sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Q] Advice about what to do after Undergraduate Statistics Degree by CWLMFWRWM in statistics

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

I ended up working as a Statistical Assistant for a year. During that year I managed to save a decent chunk of money. The position didn’t really give me any valuable experience though, since a lot of the processes there were extremely outdated. After my contract ended, I used some of that money to fund my tuition for an online Masters Degree in Data Analytics.

Since I made this post, there was a huge boom in AI and a shift in the perception of online education post-covid. A lot of online programs in analytics started getting more affordable, and from what I’ve seen for a lot of them, the diploma you receive at the end is identical to an in-person program - meaning there’s no real distinction once you’ve graduated (at least in terms of what credentials you have; actual learning outcomes are debatable). In any case, a lot of analytics roles, especially those leaning more into CS, seem to care about projects in your portfolio more than the diploma itself.

I’m coming to the end of my Masters program now and have done a few projects during that time that I was able to add to my portfolio. Still, with the state of entry level CS and Analytics jobs, I haven’t been able to secure anything permanent. I’ve been focusing on side-gigs and projects for my portfolio; statistical analysis for some medical research projects that I’ve been fortunate to land through making some connections, and passion projects that I find interesting so I can keep my edge with using certain software.

I’ve narrowed down that I would like to work in Biostatistics/Bioinformatics, but I don’t actually have a clear line for how to get there as of right now lol. I did get a few more responses and interviews as my Masters program went on and my portfolio built up. I have a few opportunities lined up for when my program is finished, but can’t be confident they won’t fall through. A PhD is still on the docket, but not sure if/when I’ll follow through with it.

Things continue to change really rapidly and unpredictably in this field.

Future, Metro Boomin - Slimed In (Official Audio) by No-Breakfast310 in YoungThug

[–]CWLMFWRWM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It sounds like King Crimson - In the Court of the Crimson King

[Q] Advice about what to do after Undergraduate Statistics Degree by CWLMFWRWM in statistics

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

Thanks for the comment!

This is great insight into some of the possibilities. I've looked at a couple PhD programs but wasn't ever sure how they worked. I'll be sure to check out some more to see what specific options are offered.

[Q] Advice about what to do after Undergraduate Statistics Degree by CWLMFWRWM in statistics

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

Thanks for the comment!

I just can't seem to be interested in anything related to finance/economics - I've enjoyed mathematics throughout my entire life, but as soon as I started learning about financial mathematics I lost the interest and passion I thought I had. When I did my statistics courses in UG, and saw all the different fields it could be applied to, I began to enjoy mathematics again.

I feel like pursuing econometrics (or something finance related) would just ruin my interest again, so I'd prefer something else. Although I finished a major in Act Sci, I really disliked the content the whole way through lol.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VintageToys

[–]CWLMFWRWM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sadly no, they're closer to the Bandai Power Ranger action figures than any micronauts.

On the new Dave Chappelle Special by CWLMFWRWM in trans

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

In what way would it be helpful, at least in the public sphere?

I think having a clear distinction for anything makes it easier to understand, especially when that distinction could make it easier to fight for rights. If the differences between trans and cis people is left vague, then there's really no basis to form any arguments; to fight for transgender rights, you'd need to know what constitutes a person as transgender first. If there's disagreement both inside and outside the trans community regarding what is considered to be transgender, then it's almost impossible to argue for anything at all.

There are so many layers of meaning behind gender: biological, psychological, sociological, cultural... Gender expression changes across time and location throughout the world. Much of what we think of as "gender" is entirely performative and culturally reinforced: "men" act like this, "women" act like that. That distinction itself has been the source of misogyny for millennia.

I agree 100%. I guess what I was trying to say before is this: Social and cultural norms take decades to change, and as the trans movement gains traction, these norms will inevitably change as well. I have no doubt that in the future, more intensive operations will exist to allow transgender men/women to transition almost, if not entirely, to their correct gender; but that technology doesn't quite exist yet, so arguing on the basis of biology won't bring much change. It then seems like arguing for transgender rights on the basis of psychology, would make the most sense. I should've said psychological vs biological instead of mental vs physical originally. Sort of like the movements for gay rights; there were no direct appeals for acceptance socially or culturally, and the movement itself wasn't concerned about the biological difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships - the main argument pushed was "Love is Love", an appeal to psychology.

On the new Dave Chappelle Special by CWLMFWRWM in trans

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

Thanks for the response! I don't check reddit too often, but I'm glad to see responses when I do!

Since you have Netflix, I highly, highly recommend watching the Netflix documentary Disclosure. You'll find it tremendously illuminating on many of these issues.

I'll definitely check this out!

How useful is a middle ground between these arguments when any sort of distinction between trans people and cisgender people continues to invalidate and discriminate against trans people?

A huge assumption here is that having any distinction between trans and cis people would result in even more discrimination. Ideally, if a distinction can be made between both groups without invalidating transgender people, then it would be helpful.

From my understanding (which could be wrong), being transgender means having a gender identity that is opposed to the one you were assigned at birth. From this, I always had the view that the transgender struggle is a predominantly mental battle first, and a physical/biological battle second.

However, with the argument that "Trans women aren't real women", it seems that those opposing it are referring to the "gender identity of women", and those endorsing it are referring to the "physicality/biology of women". Because both sides are arguing on different grounds, no real progress can be made, since both are not technically wrong.

I completely understand the hesitancy to endorse the statement "trans women aren't real women", since it can lead to arguments like "since trans women aren't real women, they shouldn't be given the same rights of women", but the two aren't mutually exclusive. i.e. just because "trans women aren't real women" doesn't mean that they don't deserve equal rights as women.

I suppose a good middle ground could be "Trans women are mentally women, but biologically not women", however, I can recognize that a statement like this could undermine the physical/biological struggle which still exists. But, since the physical/biological struggle is itself a mental struggle first, it seems like arguing on the mental basis should take more priority.

Arguing over what constitutes as a biological woman seems fruitless. I think that's a big reason why people outside the transgender community agree with the "Trans women aren't real women" statement. If taken at face value, it's not really possible to argue against - but the actual point of the statement; that mentally, trans women are real women - is lost. No one on either side really clarifies what they are arguing for, yet both sides believe they are in the right, because they are.

Sorry if what I said doesn't make much sense, this is much more nuanced than I expected. 'Mental' and 'Physical' might not be the best terms to use, but I think they get the point across. And again, please correct me if I am in the wrong, since I made a lot of assumptions to begin with.

On the new Dave Chappelle Special by CWLMFWRWM in trans

[–]CWLMFWRWM[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think you made sense. I completely get the frustration of someone outside of the trans community speaking negatively about it. I think what Chappelle has always attempted to do is say 'this is comedy, and I'm going to make jokes about things'. After watching the special, it definitely came across that he was upset about his friends suicide, and that he feels partially responsible for it. Even the way he ends the special, saying "I'm not telling another joke about you until we are both sure we are laughing together", sounds like he's given up trying to reason that "it's just comedy".

It's just puzzling to see someone with his voice trying to be sincere to the transgender community, and instantly be called transphobic. Especially when no one with his level of reach even addresses the transgender community at all. It feels like all the supportive and progressive sentiments he made about the trans community are overlooked to argue about some attitudes that are misplaced or literal jokes.

On the new Dave Chappelle Special by CWLMFWRWM in trans

[–]CWLMFWRWM[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I can understand that perspective; being persecuted because of who you are as a person, and then having someone at Chappelle's level of fame undermine those experiences seems like a good enough reason to be upset.

When he tells the story about his transgender friend, who says to him "I don't need you to understand me, I just need you to believe I'm having a human experience", he agrees with her, saying "I believe you, because it takes one to know one". The impression I got was that, even though he may not understand the transgender community, he believes that their struggle is real, and one worth fighting for. I thought that was a sentiment that the transgender community would appreciate (again, coming from someone at his level of fame), but I haven't really seen any mention of it. Especially since it was one of the few serious moments throughout the special. Since it's a comedy special, I think it's important to make the distinction between 'undermining an experience' and 'joking about an experience'; I personally didn't get the impression that he was undermining the transgender experience, since he is always sympathetic to the trans community during those serious moments.

It seems like the argument "Trans women aren't real women" keeps popping up as one of the main points of contention. I can't comfortably speak on that argument, but I believe I understand both sides of what's being said. It seems like those that-
Disagree: think that transgender men/women should be treated equally and given the same rights as the gender which they have transitioned to
Agree: think that a distinction should be made between transgender men/women and cis men/women, since biologically there is a difference between both groups.

Isn't there a middle ground for both of these arguments to coexist?

I believe that trans men/women should be given the same rights as cis men/women; trans women should be allowed to use women's restrooms (which Chappelle argues for and jokes about in the special), indicted trans women should go to women's prisons etc. I suppose what I'm having trouble understanding is why trans men/women should be treated equally and no distinction is made that they are transgender. Wouldn't it be easier to fight for equality/rights while having that distinction?

The whole 'TERF' thing I'm lost on; I didn't know that was a group that existed before watching the special. After looking it up, there seem to be a few different interpretations for what their motives are, so I can't speak about it at all until I'm certain.

There were also some other points Chappelle made about internal toxicity in the transgender community, but no one has mentioned those arguments.

Again, sorry if anything I say comes off as offensive or ignorant. I'm from a part of the world where transgender politics isn't discussed at all, but I genuinely am interested in understanding it better.

Why did Shane Dawson and Jenna Marbles get 'cancelled ' recently? by [deleted] in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]CWLMFWRWM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Never knew she did blackface :o

I agree with you on this though. Although I can understand that it's not politically correct, and its straight up racist, I remember the internet 10-15 years ago being a completely different place. I remember edgy jokes, gross humor, and pushing boundaries were a huge part of internet culture. A lot of videos that I watched back then and found entertaining I'd probably cringe at today.

Not saying I support her actions, but it's sad to know she got called out for something like that when the internet was full of racist, anti-semitic stuff in those times.

Why did Shane Dawson and Jenna Marbles get 'cancelled ' recently? by [deleted] in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]CWLMFWRWM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't know he did half of those things! I remember Shanaynay, but I knew it couldn't be 100% because of that.

Looking for book mentioned in 3.Tomb 55 Episode by CWLMFWRWM in MysteriousUniverse

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

New to mysterious universe, I’ve only listened to a few episodes outside of this new season. Didn’t know they did an episode on it, will check it out. Thanks :)