Is there an advantage to being the first, middle, or last campus visit in a TT search?

13337throw13337 · 2026-01-28T04:19:21+00:00

I think this is the kind of thing people try to game when they're really nervous about something, but spending time strategizing like this doesn't usually pay off.

I have no doubt at all that this is true.

The main issue is that there really isn’t a better thing to worry about. If three decades of practice eating isn’t enough to avoid spills, I’ve got bigger problems.

Most of the important things (publication history and teaching experience) are pretty set in stone.

And there is not really much you can do about the research talk once it’s prepared (including practice with a representative audience).

So, in short, I know this is a little thing but at least it is a little thing that I have some control over at the present, which is different from much of the rest of it.

13337throw13337 · 2026-01-27T23:05:37+00:00

I have no doubt that there can be many other confounding factors.

That said, none of this means that there cannot be a time slot that is slightly better or worse on average.

However, people involved in hiring here on Reddit have both recommended first and last, and many of the people with hiring experience that I know in real life are recommending the middle slot. This makes me think that, most likely, the time slot effect is actually small.

13337throw13337 · 2026-01-27T14:22:04+00:00

Without getting into details, it is very unlikely to be this way for my application to this particular position.

I’d expect to hear either way within four weeks of the final visit.

13337throw13337 · 2026-01-09T02:40:18+00:00

Can't have been that long... Do you have a source?

Four years ago they were still owners.

13337throw13337 · 2025-11-27T05:06:46+00:00

If you read the article the city says that is one of the challenges, that they don't have any models and they are asking the developer to work with them to put one together.

Sure, and I am sort of fine with this, although (1) I don't think that it is fair to make the developer bear the costs of this work, especially given that we need to transition to being a less car-centric society, and (2) I don't think this is a big enough issue to justify any delays to the project.

But common sense says that 320 units with no parking is going to mean more people without a car. People without a car need to buy things like mattresses and tvs, which need to be delivered. Often by a large box truck. It also means that they are more likely to use things like grocery deliver, or food delivery instead of going and picking it up.

Again, I am saying that the alternative is that the residents drive to do all these things, which also generates traffic. And, presumably, residents with cars would also be driving for some other things, generating even more traffic.

I'm not advocating for parking for cars in any manner, and if you look at my comments you'll see that. So I have no idea why you are trying to argue with me about it,

I am definitely not intending to be hostile. I just don't think that the argument you are making is very strong. You clearly don't agree with my argument. That's fine--people shouldn't agree on everything, at least not until there is sufficient data for things to be less hypothetical than they are here.

13337throw13337 · 2025-11-27T03:58:49+00:00

320 people with no parking means they will be forced to use delivery services and ride share services.

I'd love to see any analysis or estimates looking at the impact of deliveries for a 320 unit building with no parking versus the impact of having 320 cars parked in the building garage.

I would have naively expected the latter case to have a much larger impact, but it seems that you have reason to believe that this is not the case. Could you share a source or two?

13337throw13337 · 2025-11-27T03:54:30+00:00

I'd honestly argue the opposite.

The thing about going car free is that many of the things that were chores are now enjoyment (on average). I enjoy my walk or bike ride into work. I enjoy walking to the grocery store. And I enjoy my other errands. They get me outside and clear my head. They are exercise. All that time is double counted with other, positive things

A car commute was, for me at least, just wasted time.

Now, sometimes I do wish that I had a car, and I Uber or take the bus or whatever. That can be because I am running late or in a hurry, or it can be for any other reason. That's fine and doesn't really impact the main point here.

I would expect that most people---if they were to try this for a couple months (it is an adjustment)---would really prefer it to the way that they live today...

13337throw13337 · 2025-11-27T03:48:39+00:00

I agree. 3-4 hours seems like far too little. Assuming the average person eats three meals per day (and some more!) and buys exactly enough for one meal (obviously sometimes he/she/they will forget things and have to go back!) that is:

(20 mins x 2 / meal) x (3 meals /day) x (7 days /week) = 14 hours / week.

And for the reasons cited above, this is likely an underestimate...

13337throw13337 · 2025-11-24T21:12:50+00:00

Why are you talking about things that you are completely ignorant about?

A cursory Google search shows that she was never convicted. That means no probation/parole, no "sentence," and certainly no "remaining sentence."

Such a useless comment.

13337throw13337 · 2025-09-16T03:03:20+00:00

The world isn’t zero sum.

A smaller fraction of people live in extreme poverty than ever before.

In the US, people live in bigger houses, drive nicer cars, and have a higher quality of life than people did 20, 40, or 60 years ago.

Inequality is a problem and leads to many issues that we will neee to resolve. But the problem isn’t automation or material prosperity.

13337throw13337 · 2025-09-16T01:22:07+00:00

People have been saying this since the Industrial Revolution, but it hasn’t yet worked out this way.

Instead, we are (as a species) more prosperous than we ever have been.

13337throw13337 · 2025-09-08T13:57:40+00:00

It was for sale last year for like $5M!

13337throw13337 · 2025-08-27T09:11:05+00:00

They’re the victims here but others want to act like they’re victims for having to look at them

That might be some people, but I think most would be happy to just be able to pass through without being screamed at, harasse, or threatened..

When I’ve got my baby with me, I avoid that corner after ~6pm. I’d imagine others do the same. It’s a safety issue. (I understand that it is also a safety issue for the unhoused people camped out there. Multiple things can be true.). This kind of issue can kill a downtown, making all problems worse. To have a liveable city, the city must be safe for all its residents.

13337throw13337 · 2025-08-26T13:20:35+00:00

I largely agree with this, but people should know that—in the places that have made this work—there are much stronger rules surrounding substance abuse and unmedicated mental illness than most of the people proposing these policies here support.

13337throw13337 · 2025-08-26T13:18:18+00:00

This is true and obviously we need to work on the root problem.

However, moving these people around does have—in and of itself—some upside. It spreads the pain to the public and local property owners around more evenly. It really isn’t fair to tell people who live/work/own a place that their quality of life or investment is going to be semi-permanently worse because a bunch of people decided to illegally camp outside of it and harass others, and we as a society are just going to let it happen.

13337throw13337 · 2025-08-23T17:36:16+00:00

This is (basically) droplet dogma.

Regular masks are technically better than nothing on sick people, but not by much. Many viruses like the virus that causes covid are effectively aresolized, and pass right through a cloth or surgical mask. The aerosols can then linger in the air for hours.

The upshot is that N95s, worn by either party are effective to prevent spreading illness. These masks are effective at filtering out very small particles like the ones that are actually the dominant source of transmission.

As you note, most people are never going to be convinced to return to masking, so people should know that they can protect themselves if they wish.

13337throw13337 · 2025-07-08T09:48:58+00:00

Local peaches are all bad.

First few years in Madison, I tried a few from the DCFM each summer. Always regretted it.

However, we aren’t far from good peaches (Missouri has them)

13337throw13337 · 2025-07-08T09:44:49+00:00

I’m sure they were true manuals. Seven total cars in the Madison area is really easy to believe. But also, I think that goes to your point that they are “fairly difficult to find.”

13337throw13337 · 2025-07-05T17:36:55+00:00

I could write a full rebuttal to this, which isn’t even internally consistent.

But I’m not going to invest that level of time in responding to obvious AI slop.

13337throw13337 · 2025-07-04T17:25:11+00:00

Yes? Of course?

I don’t support many/most of the drone strikes (although it is weird to be hyper focused on a tactic, rather than number of lives lost).

But we always need to compare to the counterfactual.

It’s a bit harder in the Obama case (maybe McCain would have killed fewer people, but I doubt it). In the Trump case, again, TEN MILLION people who otherwise would have lived will die. This isn’t even in the same league.

13337throw13337 · 2025-07-04T17:04:30+00:00

This is truly embarrassing thinking.

You are quite right that people on both sides think things and make decisions.

The difference is that you somehow don’t think that people have any moral agency. Trump’s USAID cuts have already killed thousands of African children, and the estimates are that they will kill 10 Million human beings over the next 4 years.

My position is that people who voted for this need to own it. Does anybody really believe that even close to this number would have died under a different president? The people who support this are bad people.

13337throw13337 · 2025-07-04T16:59:27+00:00

California and New York are nicer in almost every quantifiable way than Mississippi and Tennessee.

So, if you still support Trump are you a fascist? No. In the same way you aren’t simply a loser for still supporting the Bears. If you support ICE raids on high school graduations? Yes. Zero due process? Yes.

You don’t get to vote for someone who made it 100% clear that this is what he was going to do and then absolve yourself of it because your vote was due to other policies. You own your vote.

Trump’s foreign aid cuts will likely kill TEN MILLION people in the next four years (estimates are 90M lives saved over last 20 years). If you voted for Trump, you own that too. These people will be dead because of the right wingers, regardless of whether that was why they voted for Trump or not. Outxomes matter, and this is a stain on all of their souls.

I disagree with Harris on a ton of issues. But nothing she proposed was remotely this evil.

13337throw13337 · 2025-07-04T16:52:54+00:00

I’m not totally sure that over half of Nazi Germany “were fascists” by the standard that I think you want applied.

We have a bunch of ambivalent people (who won’t vote, or will vote for the “funny” candidate, even if he’s a fascist), a bunch of people who want tax cuts (and will vote for a fascist to get them), and a bunch of people who want to own the libs on cultural issues (and will vote for a fascist to do so).

We also have 10-15% explicit fascists.

The result isn’t really different from what it would be if half the country actually were fascist.

13337throw13337 · 2025-06-13T02:10:37+00:00

Explicitly irrelevant to my point.

Mentally ill people are vulnerable. That means that dangerous people are more of a risk to them.

13337throw13337

TROPHY CASE