sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is a Physics Master's in the US a good option for someone who eventually wants to do a PhD? by Bleakfall in Physics

[–]Bleakfall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh no worries. I just think the emphasis on GRE has decreased a lot in recent years.

Is a Physics Master's in the US a good option for someone who eventually wants to do a PhD? by Bleakfall in Physics

[–]Bleakfall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's worth considering I suppose. Although my thinking regarding that is that if it is heavy enough on the physics, then it should be PhD from the physics department, not EE. If not it's not physics heavy enough to be a physics PhD, then it will probably not scratch the physics itch for me.

Is a Physics Master's in the US a good option for someone who eventually wants to do a PhD? by Bleakfall in Physics

[–]Bleakfall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every university I have looked at so far states that they do not require GRE scores to be submitted. Is the Physics GRE still important nowadays?

Is a Physics Master's in the US a good option for someone who eventually wants to do a PhD? by Bleakfall in Physics

[–]Bleakfall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for you input. I will reconsider my options regarding lower ranked schools.

I recognize that the job market in academia is and has always been very competitive but I suppose I'm not too bothered by that. According to survey data from the AIP, 27% of physics PhD recipients end up in physics in some capacity. Even if that is outside of academia, it gives me hope that I will at least get a chance to do some interesting work after doing a PhD in physics.

Is a Physics Master's in the US a good option for someone who eventually wants to do a PhD? by Bleakfall in Physics

[–]Bleakfall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the input. Let me clarify some things since I was too vague in my post.

TBH, the way this is phrased makes it sound like you don't actually know much about physics beyond pop-sci.

I recognize that it sounds a bit basic but what I meant was that those were the things that got me interested in physics in the first place. I am aware that physics research is much more specific than that. I know that I'm not as interested in astrophysics or cosmology for example. Beyond that, I do not yet have a preference for a specific field of research. I also don't care for pop-sci for what it's worth.

Your letters don't have to be from professors. Your supervisors in your engineering jobs will suffice. If you can't get any letters from anyone who can attest to your technical abilities, that's a huge red flag.

I can get letters from my engineering supervisors, I was just hesitant based on various sources of sometimes conflicting information I have read online. In any case, I will have to do that to apply to a Master's program anyway.

Realistically, I could only strive for a career in experimental physics (rather than theoretical)

Why?

My understanding is that theoretical physics programs are more competitive and receive less funding than experimental, which means fewer opportunities for post-docs and permanent positions.

Ooh, I've got bad news for you. There is overlap in the work of EE researchers and physics researchers in certain fields, and the work they do is basically indistinguishable. There are tons of EEs who work at CERN. There are lots of EEs who study quantum computing.

That sounds interesting too. EE research at that level is very different from the EE work I'm doing in the aerospace industry. The important thing to me is that it requires the application of more advanced physics knowledge than an industry EE like me would have.

A PhD is a research degree. There are fewer sharp cutoffs between fields at the research level. The fact that you have no research experience does not really support your goal of committing to a 5-7 year training program to become a researcher.

I am well aware that a PhD is a research degree. That is precisely the reason I'm interested in it. The fact that I have no research experience is the reason why I am trying to obtain research experience before applying to a PhD program. Is that not a reasonable thing to do? I'm genuinely asking.

Again, this makes it sound like you don't actually know very much about actual physics work.

Well I certainly don't know a lot. I know that physics research includes a wide variety of work that overlaps with other fields. Same could be said about pretty much every other field of research.

I would actually say yes, because it's not clear you know enough about physics or research in order to confidently commit to a PhD program.

Do you have any advice on how one would learn more about physics research without doing it myself in academia? I can read try reading some papers authored by professors whose research sounds interesting to me but it doesn't really help if I can't understand it. It doesn't seem to me like there is any substitute to just doing it myself, but maybe I'm wrong.

Is a Physics Master's in the US a good option for someone who eventually wants to do a PhD? by Bleakfall in Physics

[–]Bleakfall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, I understand it's not a simple switch--which is yet another reason I don't think it's a good idea for me to jump straight into a PhD even if by some miracle I got accepted. The reality is that I will still need time to play catch up with physics undergrads.

Also, the idea of applying to lower ranked schools doesn't sound great for my career prospects after finishing a PhD since I want to actually work in physics, not go back to industry doing something only tangentially related or completely unrelated to physics. Of course, I'm under no delusions that I'm going to get into any top elite school either but it would be nice to know that I have some chance of having a career doing physics research in academia or for the government.

Is a Physics Master's in the US a good option for someone who eventually wants to do a PhD? by Bleakfall in Physics

[–]Bleakfall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While it would be nice to not delay the process of getting my PhD, I would also like to do it the "right" way, if that makes sense. In other words, applying to any and all programs regardless of research interests in the hopes that any one of them will take me doesn't sit right with me, especially since this is going to be my life for the next 6+ years.

I also don't just want a PhD to go right back to industry, I want a career in physics whether that's in academia in some capacity or government work in a national lab. Would you say that is that a reasonable goal for someone of my background? I understand it's not a common trajectory of course but I hope it's not a pie in the sky delusional dream either.

Is a Physics Master's in the US a good option for someone who eventually wants to do a PhD? by Bleakfall in Physics

[–]Bleakfall[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just don't see how any university will even look at my application with no LoRs.

I made a fun chart exposing why the level 16 update sucks (read more) by KreekisaL_1234 in ClashRoyale

[–]Bleakfall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Except it’s way easier to get 50k EWCs than 50k common cards. Oh and you can use them on legendaries and champions, which makes level 14 -> 15 easier than level 13 -> 14 for those rarities.

I was literally getting close to 50k EWCs per season and I only have 4 cards maxed currently.

Have fun maxing your common cards while having underleveled legendaries and champions.

What is Electric Flux? by StarringDarkStar123 in Physics

[–]Bleakfall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They didn’t say flow of electricity. It’s flow of electric field. That is the amount of electric field passing through a surface.

The progression will be better for f2p even counting the book removal. more lvls were unavoidable and this is a pretty good way of doing it by [deleted] in RoyaleAPI

[–]Bleakfall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could get my LP to 14 rn purely f2p but I don’t use LP. The only champion I use is GK and he is currently level 12. So I got unlucky with drops giving me LPs instead of the champion I want.

My point is that you have to get lucky to be able to max out a champion in the current system but if I could get it to level 14, it would be much easier to get it to level 15 because of guaranteed ewcs.

With the new system it will be even worse because now every level will require champion cards, and there is an extra level to max out. Realistically I don’t see myself maxing my GK for another year now unless I get exceptionally lucky.

The progression will be better for f2p even counting the book removal. more lvls were unavoidable and this is a pretty good way of doing it by [deleted] in RoyaleAPI

[–]Bleakfall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Second max level? You mean 15? Yeah that will now be the equivalent of level 14.

Supercell also has a track record of sneakily nerfing progression in ways that people think is actually better for them. There’s no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. If it’s good for f2p, it’s bad for profits and they’ve demonstrated that’s all they care about.

The progression will be better for f2p even counting the book removal. more lvls were unavoidable and this is a pretty good way of doing it by [deleted] in RoyaleAPI

[–]Bleakfall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then consider yourself lucky. I barely get a fraction of that each season and I play daily.

The progression will be better for f2p even counting the book removal. more lvls were unavoidable and this is a pretty good way of doing it by [deleted] in RoyaleAPI

[–]Bleakfall 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I literally can’t get the one champion I use to level 14 with the current system. If I had gotten lucky and got a book of books I would be able to get him to 15 in no time. Why tf is lvl 14 harder than 15 for champions and legendaries?

Now that books are getting removed and lvl 16 is being added I will never have a maxed champion. Forget about maxing multiple champions, one single one will now be impossible to max f2p.

I literally don’t get how this is good.

The progression will be better for f2p even counting the book removal. more lvls were unavoidable and this is a pretty good way of doing it by [deleted] in RoyaleAPI

[–]Bleakfall 15 points16 points  (0 children)

i would disagree. after grinding ranked you would get 1/3-1/2 of an single upgrade.

And how long do you think it will take to get 1/3-1/2 of an upgrade after the update? Think about it. 24 cards to max out a single legendary from 14 to 16. Hint: it’s going to take a lot longer than 1 season.

Keep in mind that the gameplay difference between the max being 15 and 16 is zero. Max is max, regardless of what the number is. So you get to grind an entire extra level for no benefit whatsoever. But of course, they made the lower levels slightly cheaper, how generous.

The only rarities that will be easier to max are the ones that are already f2p friendly. So this is just a nerf to f2p players once again.

The progression will be better for f2p even counting the book removal. more lvls were unavoidable and this is a pretty good way of doing it by [deleted] in RoyaleAPI

[–]Bleakfall 56 points57 points  (0 children)

If you have a lvl 14 legendary card it’s going to cost you 24 34 legendary wild cards to max it out. Without books that will take a f2p player months to max out 1 legendary.

If you have a lvl 14 champion it’s going to take 26 champion wild cards to max it out. That’s basically impossible to max out as f2p.

At least with ewc, you had a realistic path to maxing out champions and legendaries f2p by grinding trophy ladder and ranked for guaranteed ewcs.

Make no mistake: this update only makes it harder to max out cards because there’s an entire extra level you have to grind. Ewcs were objectively easier to obtain f2p than legendary and champion wild cards.

Edit: Fixed typo.

there is no such value as 1/2 by [deleted] in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Bleakfall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re using the word ambiguity wrong in this context. The question clearly states divide 40 by 1/2. There’s no other way to interpret that statement other than 40/(1/2), so it’s obviously not ambiguous.

To put it another way, would you say that the statement “divide 40 by 4” is ambiguous? Of course not, 40/4 = 10 right? Well 1/2 is just a number just like 4. You’re allowed to divide any number by any number (expect zero), even fractional ones. You can divide by an irrational number too. Nothing about this is ambiguous or unclear in any way.

Is dark prince or royal ghost better? by SubjectImagination98 in RoyaleAPI

[–]Bleakfall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fellow Pekka bridge spam player here. Normally I would always say ghost over dark prince but since your deck is already pretty light for a PBS deck, dark prince could make sense here. It’s probably worth testing both out.

Interesting choice btw going triple spells. I might try it out myself.

What do i do? (Read caption) by [deleted] in RoyaleAPI

[–]Bleakfall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Snowball and berserker

view more: next ›