same job. Bonus point: they say they encrypt the data and their servers are hosted in Switzerland.
[edit:] Third law states 0K is impossible. That's the obvious and simplest answer. So everything bellow assumes the limit as you approach 0K.
I think in that case you reach a paradox because temperature is a quantity (typically) defined in thermodynamics, i.e. systems in equilibrium. A metastable glass is not in its ground state, therefore not in equilibrium, therefore not technically within the purview of thermo. This might seem like a cop out, but a similar question was asked in my qualifier. The answer, glass is not technically described my thermo and at 0K the whole thing breaks down [1]
Sure we still talk about entropy and temperature of glass, but it's stretching the definitions.
Another way to look at it, though, is that at 0K there is only one state available to the system (even though it is a glassy one). Therefore call the glass a new state of matter, and set S=0. If that feels weird because it's not the ground state, consider that glass' constituents, Si and O, are not in a ground state either, that'd be Fe. You don't have any problems dealing with metastable Si and O, do you? Either way, 0K makes no sense!
Also, it's weird (actually wrong) to even think about materials at 0K. In classical thermo your heat capacity is zero. In modern physics your atoms' "positions'" are fully determined, therefore their "momentum" is fully undetermined. So 0K is a state that makes zero sense.
[1] I forget the question. I think it was like this: the entropy of glass has a greater slope than the crystal, therefore, if you cool the glass low enough it will achieve a lower entropy than the crystal. How can a glass have lower S than its crystal state?
"A classical formulation by Nernst (actually a consequence of the Third Law) is:
It is impossible for any process, no matter how idealized, to reduce the entropy of a system to its absolute-zero value in a finite number of operations."
Thanks for this, it's a nice summary. The final section about what doesn't work is really interesting and in fact too short! I really thought there was "learning styles".
I've seen this about learning styles before and it doesn't seem to tally with my own learning - I need to write stuff to retain it, and I need visuals for quick learning. If I see a map of a place for a few minutes then I can navigate, talk to me about the place (this is in the North, this is next to that) for an hour and I'd still be hopelessly lost. You can argue that this is just using the best medium, but other people don't appear to be able to pick up map based info in the same way; other people seem to prefer oral/aural reptition.
I can see that all learning styles work for all people, but the idea that there's not some people who receive learning better under different styles seems really unlikely, and thus needing very strong proof.
Doing pottery teaching I definitely would say that students split in to those who one could simply explain to, and others who needed to see it done, and others that wanted something diagrammatic but could grasp without necessarily seeing the specific actions. I always approached the learning tasks the same way and relied on the students (all ages) to lead me, and transformed the style according to the group: so this is a fascinating result to me. The students never said "oh I'm a X-style learner" (eg "I'm a visual learner") so it seems unlikely to me that they were demanding a learning style because of a false pre-conception of themselves. It could be that there was a range of intelligence, and that those who were more "intelligent" could do the 3D mental manipulations/visualisations to grasp the concepts, and so didn't need images/demonstrations ... but that would still be different sorts of people having different educational styles that benefited them more.
Anyone reference some more, readable, developments of this concept over the last couple of years since the result was announced?
>"So most students are not employing study strategies that mesh with self-reported learning preferences, and the minority who do show no academic benefit. Although students believe that learning preferences influence performance, this research affirms the mounting evidence that they do not, even when students are mastering information on their own. These findings suggest a general lack of student awareness about the processes and behaviors that support effective learning. Consistent with this notion, Hussman and O’Loughlin also found negative correlations between many of the common study strategies reported by students (e.g., making flashcards, use of outside websites) and course performance. Thus regardless of individual learning style or the alignment of the style with study techniques, many students are adopting strategies that simply do not support comprehension and retention of information." (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-...) //
One of the most intelligent guys at my Uni (way back!) always used flash-cards (spaced repetition); are they saying that's a very poor way for _all_ people to learn. He must have been even more of a genius (I think he got the top marks in the Chem exams, at what was then the 3rd top Uni in the UK) than I imagined.
The fact that students didn't adapt their learning to their perceived style of learning doesn't mean they weren't learning better from the stuff that matched "their style".
A very muddled bunch of assumptions in that article.
Thanks a lot for this!
Could someone recommend me a good book to start learning cell biology and genetics? I study physics and I'd like to learn about biophysics.
You should be able to get through with basic high-school chemisty.
You need to know there are elements C, H, N, O, P, Ca, K, S, know what an ionic bond and covalent bonds is and be able to look at the structure of a molecule.
Molecular Biology of the Cell is a wonderful book (my first PhD advisor was one of the authors of the 3rd edition), but if you're more interested in the purely genetics side of things then I'd recommend Genes by Lewin - it's definitely the book I relied on most during my undergrad degree, and it's written in a way that largely lets you bootstrap from not having a strong biology background.
Others recommend MBoC, I personally liked Lodish better. More importantly, cell biology is one of those subjects that can actually be fairly light reading. It doesn't burden itself too much with arbitrarily named cytokines, or the astonishingly complicated biochemical pathways and enzyme names. The processes that govern each aspect of the cell are surprisingly very unique so each chapter is a veritable cornucopia of amazing methods our cells use to solve their problems.
