How quickly we forget how far we’ve come. A fun look back at how we interacted with technology in the year 2000, before smartphones, (seemingly) ubiquitous connectivity, and digital footprints.
kay
the digital home of a digitally-minded gal
On being grownups about childish behavior
On being grownups about childish behavior
Quite possibly the best summation of the polarisation (and in many cases, absolute idiocy / insidiousness) of the Adria Richards / PyCon commentary. Well said, Tom.
a much welcomed twist to the Bechdel test
In the lead up to International Women’s Day this Friday, I’ll be speaking to 6th form (16/17 year olds) and university students tonight at Nokia, sharing my tales of being a woman in science / tech. It’s part of the Remarkable Women programme I’m a part of, celebrating women in business, government, science and technology in the UK. (Fun sidepoint, I’m the “open science technologist” in their compilation. Quite like that.)
Now, having long been one of the only folks in the room without a Y chromosome, I know firsthand some of the “hardships” in being a woman in science, business and technology. I’ve got the stories of rampant misogyny, outrageous pickup lines, and foibles just like the rest. But I also know what an incredibly slippery slope it is to start dissecting the “why”, or to make broad, sweeping generalisations about gender, sector differences, etc.
It’s complicated. For example, I, personally, had male mentors – really tough, frighteningly intelligent ones, as a matter of fact. No one had to put me in touch with a female role model to help me understand where I fit in this space or console me when I got thrown the token think-you’re-the-assistant-heckler – I sought that guidance through other means. And that worked for me. But unfortunately, some of the dialogue around gender bias and even themes for these events seems to skip that point (or, to one extreme, act is if I’ve been slighted by having that experience). Not all of us fit that mold – and that’s also something to celebrate.
This post on a twist to the Bechdel test echoes many of the points I raise that are sadly, oft neglected from “Women in X” meetings.
There’s also this brilliant “Dear future women in technology …” post by @bitchwhocodes which really resonates.
I’m going to see if I can adhere to the points raised in the first linked post for tonight’s event, lead by example and all that. I wonder if they’ll notice.
For more on International Women’s Day (technically Friday, March 8th), visit their website.
From quantum mechanics to NFL predictions
Fun collection of iPython notebooks and resources, including ones on laser models, analysis of the financial crisis, look at the mining disaster and more. There are even a few broader resources (ie., “Git for Scientists: A Tutorial“) sprinkled in.
Although the tools have become more advanced, the general practice of science hasn’t changed in hundreds of years.
Everything from the way projects are funded to the way results are publicized is based on a model that’s been around since the time of Newton. There are some notable exceptions, but the majority of institutions are structured in a way that worked in the past, but now hinders scientific progress.
Josh Siegle, PhD student at MIT, in this Quora thread on the most frustrating things about being a scientist.
“Dear brilliant students, Please consider not doing a PhD.”
Thought-provoking rant from a career academic on what to really expect from pursuing a PhD (including some um, colorful, language 
). Not sure I see this as a blanket statement (I don’t think it was intended as such), but the author does raise some interesting points.
Is the process, expense, and as articulated in this post, sometimes pain worth it? Is it as necessary as it was in years past to get ahead in your career? Does getting real world experience after university put you at an advantage over the student who pursues a PhD straight after?
Note: I don’t have a PhD and I’ve always been a huge proponent of alternate forms of credibility and learning. I’ve also been on the receiving end of elitist scoffs from circles where letter after your surname seem to matter more than my track record and mind.
Where do you fall?
institutionalising serendipity (and randomised coffee trials)
A clever reminder to mingle with your colleagues and infuse a little serendipity into your life. Seems so straightforward and alarmingly simple when you look at it, but let’s be honest with ourselves, how many of us actually take time out to do this on a weekly or monthly basis even?
NESTA is currently undergoing an informal survey of 60+ staffers. Hot damn. More on the initiative below.
“Inspired by Pedro Medina’s discussion of serendipity*, Nesta’s Randomised Coffee Trials (RCT) initiative responds to Pedro’s dual challenge of appreciating the benefits of serendipity and the need to ‘build new fishing systems’.
Nesta staff that have opted-in are sent a weekly randomised match with another Nesta staff member and the two are invited to grab a coffee together. There are no requirements or obligations regarding the topics discussed, some RCTs are spent entirely on work-related matters, others are entirely personal in nature.
It is just a coffee, but at the same time it is much more. RCTs give staff from across the organisation an ‘excuse’, an opportunity to meet, catch up and build connections with the people around them. This has resulted in staff from different departments learning about unexpected synergies between their work, as well as created an increased level of comfort for subsequently approaching others regarding potential collaborations.”
Well done, NESTA.
More at Institutionalising Serendipity via Productive Coffee Breaks.
