160 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: images.jpg]
Tell me /sci/ without any emotional bias:
Which degrees are shit tier
Which degrees are god tier
And I know that mathematics and science knowledge are ALWAYS god tier, which surprises me to some extent. For example, I recently learned econ majors are not doing so well in today's market, I always thought that economics required a broad understanding of mathematics, mainly game theory, but recently learned that is not the case. Medical majors also do not require that much math, which is why more engineering BS's are getting into medical schools these days then pre-med majors. They do better on the MCATs
What the fuck is variance used for?
16 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: fishassholes.jpg]
Hey /sci/, I'm in a probability and statistics class up in Uni. Right now we're working with mean, variance, and standard distribution. I understand the idea of a mean just fine because I've been working with it pretty much all my fucking life. Roll a d6, mean value is 3.5, meaning in the long run if I roll billions and billions of dice, half will be above 3.5 and half will be below. I can also understand standard deviation to a point, it's the average distance for any of those points in the data set from the mean. So where 1 is 2.5 away from the mean, 2 is 1.5 and 3 is 0.5 (and in reverse order of the aforementioned for 4, 5, and 6), the average of those values is 1.5.
Easy shit, I can see the usage for either...
But all I know of variance is how to calculate it. What the gog damned fuck am I supposed to use it for though?
Science is (nearly) finished
36 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: einstein.jpg]
In the latest Nature there's an article about how scientific genius is extinct - Einstein was the last genius.
The argument is if you look at the current rate of scientific advance in the natural sciences, it has slowed down dramatically, and it takes larger teams of people and greater resources to make smaller and smaller incremental advances. There are no longer any lone geniuses revolutionizing a field of science in their spare time.
The reason for this, it is argued, is not that Einstein was unique, but rather that we're nearly finished in the field of scientific discovery, there are simply no more scientific "revolutions" to be had. There are many discoveries to be made and much that remains unknown, to be sure, but these are minor details rather than fundamental laws like E=mc^2.
An analogy can be found in sport - we are still breaking records at the Olympics, but by smaller and smaller increments every time. There are no longer Olympic-medal winning "all-round" athletes breaking records in multiple sports like Jim Thorpe or Carl Lewis. Everyone is highly specialized and shitloads of training and preparation involving teams of people goes into every millisecond of a record broken.
What say you, /sci/? Do you agree with the Nature article, or do you believe that you will be the next lone genius like Einstein and bring about a scientific revolution?