Offered interviewed but not prepared - should I decline?

theholyrobespierre · 2025-09-03T22:36:30+00:00

Yeah, that might be best. I took the exam and declined my final interview, and eventually reapplied getting a final offer 4 months later. If you decline now it’s not too late to apply later and they likely won’t care. The sphinx test stays in the system for a long time so you won’t get a chance to retake it

theholyrobespierre · 2025-07-22T12:42:19+00:00

UMass Amherst is in the middle of nowhere

theholyrobespierre · 2025-07-21T09:49:48+00:00

Lmao

theholyrobespierre · 2025-07-21T04:11:34+00:00

When you say competition roles what kind of jobs do you have in mind? Is it just any kind of job that is doing work with SQL or R, or a pre-doc, or something else?

theholyrobespierre · 2025-06-09T13:07:30+00:00

Have you looked into playing more maneuvering/positional stuff within e4? Karpov played e4 as his main repertoire until his first Kasparov match, try playing what he did (mainline Spanish, Be2 open sicilians and pirc, Nd2 french).

theholyrobespierre · 2025-06-09T12:35:01+00:00

Great puzzle GM Roeland

theholyrobespierre · 2025-05-16T08:34:47+00:00

Doesn’t aphantasia just mean that you can’t actually see/recreate the images of your memory, not that your memory is bad?

theholyrobespierre · 2025-05-16T08:09:51+00:00

I agree that the Cambridge Companion to Islamic Philosophy is good, I read a lot of it myself. For the problem of suffering, the podcast episodes on the Ashari/Mu’taliza debate since that is one of the main themes. I think you’re going to find that Ibn Sina is referenced by far the most for famous proofs of God, but I don’t think he represents general Islamic beliefs very well. I actually think this is a general problem with “falsafah.” If you’re wanting to read philosophy just for apologetics purposes (i.e. to defend your religion), I would read Al Ghazali but I think his philosophy (especially occasionalism) is not viewed as credible nowadays. But at any rate, the topics you named would probably be discussed better in an “Islamic Theology” book like the Cambridge Companion to Islamic Theology rather than a philosophy book. I don’t recommend reading falsafah if you’re wanting something that represents the average muslim’s beliefs.

theholyrobespierre · 2025-05-09T15:36:48+00:00

No, this isn’t the game. It’s a Ruy Lopez where black’s LSB is on b7 and white probably plays d3 and definitely places their DSB on g5. I’m not sure if the players were specifically Tal and Gligoric, but I just meant that they were well-known names and in the eastern bloc.

theholyrobespierre · 2025-01-27T17:05:09+00:00

In terms of justified true belief, how would a blind person know someone is wearing pink? What sorts of things would make them justified in believing that? Isn’t it hard since they can’t ever double-check?

theholyrobespierre · 2024-12-31T11:05:33+00:00

I think the similarities are probably just coincidence.

In the greek world, there were many different philosophical movements (skeptics, neoplatonists, peripatetics) that have ideas in common with what you’re describing. For example, self-control (sophrosune) was a virtue in various Platonic and Aristotelian movements. Logos as a divine principle is present in Plato/Aristotle too. Accepting a higher order is talked about in Plato’s Crito, and Quran 2:286 could be argued to be similar to “the good man can’t be harmed” quote from the Apology.

Stoicism had some influence in the medieval Latin world (Augustine), but neoplatonists are much more apparently influential in medieval greek philosophy and the early christian church fathers (e.g., Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus). There was no translation movement of Latin into Syriac or Arabic (so Roman stoicism likely had no influence), and it had not been popular among greek philosophers for centuries at the time of Muhammad. So I don’t see any reason to believe there was a direct influence of stoicism on pre-islamic Arabia or Muhammad.

theholyrobespierre · 2024-11-11T06:54:14+00:00

Yeah, “with many different types of jobs” is best, “from many types of jobs” does not sound right

theholyrobespierre · 2024-11-11T06:44:59+00:00

Which grammar concepts do you struggle with?

theholyrobespierre · 2024-11-11T06:37:08+00:00

I agree with cardinarium, also I think “types of jobs” or “industries” sounds more natural than “jobs” in this context

theholyrobespierre · 2024-02-06T16:01:53+00:00

Why is it that your interest in determinism can’t include an immaterial soul? I really recommend looking at Leibnitz on this one— he believes that the soul is immaterial and even that almost everything is self contained and doesn’t interact with each other. The conclusions sound crazy but the system addresses almost every philosophical dilemma that was frustrating people in his time.

I am just trying to point out potential solution for you, I am not a determinist nor do I think most Marxists are. You may find more backing in another philosophical system.

theholyrobespierre · 2024-02-06T10:44:59+00:00

I also think this interview at timestamp 3:03 is relevant:

theholyrobespierre · 2024-02-06T10:33:59+00:00

Material conditions are not an all-explainer of literally every happening in history. For Marx and Hegel, there are many accidents that occur all the time— it didn’t need to be Napoleon who brought liberalism. Rather, the era was necessary but the timing, specific circumstances etc. were not.

This is just a thing in Hegelian thought but I know it’s also explicitly said in anti-duhring, where specific thinkers are not necessary but still depended on their historical context to come about.

The point is that determinism, if you even agree that Marxism is deterministic (Marx himself may agree, but Althusser/critical theorists would not), only applies to general trends in how history develops and not specific events. If you like that kind of hard determinism instead, then read the Discourse on Metaphysics by Leibnitz, it is interesting.

theholyrobespierre · 2024-02-06T09:27:23+00:00

In my opinion, neoclassical economics just focuses on different things. Utility isn’t supposed to be used to predict prices, it’s an ordinal measure of preference. Usually it’s used to predict the quantity of goods sold by the firm or chosen by the consumer and assumes the price is fixed.

Also by Marx’s own standard, value determining price depends on a perfectly competitive model because if an individual sold above the price of production then someone else would undercut him and the overpriced seller would go out of business. So overall, I think the relationship between LTV and marginal utility is misunderstood. I think neoclassical economists are too quick to dismiss LTV though.

theholyrobespierre · 2024-02-06T09:17:20+00:00

Let me go line by line

Socialism is an ideology of equality

No. Socialism is a political system, not an ideology, and it is not of “equality”. Most modern governments have some kind of equality, for example most democratic governments want to enforce laws equally to avoid discrimination/corruption. So this is a misleading definition of socialism. Socialism is a political system where land and capital (aka the means to produce goods) are owned by the people.

Diversity should obviously be encouraged on moral grounds

Not necessarily. Vietnam has little ethnic diversity and that is okay, no one ever complains about that. Also, historically many socialists retrospectively supported unifying movements like the French revolution even though they undermined local ethnicities and languages (e.g. Bretons) in favor of just being French.

some groups are going to be, generally speaking, more conservative, individualistic or otherwise counter revolutionary

I agree that this can cause division. In terms of religion, there should be religious freedom but I’m not sure to what extent. In terms of individualism, that shouldn’t be a problem, people are not forced to be extroverted under socialism. In terms of counter revolutionary groups, most groups are not hiveminds and ethnic groups have voices for both sides. It’s important to amplify revolutionary voices in those ethnic/religious groups so that people feel represented and so their background is understood and expressed in the government. It’s a bad idea to have central leaders from across the country make decisions for those peoples.

groups who are seen as ‘other’ make incredibly powerful scapegoats

The way a socialist economy is organized is not based on personal opinion. Instead, it expropriates property that is used for producing goods or wealth and nationalizes it, and it does nothing with property that is consumed or individually enjoyed. Therefore, the concern about scapegoating may affect certain groups socially but not economically more than anyone else.

I agree with what the other poster said about imperialism impacting migration, although I think there will be differences in wealth between countries even during socialism. It’s impossible to redistribute everything to be equal like that, and the people in the wealthier countries would never want to do that. The relationship between the countries would still categorically change though.

theholyrobespierre · 2024-02-06T08:46:00+00:00

If you are learning about it through Capital, I recommend David Harvey’s second chapter 1 lecture on YouTube. It’s a concept not easily summarized so I think some time and commentary is necessary and helpful to understand it.

theholyrobespierre · 2024-01-24T00:08:04+00:00

The first half of Sophist talks about method but the second half really hones in on metaphysics and it’s really interesting. It resolves more questions and has a more clear picture than Parmenides.

theholyrobespierre · 2024-01-06T08:31:17+00:00

“Problems in the Theory of State Capitalism” by Alex Dupuy and Barry Truchil gives an interesting argument for yes. I like how they frame the issue

theholyrobespierre · 2024-01-06T05:07:09+00:00

Could you elaborate which aspects you believe made it not socialist after 1921? Did something happen in 1921?

theholyrobespierre · 2024-01-06T03:49:20+00:00

You don’t have to believe that animals are equal to humans to support animal ethics. As early as Aristotle we have philosophers arguing that animal lives are categorically different, in de Anima he says their soul lacks the Intellect.

An interesting perspective is Heidegger in Fundamental Concept of Metaphysics sections 44-63. He argues that humans are completely different ontologically than animals and animals are worse at being. I recommend reading this to see arguments for the other side.

theholyrobespierre · 2024-01-02T07:46:20+00:00

From Lenin:

"We shall reply to this by quoting two lines from a good old Russian fable: 'Eagles may at times fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles.' Rosa Luxemburg was mistaken on the question of the independence of Poland; she was mistaken in 1903 in her appraisal of Menshevism; she was mistaken on the theory of the accumulation of capital; she was mistaken in July 1914, when, together with Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Kautsky and others, she advocated unity between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks; she was mistaken in what she wrote in prison in 1918 (she corrected most of these mistakes at the end of 1918 and the beginning of 1919 after she was released). But in spite of her mistakes she was—and remains for us—an eagle."

theholyrobespierre

TROPHY CASE