I love beer but generally dislike lagers (or at least american style lagers), so I'll often ask for a mystery beer and specify "anything except for a lager." I've truly yet to be disappointed. It's hard to imagine you couldn't do the same with food.
I was wondering if you had any advice for hardware startups?
I'm currently exploring the idea of integrated-circuit spectroscopy, and have the physics/simulations down but the capital required to fabricate the chips and iterate on the designs is quite high.
Assuming 7% returns, and 6% employee match of a graduate student's salary in my programme (32k), graduate school costs ~288k in lost retirement savings, as well.
One of the reasons that FCIQMC doesn't have nuclear motion is that the gradients from FCIQMC, and actually most QMC techniques, are really computationally intensive, so this means that creating the ab-initio surface for the nuclei to roll over is really hard. Perhaps you were considering some sort of FCIQMC approximation to the path integral, but it's not entirely obvious to me how this would work.
As for how DFT would work for this... It should work quite well for qualitative predictions. Actually, DFT does remarkably well for metals and functionals like asymptotically corrected PBE0 are providing remarkable physical insight. While I wouldn't trust the numbers that come from any DFT simulation to three decimal points, I'd certainly trust the physics that's captured.
That being said, metallic hydrogen should be a strongly multireference system, so I'd be interested in seeing how a green's function approach based in many-body perturbation theory (see GF2 from Zgid at U Michigan) would do, as it doesn't struggle with issues of references while still giving you coupled cluster level accuracy.
Very interesting. I hadn't heard of GF2 before; I'll have to look it up.
As a side note, I find it interesting how I'm always running into people working in such specialized fields on HN. I wouldn't have imagined I'd find someone working on FCIQMC posting on here, but I'm always surprised. Sounds like fun research.
I'm trying to push my research group to release our papers as iPython notebooks and it looks like my next paper will be. Our text will be rendered as normal markdown and our figures will be live figures with all the code that we used to generate them. This way, if anyone wants to check our work, extend it, or just better understand it, they're more than free to do so. It should be a nice step forward in the ultimate goal of reproducible science.
None of the journals I work with will accept any format other than .tex or .doc for submission, its pretty ridiculous. We totally rely on the journals to distribute information but they have no incentive to optimize the process for reproducability or ease of use. Don't get me started on publication fees and access fees.
We're getting around this by putting a paragraph at the end of the conclusion with a link that says something to the effect of "Click here for a live version of the paper with all the code and data used in this project." It's a little more cumbersome than having the paper actually be the notebook but it helps.
When I started my PhD last year, my department head gave us a speech where he told us that college football players have better career prospects in the NFL than we will in academia. While that was probably a bit of hyperbole, it certainly made us realize how unrealistic most of our goals were.
This is fine ... but what he ought to do as well is to tell you that going through the program is still beneficial to you even if you don't thread the needle and land that academic job ... and that the Dept or University has resources that will help you find a non-academic job where you can make the most of your skills
That's rather presumptuous to assume that he didn't. In fact, he did and as part of our grad student resources, we have access to a whole host of school specific recruiters. While students from our programme regularly go into the postdoc mill, many go to work at startups, at industrial labs, in finance, at consulting firms, etc. Even more important, though, none of these options are denigrated.
That's not a hyperbole, I totally agree with it. If you sum upp the yearly income of all university football coaches in the US, the amount should be more than triple of the cumulative income of all professors.
Your taxes also pay--though usually not completely--for the aimless four year party that constitutes many college students' experience in higher education. Given the ratio of undergraduates to science & engineering PhD students, I'd wager that the former consumes a much larger portion of your taxes than the latter, and for less return on the investment.
Not to mention the fact that many foreign PhD students have strong desires to live and work here...but Uncle Sam apparently thinks it's better to shove them out.
I shouldn't be concerned about wastage in one area because there's wastage in another area? Doesn't compute.
> Not to mention the fact that many foreign PhD students have strong desires to live and work here...but Uncle Sam apparently thinks it's better to shove them out.
Yes, I believe this. As long as Uncle Sam is cutting off its nose to spite its face, maybe we shouldn't be educating these foreign students. Maybe wait until Uncle Sam is smart enough to first give the students a green card.
In this case, a PhD education in science or engineering is only "wasted" because our existing laws don't allow the student to make use of it domestically. Thus it is all cost and no benefit (at least not to the U.S. -- other countries will be happy to accept them, especially since they are already educated). Failing to make use of their skills is what doesn't compute.
They may have an intention. But few means, since there is no easy way from graduation to the citizenship.
A positive side effect may be more foreigners having good will towards Americans, having studied and lived here for several years. However, incidents like this one (denying visa) are not working towards developing the good will but very much in the other direction.
a) Educating foreign students and sending them back to their home countries is a great example of how to do "soft power". This is actually the explicit intent of many programs, particularly Fulbright awards, where recipients are required to return to their home countries.
b) The terms of the student visa require that visa-holders provide evidences that they have no intent to stay permanently in the country.
So we educate them at large expense and then end up living in tents when we're unemployable? Sub-optimal I say.
I'm fine with (b) as long as US taxpayers aren't footing the students' bills. Otherwise I see money wasted. If they are so worthy we'll pay their bills then we should want them to stay. The ones that leave regardless of our welcome mat can provide us with "soft power" back in their home countries.
I don't have a problem with educating foreign students, only those who have no intention of staying here, or those who won't be allowed to stay here. Top universities can stay top when we educate only those foreign students who can both be allowed to stay and have stated their intention of staying.
Students are not a drain, even if tax payers fund them.
They spend money in the local economy. They help with competition and keeping standards up. They (as others have said) take back useful soft-power propaganda to their home countries.
The ones who leave are a drain compared to students who spend money in the local economy and pay US taxes the rest of their lives. We shouldn't push them away or educate the ones who have no stated intention of staying here. There will still be plenty who leave anyway to propagate propaganda.
Those two things have nothing to do with one another.
First of all, there aren't enough American students qualified to do the research your taxes are paying for. They have to use foreign students or it would never get done.
Second, you're angry that they're not working here, but if they were working here, you'd be angry they're taking our jobs.
You're angry at the wrong people. You should be angry at American students and teachers for being too stupid to do the research jobs your taxes are paying for, and for being too stupid to get "work" in the field.
I'm not angry, I'm concerned that taxpayer money is being wasted. If a foreign student is so worthy that we'll pay for their education then we should get some indication that they intend to stay here, plus roll out the welcome mat for their citizenship, all in advance of that education.
If you don't want them, other countries will be more than happy to take those unwanted Ph.D. students off your hands.
Ph.D. students don't pay tuition because the remuneration they get for their work is part tuition waivers, part money. If they do not work for the university and are not eligible for tuition waivers, they have to pay tuition instead (both foreigners and US Americans).
In practice, they are basically inexpensive (for their qualifications) temporary employees in teaching and research; what they get out of it is a degree.
If they are a net benefit to US taxpayers even when they plan to leave the US, that's a good point. We should give them a green card in advance though, plus ask their intention. There's got to be plenty of supply of worthy foreign students who intend to stay here. Taxpayer money is surely being left on the table if we are educating foreign students regardless of their intention of staying.
