99% of this is the printhead and the ink formulation. Assuming you use generic off the shelf solutions for those two components you’re set. All the printer companies do their lock in at the firmware and software layer.
I do agree my skepticism level rises extremely high in any experimental psychology experiment. There’s just so many ways to bias results, in addition to “do enough experiments and one of them will get a statistically unlikely result” problem.
This group does a lot like this https://www.dpg.unipd.it/en/compcog/publications … so that’s tempting to think they keep trying things until something odd happens (kind of like physicists who look for 5th forces… eventually they find something odd but often it’s just an experimental issue they need to understand further).
It’s great place for grad school. Very little to do other than study and lab work. Play soccer with the grad students, float on the river in the summer, shoot potato gun cannons in corn fields, but otherwise there’s nothing better to do than work on a PhD.
I’d recommend it for grad school. But then yea time to move on.
This is the attitude of someone who uses hand tools when power tools are available. Yes you loose the personal touch but also loose the potential efficiency. Still need to measure twice and cut once though.
Make a list of the most interesting companies / areas you want to work in from a scientific perspective
Cold call or get introductions to their R&D leaders (principal researcher /director / VP). While connecting to something they or their company did, ask for a coffee meeting or phone call to learn more about their company and how it works.
Use this to Network network network. At some point a job will appear with interviews. Chances are good it’s with a good manager as they’re the ones taking time to build good teams and talent.
First no ads. Then ad free if you pay extra. Then “ad free” except half the shows have a “this show requires ads” bs and still have ads. Scummy flea ridden advertisers at their core.
It’s pretty much always who you know… at least to get a showing. It’s rare in history to find counter examples. And in a LLM fueled world it’s going to be more important.
Companies can improve by ensuring they don’t hire _because_ of whom someone knows. It should only ever let you get in the room to interview.
So practical advice of what to do: be human. Get to know people. Care. Your time to do this is not when you’re looking for a job, but when you’re in a job.
You have experience in 2 very different places demographically. High altitude may be on the list of factors but I would guess it’s pretty far down.
Boulder is a small college town of mostly affluent younger people. Memphis is an urban city in a hot climate that is older, poorer, and in the middle of the section of the US that has some of the worst health overall.
When you become a good enough IC, “ As an engineer, I prefer to be managed and guided by someone who actually knows what I work on, preferably better than I know it.” is no longer reasonable. Then your managers role is to maximize your ability to make an impact by putting you in the right place/project.
As a manager of people who know far more about the things they do than I do, my goal is to assist and ensure in the right place (for them and the org). It’d be foolish for me to hire peons who know less than me.
Best as we can tell, it wasn’t a hoax. It was a poorly understood experiment (and perhaps premature arxiv preprint). It’s very similar to the “faster than speed of light” puzzle from a few years back. It doesn’t harm scientific integrity. It reveals that science is by nature an exploratory process where what we know today is subject to change in light of new data and theory.
As a PhD physics scientist with a familiarity with this area, I’m glad this got the attention it did and showed science working “as it should”.