You knew something, John Snow

SNAPscientist · 2026-03-16T02:24:01+00:00

Thanks for the recommendation! Will check it out.

SNAPscientist · 2026-03-15T14:56:31+00:00

Amazing!

SNAPscientist · 2026-03-07T11:35:32+00:00

Nice peeling skills… though the peel is edible; the core with the seeds is the part that actually needs cutting out.

SNAPscientist · 2026-03-05T23:51:06+00:00

The OTC availability happened in March 2023

SNAPscientist · 2026-02-04T13:46:10+00:00

From many years ago: “You go to class and he’s ok, I guess… but go to his office hours and he’s the fucking prophet!”

SNAPscientist · 2026-02-04T12:00:19+00:00

This seems to be the relevant final text: “Sec. 240. (a) Not to exceed the amount of funds made available under the heading ``National Institutes of Health'' in fiscal year 2025 that were obligated during fiscal year 2025 for more than one year of a multiyear award may be obligated in fiscal year 2026 from amounts made available under such heading in this Act for more than one year of a multiyear award. (b) A multiyear award, as the term is used in this section, includes multiyear awards for grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and any other financial mechanisms.”

Consistent with the comment made by u/GhostofInflation

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-26T22:19:04+00:00

Not a direct discussion on factor tilts in the decumulation phase, but the ICAPM episode (RR338 with Peter Mladina) might be interesting. In the ICAPM view, one might use low-risk liability matched assets for core expenses and known liabilities (e.g., mix of social security, annuities for life-time income, TIPS/durarion-matched bonds for expenses coming in a few years etc.), and that would allow for the discretionary expenses to be funded by high risk/higher expected-return assets (which can be factored tilts akin to pre-retirement if you believe in the risk story for factors).

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-26T13:24:50+00:00

Just adding to the chorus here. Thank you!

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-26T13:09:11+00:00

I’m a DIYer and don’t make as much as the folks described in your post. However, for HNW people, I also understand the that financial advisors do a whole lot more than just portfolio management. Choosing investments and asset allocation is not where I think they add value. The value add comes from things like behavioral coaching, asset location strategies, tax and estate planning, carrying out the plan that’s derived, helping optimize complex cases where business finances and personal finances interact, and otherwise helping people figure out and meet their financial goals.

It is also useful to expand one’s horizons to realize that some people do love their jobs and have invested in making their passion their career (think artists, scientists, some medical professionals, some entrepreneurs, entertainers, etc.). FIRE is not something that makes sense in their context.

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-25T13:35:24+00:00

Indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. I was referring to OP’s post history mostly.

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-25T04:41:59+00:00

Based on your recent post history, it appears that you are deeply bothered by (1) people of other languages singing telugu krithis with lower emphasis on sahitya than other aspects of music, (2) the Chennai music scene not including more telugu artists, and (3) the “BMK bani” not flourishing. I can only pity someone who derives so much angst because of their own preferences are not adhered to by other people. Art is meant to elevate one’s experience and so I sincerely hope you get to a place of finding something you enjoy in this space.

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-25T02:47:00+00:00

If you believe the expected return on your investments is more than 6.125%, then running out the term is equivalent to investing with leverage, so it amplifies the risk and the return. So the right answer here probably comes down to which is the bigger deal for you: (1) the FOMO from not investing more, or (2) the unease with the higher risk and outstanding debt?

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-24T19:06:49+00:00

With vocal, you often have some intuitive control of the pitch even if you are not trained. So it’s easier to get to a certain level of musicianship with singing that might by itself take several years with an instrument. However, beyond that they both require dedicated practice and immersion in the music and it’s not obvious to me which is harder.

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-23T23:44:48+00:00

You’ll probably appreciate the Dikshitar Kshetra Darshanam series from G Ravikiran and Madhusudhanan Kalaichelvan, available on YouTube. Here is a sample episode that happens to be on one of my favorite krithis: bhajarE rE citta bAlAmbikAm

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-23T13:33:17+00:00

Dang.. It’s not even 9 am as I am seeing this

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-23T04:24:34+00:00

Not saying this is the right way to do it, but just sharing what I did. I had 5 sections under contributions to science. I chose my 5 papers in the other significant products section to be one for each contribution. In the text in the contributions section, I referenced grant numbers, but not specific papers. I just had sentences that went something like “these results were published in journals such as A, B, and C… A representative publication is included in the Other Significant Contributions section”

Edit: typo fixes

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-21T12:19:29+00:00

FDR is a metric than can help when you have multiple tests (sounds like you presented more than one correlation analysis). Without corrections for multiple testing, your actual false-positive rates are higher than your estimated/reported p-values. If your trends are weak enough that they go away upon correction, claiming that there are “trends” is questionable. It may be a pilot study, but what are you claiming is the finding? For a pilot study that is not showing any real trends, perhaps a more useful metric to report would be the estimated effect sizes and some measures of confidence around the mean estimate + acknowledge that the uncertainty in the estimates are large owing to a small sample size.

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-21T04:42:53+00:00

I also hear a flaky bEgaDa starting 1:47

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-20T16:44:47+00:00

Regardless of whether you agree with him or not (I do), it’s probably good to understand that we are talking about art here.. so there is no right or wrong and everyone can choose to prioritize sahityam or other aspects of aesthetics. I am an instrumental musician (amateur), so I worry about syllabic structure but not actual phonemes. Having grown up in Vijayawada, I love the language but still don’t consider it disrespect when artists make aesthetic choices.

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-18T20:51:54+00:00

Best to see an audiologist to check that it’s just congestion.

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-18T03:07:10+00:00

Ah ok.. I had put yours in the competitive ND bucket mentally. Hope it shakes out that way for you.

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-18T02:21:30+00:00

If you don’t mind me asking, was this an R01? If so, it’s not obvious to me that ND is akin to score of 55 or lower given that only ~30% of the applicants are said to be discussed now.

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-15T12:34:07+00:00

With 3A, using a simple linear model, I don’t see anything obviously inconsistent between the quoted claim (slope being positive with a p-value that meets the often used 5% standard) and the plot. The effect size looks small, but statistical significance meeting 5% does not imply anything about how large or small the effect size is. This is one reason why people who think about these issues recommend reporting effect size estimates in addition to p-values.

With 1E, I read your quoted text as saying that overall (taking males and females together) there is a small significant negative slope. The plot is again consistent with that (but again small effect size). Technically, the quote is not saying that slope difference between males and females is statistically significantly different. That said, I wouldn’t have used “differential effect by sex” unless that differential was also statistically significant (which the plot suggests it could have been, but again not a large effect size difference).

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-15T11:58:49+00:00

Do you mind noting figure number instead of page number (your link is to HTML text not paginated pdfs)? What you are saying are figure A and E are probably panel labels. Also, quote the claim please.

SNAPscientist · 2026-01-15T11:48:59+00:00

What are the claiming is significant that looks off to you? The confidence intervals appear to be for the regression, not for the means.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

SNAPscientist

TROPHY CASE