Is going to university worth it?

[Red]

One more thing:

Well, even if I fail, I'll still learn a lot of useful things (a lot more than at the university) which will help me succeed next time, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k7jeQQdqPA
You can't always bounce back from failure.

Most people seem to think that the key to being successful in business is working hard and diligently, and sure, that's important, but we don't like to think that there are things when it comes to a good business that are out of our control. Luck plays a crucial role in most business ventures, no matter how intelligent and hardworking you are.

Teo, if you are to drop out of university to pursue a business, I can only see it ending in disaster. Don't assume you're going to be successful.

[teo123]

Confronting your past probablistic mistakes.

What do you mean by "probablistic mistake"?

Walk down to the local jail at visiting hours.

What does whether or not jails exist have to do with this? Again, you can easily see my compiler working right in your browser. Or, if you are very skeptical (maybe I've written the WebAssembly by hand and pretend that my compiler is capable of compiling something like that), you can download my compiler from GitHub and see for yourself (there is a version for 32-bit Linux, for 64-bit Linux, for 32-bit Windows and for NodeJS), all without leaving your house.

It's just a matter of communicating the subject properly.

Which is a very-soft-science based criterion.

Well yeah because your videos are terrible.

But how do you know what's a good video? And how do you achieve making one in some reasonable time?

Veganism isn't the only thing I'm gonna be talking about FYI.

I know.

And what are the chances that you will be able to do it?

Hey, listen, it's hard to tell. It goes a bit harder than I expected. I expected my new compiler (targeting JavaScript Virtual Machine) to be as powerful as my old compiler (targeting x86 processors, has 2'200 lines of code) after I write some 3'000 lines of code. It turns out I got to that point only after writing 4'000 lines of code. Debugging also goes slightly harder than I expected, partly because C++ IDEs are so hard to properly install on Linux. I'd say the chances of me succeeding at making a powerful language is around 70%. Higher than me being able to finish the university.

If there isn't much attention to things like this it probably isn't very significant.

I'd say there isn't much attention to things like this because, all until very recently, using WebAssembly wasn't really an option (poor browser support), so making a better language to target the JavaScript Virtual Machine was next to impossible. Furthermore, programmers who know compiler theory tend to be very ignorant of modern web development (they are more in the low-level development bubble) and vice versa.

More qualified people can handle this I think.

I am not sure what you mean.

Your point?

Would you suggest somebody who wants to become a singer to follow their dreams? If not, why would you suggest somebody who wants to be a YouTuber to follow their dreams?

You can't always bounce back from failure.

I've seen this video. Hey, listen, at first, it makes perfect sense, however, more you think about it, more it seems that saying "Consider the failures, too." is not a good principle and is, in many cases, counter-productive. If you want to know how somebody made a delicious cake, and he tells you how he made that, would you say to yourself "Consider the failures, too."? Sounds incredibly counter-productive, doesn't it? While survivorship bias is, without a doubt, real, at some point asking for studies that control for it becomes very counter-productive.
Furthermore, if we are going with "Consider the failures, too.", consider all those computer science graduates who can't keep even the entry-level jobs. Does that suggest going to university is a bad thing? By the logic "Consider the failures, too.", it does.

Luck plays a crucial role in most business ventures, no matter how intelligent and hardworking you are.

Well, luck obviously also plays a large role in whether you will pass some exam on the university. You can never know everything you are supposed to know, unless maybe if you are studying for the university day and night.

I can only see it ending in disaster.

Perhaps it's because you don't understand my business idea?

[Red]

Which is a very-soft-science based criterion.

There are objectively better ways to convince people than others. There probably isn't any one size fits all method, but we should be going with what we know is most effective rather than spend time trying to find the best method.

But how do you know what's a good video? And how do you achieve making one in some reasonable time?

People generally agree a video is good if it's entertaining or informative in some way. Your videos were lacking in this.

What do you mean by 'reasonable time'? Upload schedules are usually a bad idea since you'd be forcing yourself to make a video even if it isn't good. Just make a video whenever you have a good idea that can be spun into a good video. If you look at some of the best YouTubers, some will tell you that for every video you make, there were 3 others that were cut.

Veganism isn't the only thing I'm gonna be talking about FYI.

I know.

Then stop making it as if I'm only going to be talking about veganism.

Hey, listen, it's hard to tell. It goes a bit harder than I expected. I expected my new compiler (targeting JavaScript Virtual Machine) to be as powerful as my old compiler (targeting x86 processors, has 2'200 lines of code) after I write some 3'000 lines of code. It turns out I got to that point only after writing 4'000 lines of code. Debugging also goes slightly harder than I expected, partly because C++ IDEs are so hard to properly install on Linux. I'd say the chances of me succeeding at making a powerful language is around 70%. Higher than me being able to finish the university.

You should stay in school then if you want a better chance.

I'd say there isn't much attention to things like this because, all until very recently, using WebAssembly wasn't really an option (poor browser support), so making a better language to target the JavaScript Virtual Machine was next to impossible. Furthermore, programmers who know compiler theory tend to be very ignorant of modern web development (they are more in the low-level development bubble) and vice versa.

But if there still isn't much attention, again, it's probably not important enough. Once more, if you want a better chance of making the programming language, you should stay in school.

I am not sure what you mean.

I'm sure there are other people out there who are better at making programming languages than you are.

Would you suggest somebody who wants to become a singer to follow their dreams? If not, why would you suggest somebody who wants to be a YouTuber to follow their dreams?

If they have something to fall back on, absolutely. But if you are to drop out of university, that would make it extremely difficult for you if you don't succeed. Hope for the best, expect the worst.

I've seen this video. Hey, listen, at first, it makes perfect sense, however, more you think about it, more it seems that saying "Consider the failures, too." is not a good principle and is, in many cases, counter-productive. If you want to know how somebody made a delicious cake, and he tells you how he made that, would you say to yourself "Consider the failures, too."? Sounds incredibly counter-productive, doesn't it? While survivorship bias is, without a doubt, real, at some point asking for studies that control for it becomes very counter-productive.

Baking a cake is a simple process with steps that are entirely in your control. Starting a business is a complex process with steps that aren't at all in your control. No one knows for sure what it really takes to get rich. Many people know how to bake a cake with steps they can find on the internet. If getting rich was a simple 10 step process (it never is), sure, you may have a point. But it isn't. Even then, you probably still should see what NOT to do (eg don't too much flour or don't overcook it).

Since no one really know what it takes to get rich, you're only going to be looking at one side of the picture. What may have gotten one person rich (such as taking risks) also may have made another one broke.

Have you heard of the famous example of survivorship bias in WW2 when the allies just reinforced the most damaged areas of planes rather than the areas that were actually vulnerable? That's a much closer example.

This line of thinking of yours is going to completely fuck you over, Teo. Stop attempting to rationalize this with bullshit examples like you do with everything else.

Furthermore, if we are going with "Consider the failures, too.", consider all those computer science graduates who can't keep even the entry-level jobs. Does that suggest going to university is a bad thing? By the logic "Consider the failures, too.", it does.

No, no it doesn't. You're just considering the degree; You're not taking into account what these people do with the degree necessarily, and treating them all equal.

A degree is definitely important, but when it comes to STEM, just having a degree is only so much. It's also important to have research, relevant work experience, or other credentials to help increase your chances. Those things are more important than having a higher GPA too (although I recommend trying to stay at least above a 3.0).

So yes, maybe you SHOULD be looking at why these people have failed; See where they went wrong, and try not to make the same mistakes.

Well, luck obviously also plays a large role in whether you will pass some exam on the university. You can never know everything you are supposed to know, unless maybe if you are studying for the university day and night.

A university exam is different in that the more you study, the less likely you are to fail.

We can apply looking at both the successes and failures too. The students who do well on the exams should be looked at for what the did right, and the ones who did not do well should be looked at for what the didn't do right.

Perhaps it's because you don't understand my business idea?

Knowing you and your overall incompetence, I view that as the most likely possibility. Just because your business idea may be different doesn't mean it'll be easier for you. You're falling for the Dunning-Kruger effect yet again.

Is this your new crazy idea now? Trying to start a business?

[teo123]

we should be going with what we know is most effective rather than spend time trying to find the best method.

But how do you know what's effective and what isn't? It's all very soft science, obviously.

Then stop making it as if I'm only going to be talking about veganism.

And I am not. When MinuteEarth made a video called "How Much Does Meat Actually Cost?", they lost many subscribers.

You should stay in school then if you want a better chance.

Why do you think that's the case?

But if there still isn't much attention, again, it's probably not important enough.

Hey, listen, it's hard to tell what's important. Before JavaScript was invented, it probably seemed that having a scripting language in a browser wasn't important. Before CPUs were invented, something like that seemed to have no potential use. Much of technological development is Say's Law in action.

Have you heard of the famous example of survivorship bias in WW2 when the allies just reinforced the most damaged areas of planes rather than the areas that were actually vulnerable? That's a much closer example.

Look, sometimes there is survivorship bias going on. But you can't assume there is survivorship bias with no evidence of it. Can you point me to somebody who has tried to make a programming language and says it's not a good idea? I've only heard of people who probably haven't even looked into my work devaluing it. Have you looked into my work?

It's also important to have research

First, I did publish one peer-reviewed paper about that part of computer science. Second, papers and programming have very little to do with each other. You know what Linus Torvalds told Tanenbaum in 1992, upon Tanenbaum criticizing him for not publishing papers about his work, "Talk is cheap, show me the code! Theory and praxis sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time!"?

A university exam is different in that the more you study, the less likely you are to fail.

And the same is true in business.

[teo123]

Also...

I'm sure there are other people out there who are better at making programming languages than you are.

Are you implying people who have PhD in computer science are more likely to succeed at that than I am? That is, that people who have PhD in computer science are competent programmers? Most of them aren't. Those are people competent in publishing papers, and that has little or nothing to do with actual programming.

[Red]

But how do you know what's effective and what isn't? It's all very soft science, obviously.

You know, I like it how you're quick to point out a field you don't like as soft science but not apply the same standard to the ones you do like.

Psychology is a much harder science than other social sciences, and there have been many instances of being able to change minds. Here's a short Johnathan Haidt video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24adApYh0yc

And I am not. When MinuteEarth made a video called "How Much Does Meat Actually Cost?", they lost many subscribers.

And what is your source for that? Some negative comments on the video? The larger than usual dislike ratio? Not all of those came from subscribers.

If anything, they actually GAINED a few subscribers according to this:
https://www.trackalytics.com/youtube/su ... nuteearth/

Look at around early March of 2016 when the video was uploaded. Even if they did lose subs, they have gained them back by now.

Why do you think that's the case?

Because you're falling for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Hey, listen, it's hard to tell what's important. Before JavaScript was invented, it probably seemed that having a scripting language in a browser wasn't important. Before CPUs were invented, something like that seemed to have no potential use. Much of technological development is Say's Law in action.

You can tell how important it is judging how much attention is directed towards it. If thereisn't much attention, it's probably too difficult and not urgent enough, even for the very qualified.

Look, sometimes there is survivorship bias going on. But you can't assume there is survivorship bias with no evidence of it. Can you point me to somebody who has tried to make a programming language and says it's not a good idea? I've only heard of people who probably haven't even looked into my work devaluing it. Have you looked into my work?

I'm referring to survivorship bias in business, not programming. Programming has factors that are very much in your control.

First, I did publish one peer-reviewed paper about that part of computer science. Second, papers and programming have very little to do with each other. You know what Linus Torvalds told Tanenbaum in 1992, upon Tanenbaum criticizing him for not publishing papers about his work, "Talk is cheap, show me the code! Theory and praxis sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time!"?

Have you graduated with a degree yet and looked for a job in the field?

Employers usually have a different view on the matter. Whether or not that's justified is another issue.

And the same is true in business.

No, I've already addressed this several times.

University exams may have more control in your hands, since, at least at lower levels, professors sometimes take questions from Homeworks and class examples (with different numbers).
https://youtu.be/Kk8q500rYo4?t=683

[teo123]

Psychology is a much harder science than other social sciences

Sure, some parts of psychology are a very hard science, such as psychophysics. Some parts of linguistics are also a very hard science, such as phonetics. But equating all of linguistics with phonetics or all psychology with psychophysics is way more wrong than saying sociology is hard science.

If anything, they actually GAINED a few subscribers according to this

OK, well, their growth has slowed down then.

Employers usually have a different view on the matter.

As far as I understand it, it's not a problem to get a job as a programmer without the university, it's just that you'll probably get lower pay. Programmers without university generally earn between 5'000 and 8'000 Kunas per month, while those with the university generally earn 12'000 to 18'000 per month. But is higher pay worth swallowing all that semen at the university? Even if it is, is it ethical to participate in such a fraud (a school that claims to make students competent programmers, but actually teaches a bunch of irrelevant stuff instead)?
Perhaps academic programming has its application. When you are programming for an airplane, a nuclear reactor or a medical device, it's a good thing to be able to prove that your program will behave as expected even in unexpected situation. When writing computer science proofs that the program will work as expected in unexpected situations, many of the stuff that's taught at the university comes useful (though not nearly most of it). However, that's not the kind of stuff most programmers ever deal with. Proofs that a script on a web-page or a sandboxed mobile app will behave as expected in unexpected situations are useless, and writing programs in such a way that those things can be proven is extremely counter-productive.

University exams may have more control in your hands, since, at least at lower levels, professors sometimes take questions from homework and class examples (with different numbers).

Well, 2nd year university (where I am now) is not lower level.

[Red]

Sure, some parts of psychology are a very hard science, such as psychophysics. Some parts of linguistics are also a very hard science, such as phonetics. But equating all of linguistics with phonetics or all psychology with psychophysics is way more wrong than saying sociology is hard science.

You're putting words in my mouth, I didn't say that.

OK, well, their growth has slowed down then.

Did you even look at the graph?

graph.png

Seems to me that this one video of theirs failed to slow down subscriber growth. It seems to be a pretty steady increase of about a few hundred subscribers in every interval.

Stop trying to make shit up Teo. You're wrong.

As far as I understand it, it's not a problem to get a job as a programmer without the university, it's just that you'll probably get lower pay. Programmers without university generally earn between 5'000 and 8'000 Kunas per month, while those with the university generally earn 12'000 to 18'000 per month.

I was referring to research.

But is higher pay worth swallowing all that semen at the university? Even if it is, is it ethical to participate in such a fraud (a school that claims to make students competent programmers, but actually teaches a bunch of irrelevant stuff instead)?

That higher pay can help you use the money for effective charities, and higher paying jobs are usually more useful ones.

Perhaps academic programming has its application. When you are programming for an airplane, a nuclear reactor or a medical device, it's a good thing to be able to prove that your program will behave as expected even in unexpected situation. When writing computer science proofs that the program will work as expected in unexpected situations, many of the stuff that's taught at the university comes useful (though not nearly most of it). However, that's not the kind of stuff most programmers ever deal with. Proofs that a script on a web-page or a sandboxed mobile app will behave as expected in unexpected situations are useless, and writing programs in such a way that those things can be proven is extremely counter-productive.

Well this is more gaining a specialty in it, kind of like majoring in education with a concentration in biology or something. It's kind of a matter of whatever interests you.

Well, 2nd year university (where I am now) is not lower level.

So then don't bother studying at all, since it really isn't in your control.

[teo123]

You're putting words in my mouth, I didn't say that.

You were comparing "measurements" of what approach to activism will convince more people, you were comparing those measurements to the harder parts of psychology. Sorry, that's just not comparable. Those studies are even softer than historical linguistics.

Seems to me that this one video of theirs failed to slow down subscriber growth.

Let's say you are right. So you think that implies that, if you posted a similar video, you will also likely gain subscribers? You, as a small YouTuber, most likely wouldn't. People wouldn't trust you. And, even to me, that seems to be an under-researched video. Why promote this soft science about how meat contributes to global poverty when there are so much better arguments for veganism? The antibiotic resistance argument applies to most of the meat that's consumed today, and it takes only a basic understanding of evolutionary biology to be understood. And those arguments about how farmed animals are taking away food from us, while I guess there is some truth to them, are nearly impossible to evaluate.

I was referring to research.

I am not sure what you mean. Like I've said, I've published one peer-reviewed paper about computer science in Osječki Matematički List, specifically, about compiler theory. But, again, I fail to see how being able to publish papers makes you a more competent programmer.

That higher pay can help you use the money for effective charities, and higher paying jobs are usually more useful ones.

Well, people working for minimum-wage jobs count for a lot in our society. Perhaps even more than most university professors. Most charities are ineffective or even counter-productive, and it's very hard to identify effective ones.

Well this is more gaining a specialty in it, kind of like majoring in education with a concentration in biology or something. It's kind of a matter of whatever interests you.

I don't understand what you mean. I was trying to say that, while the techniques of programming that are taught at the university probably help when you are programming for an airplane or a medical device, they are counter-productive in the vast majority of cases.

So then don't bother studying at all, since it really isn't in your control.

Well, you know, maybe there is some truth to that. If all those years I've been learning to program on my own didn't earn me any money, studying a bit more probably won't give me either. Maybe "Learn to code." is a horrible advice.
Or, maybe, it's because I wasn't studying what pays. I have always thought I could decide what's worth learning better than the collective wisdom of the market, so I was studying compiler theory, algorithms and data structures. Maybe I was wrong about that. Maybe I should spend some time learning JQuery, Angular, React, DJango and other stuff that pays. Of course, the university will just slow me down at learning those stuff.

[Red]

You were comparing "measurements" of what approach to activism will convince more people, you were comparing those measurements to the harder parts of psychology. Sorry, that's just not comparable. Those studies are even softer than historical linguistics.

You obviously didn't watch the Johnathan Haidt video I linked, which explains how it's something we can demonstrate. There are many other videos on the matter, but you probably aren't gonna watch them anyway.

Let's say you are right.

You don't have to 'say' that I'm right, I am right, as anyone who would look at the graph for 20 seconds would agree.

So you think that implies that, if you posted a similar video, you will also likely gain subscribers? You, as a small YouTuber, most likely wouldn't. People wouldn't trust you.

What are you basing this off of? Oh yeah, your intuition.

How did vegan channels such as Unnatural Vegan get as big as they are? Weren't they small channels at one point too? I'm also not just going to be talking about veganism, which will help expand the appeal.

People seemed to trust me when I posted my first two videos; many people on the internet aren't as stupid as you think Teo, they understand to value the arguments in and of themselves rather than the person. If everyone just said 'Screw it, I'm not famous enough, no one will listen to me' pretty much nothing would get done in terms of hobbies or activism.

I am expecting some negative reception for when I do upload my video, but it'd be idiotic for me not to.

And now you've gone off the deep end yet again by parroting typical anti-vegan arguments:

And, even to me, that seems to be an under-researched video.

...You haven't even seen my script.

Why promote this soft science about how meat contributes to global poverty when there are so much better arguments for veganism?

Please stop using the term 'soft science,' you're pretty much just using it as a buzzword at this point.

I wasn't going to bring up global poverty, but it will be implied when I discuss climate change.

The antibiotic resistance argument applies to most of the meat that's consumed today, and it takes only a basic understanding of evolutionary biology to be understood.

Most people aren't aware about how much of an issue it is.

And those arguments about how farmed animals are taking away food from us, while I guess there is some truth to them, are nearly impossible to evaluate.

It isn't necessarily that they're taking food away from us, it's that it's an inefficient and wasteful use of land, and for a growing population, feeding the world with meat is not sustainable.

I am not sure what you mean. Like I've said, I've published one peer-reviewed paper about computer science in Osječki Matematički List, specifically, about compiler theory. But, again, I fail to see how being able to publish papers makes you a more competent programmer.

Employers tend to have a different view on the matter, which is why they consider it when choosing employees. Are they right in thinking that? I don't know.

Well, people working for minimum-wage jobs count for a lot in our society. Perhaps even more than most university professors.

Settling for a minimum wage job doesn't help society much economically, and also inhibits your ability to help the world with charity.

Most charities are ineffective or even counter-productive, and it's very hard to identify effective ones.

Which is why you should RESEARCH effective charities, instead of just putting up your arms and saying 'Oh charities that are effective are hard to find, might as well not donate anything!'

Look into charity evaluators such as GiveWell. Hell, even donating to a semi-effective charity is better than not donating anything at all to any charity.

I don't understand what you mean. I was trying to say that, while the techniques of programming that are taught at the university probably help when you are programming for an airplane or a medical device, they are counter-productive in the vast majority of cases.

That's what I was referring to when I said gaining a specialty.

Well, you know, maybe there is some truth to that.

Yes, go then, don't study for your exams. Just sit around and do nothing when you have an exam in a week. Maybe then you'll ace all your exams.

If all those years I've been learning to program on my own didn't earn me any money, studying a bit more probably won't give me either. Maybe "Learn to code." is a horrible advice.

'Learn to code' is vague. How do you learn to code? How will you apply what you learn?

Or, maybe, it's because I wasn't studying what pays. I have always thought I could decide what's worth learning better than the collective wisdom of the market, so I was studying compiler theory, algorithms and data structures. Maybe I was wrong about that. Maybe I should spend some time learning JQuery, Angular, React, DJango and other stuff that pays. Of course, the university will just slow me down at learning those stuff.

Any time you say shit like this I'm just gonna say r/iamverysmart