- provide confidential advocates for the upswing in harassment
- normalize taking about mental illness
- normalize talking about medication
- stop pretending therapy and wellness will fix everything
- recognize that when this many people are depressed, it means SYSTEMS are broken
- allow people with severe depression to come work in person in empty offices, so they have two buildings to go between
- adjust hiring expectations next year to account for a lost year; use CRA guidelines if possible
- adjust expected graduation timelines
- offer postdocs at the same institution if the student cannot find a job
- destroy the culture of overwork as a coping mechanism
- ensure that students have people to talk to about the impact of the pandemic on their romantic relationships, and their future prospects of marriage and having children while pursuing an already difficult career
- generally just be emotionally available and empathetic and there to listen if students are in pain
- don't take your stress out on students in any situation ever
- spend extra time making sure your reviews are kind and courteous and constructive, understanding that many authors may be suffering severely right now
- fund childcare
- fund fertility treatments
- fund healthcare more generally
- help students secure food for food insecure friends and relatives
- supply emergency funding for students to fly somewhere to, for example, care for the children of a sick relative
Seriously, this is like 15 minutes of brainstorming on my couch. The problem here isn't lack of ideas. Pick one and push for change at your institution.
And if you are severely depressed, I strongly encourage you to answer "yes" to "do you have a disability that impacts your ability to isolate?" Because depression is that.
I would personally define severely here as unable to take care of yourself, or having serious thoughts of self-harm or suicide.
I was really vocal about my history of suicidal ideation going into the pandemic, and as a result many friends who had never experienced it before contacted me to ask for help when actively suicidal.
Just letting people know what you've been through can be valuable.
It's awkward and embarrassing and, in my case, at one point made me extremely vulnerable to harassment. So I won't pretend it is risk free. But on the flipside, you can literally save lives.
Whoever saves a life, it is as if he saved an entire world.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It still confuses me that in spaces in which humans can often generalize from just 2 or 3 examples, it's considered successful when a software system does so from millions of examples
Nevermind robustness issues
It's true that, you know, reading the entire internet is something that computers can do better than us. But why should they have to? I feel like the metric for success is just wild
On the "we" versus "I" debate about my thesis, I ended up going with this:
- "I" for things I did,
- "we" for mathematical handholding, and
- "Nate" and "RanDair" and so on for things my coauthors did.
Nonstandard I guess, but I deliberately designed projects to decouple work.
So it is actually very easy to point to the parts that my coauthors did. And for the things that we really did design together, I will add a note about this in an early section at the end of the introduction, along with complete authorship statements.
I'm going to use the knowledge package that @16kbps recommended to introduce those authors and link back to the full authorship statements when I mention their names in later chapters. Credit is extremely important!!!
Oh man so I bought three books on the power dynamics of philanthropy, but hilariously, I accidentally bought "Winner Takes All" (a trashy high school romance novel) rather than "Winners Take All" (a scalding critique of the upper class and capitalism run wild). Oops
Time to find one of those little free libraries to drop the trashy high school romance novel
Definitely not a critique of the upper class hahahahaha
Writing my thesis, I'm just baffled by how well I subsumed my own work. The PUMPKIN Pi paper (arxiv.org/abs/2010.00774, PLDI 2021) completely subsumes DEVOID (dependenttyp.es/pdf/ornpaper.p…, ITP 2019). DEVOID just ends up being an example in my thesis. I'd be mad if anyone else did this.
Perhaps even more amusingly, in December 2019, I had the idea for PUMPKIN Pi, but also thought it was something I'd never be able to do without help from external experts. I didn't really do it deliberately in the end, either, so I'm surprised it happened at all.
For real though, happy lesbian visibility day. A while back I did a blog interview series about LGBT computer science researchers. Eventually my life got too hard to continue it. But here's an interview with Deb Agarwal from back in the day.
If anyone wants to take over this project and start it up again, I'd be happy to pass along the knowledge I gained in the process, and give you access and so on.
Back then I really felt that there was a Don't Ask, Don't Tell culture in CS research. When I got the NSF Fellowship, suddenly people knew I existed, and I immediately decided to use this to try to fight that culture. I don't know how much it helped, but I really hope it did.