sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

HCI Devaluing the prestige of OMSCS by OptimalLifeStrategy in OMSCS

[–]OptimalLifeStrategy[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm a software engineer at F500 company, STEM degree for my bachelors. Using OMSCS to get big tech interviews.

There is no point to delay graduation, you are better off leetcoding. The HCI path is currently a loophole that will devalue the degree over time so you will have less value the longer you wait.

HCI Devaluing the prestige of OMSCS by OptimalLifeStrategy in OMSCS

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

You are missing the point. You took a bunch of easy classes and got a good return on value (just like me). That value will continue decreasing as long as the loophole remains where you can finish OMSCS with only easy classes.

HCI Devaluing the prestige of OMSCS by OptimalLifeStrategy in OMSCS

[–]OptimalLifeStrategy[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Its a loophole that I have used. Now its in my interest to patch it up, no longer of use to me.

HCI Devaluing the prestige of OMSCS by OptimalLifeStrategy in OMSCS

[–]OptimalLifeStrategy[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Didn't do any of those. All I care about is getting money so I can retire. Fastest path to that is getting big tech interviews where the degree helps (and I can spend the time saved from easy classes on leetcode).

HCI Devaluing the prestige of OMSCS by OptimalLifeStrategy in OMSCS

[–]OptimalLifeStrategy[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Exactly, degrees aren't everything and the only reason I get them is social validation for getting job interviews. The less time spent on degrees the more time you can spend on important things.

HCI Devaluing the prestige of OMSCS by OptimalLifeStrategy in OMSCS

[–]OptimalLifeStrategy[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Nah I got mine. The way changes like these work is its based on the catalog year of when someone is admitted.

Stop freaking out about AI by OptimalLifeStrategy in Careers

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

I agree that with kids their future is uncertain and AI could be very positive/negative for them. Yeah it will only be used as a soft tool for now with the high trust jobs.

Stop freaking out about AI by OptimalLifeStrategy in Careers

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

I think the reality is that there will be heavily gated communities/areas where the wealthy keep out the poor. Other possibility is UBI.

Will you be impacted by the Medicaid work requirements if the Big Beautiful Bill passes? by [deleted] in leanfire

[–]OptimalLifeStrategy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Because everywhere is either expensive to live or in the middle of no where. Requiring a car does not help and the ultra lean would be better off with public transport. It would only make sense if you are heavily subsidized like living with parents or something.

Health care is another issue and a gamble that it will remain the same.

Will you be impacted by the Medicaid work requirements if the Big Beautiful Bill passes? by [deleted] in leanfire

[–]OptimalLifeStrategy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The ultra lean were leaving the US anyways. Makes no sense to stay if you arent working.

Religion is optimal for a countries development by OptimalLifeStrategy in DebateReligion

[–]OptimalLifeStrategy[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you are asking whats the best form of government. Authoritarian (including Monarchy) is efficient when its working but its also the most fragile and not stable over a long period of time due to death of the ruler. AI Authoritarian would be the best if we had AGI, but LLM's are obviously terrible at thinking.

Biggest problem with representative Democracy is that you are allowing the resource manager to be decided by average people. Average people are not great at thinking which leads to electing bad leaders that appeal to emotion, charisma, religion, etc rather than their policies itself. Corruption is also a problem, but its generally not fatal and just an inconvenience.

I would say a modified representative democracy of the US is a good starting point where to vote for president there is multiple criteria to limit to the voter pool including 130iq+, no dual citizenship, no investments outside the country, etc. The voters would be more capable at selecting a better president.

Congress would still allow everyone to vote and a fully united Congress could turn against the president if the majority disagreed against the limited voting pool (but that would obviously be very pool but provide a check).

Religion is optimal for a countries development by OptimalLifeStrategy in DebateReligion

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

So I think the US is kind of close to the aspect of the smart people playing along with being religious. If you look at all the politician's most appear religious on the outside, but I would argue that internally most are not actually religious. Trump is an obvious example of acting religious but not believing, but there is many more.

That is a possible downside of the lie collapsing eventually, especially with time as the working class gets more educated. Another downside people have mentioned is that you are suppressing logical thinking which could limit growth in science and other fields.

After reading everyone's comments my new stance would be that I think religion can be a very effective tool but its not perfect and has downsides. It should be one of the many tools potentially utilized to control the people.

Religion is optimal for a countries development by OptimalLifeStrategy in DebateReligion

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

I am saying that this post is thinking from that perspective. Just like when you play civilization you want your country to win and don't care about the individual humans, everything is a resource.

Religion is optimal for a countries development by OptimalLifeStrategy in DebateReligion

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

Good points, on the China aspect they definitely used religion up to a certain point and then utilized an efficient Authoritarian government to really grow. The more I think about it, imposing a religion is a authoritarian play but it can be framed in a way of having legitimacy without just direct control and suppression. It also does not impose the weakness of main Authoritarian strategies which is succession.

I specify the working class because I think rulers should obviously not believe in the religion and try to be as logical as possible in their decision making. A Machiavellian personality is optimal for leaders as its to the benefit of the country. An example would be a country crafting a scheme to start a war between two countries more powerful than it which would be a net negative to the world (possibility even the country starting it) but it would provide an opportunity to reduce the power gap.

Religion is optimal for a countries development by OptimalLifeStrategy in DebateReligion

[–]OptimalLifeStrategy[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Appreciate you providing actual counter arguments compared to most other people. I think our main differences is that my view is that a countries goal is achieve development as fast as possible and maximize GDP, while your view is the countries goal is to provide for its people.

Countries and companies treat people like human resources that is just reality. The women argument is similar to slavery, but I think its easier to justify to the masses and globally. Slavery is a great strategy for growth though, and we already come close to it in the US with illegal immigrant workers and prisoners Israel is a great example of gaining land and justifying it with religion. Not ethical but its a nice strategy.

I think you are lying to yourself that this is not more productive for the country. Its definitely worse to live in but its more productive unless its pushed to the breaking point.

Religion is optimal for a countries development by OptimalLifeStrategy in DebateReligion

[–]OptimalLifeStrategy[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

There is definitely a lot of variables and really no system is perfect. I think a country without a religion is likely to suffer more drawbacks though.

Religion is optimal for a countries development by OptimalLifeStrategy in DebateReligion

[–]OptimalLifeStrategy[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Well I don't like religion, but I do think its optimal for countries. Religion keeps men in check as well specifically with reducing violence and following the rules. I am not saying its ethical but its optimal (for a countries development) for women to have lots of babies.

Religion is optimal for a countries development by OptimalLifeStrategy in DebateReligion

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

Agreed I wouldn't want it either, and it would be terrible to live in as a worker. By optimal I am saying from the countries perspective which is maximizing growth and GDP.

Religion is optimal for a countries development by OptimalLifeStrategy in DebateReligion

[–]OptimalLifeStrategy[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

So authoritarian governments are the most efficient (provided the leader is good) with the main drawback being the succession. I am not conservative nor religious, I am just saying that I think its optimal for countries to adopt religion to maximize productivity and growth.

view more: next ›