Why does Computer Science get so much hatred on /sci/? Salary wise, it's about the same (or better) as any other hard science and is only slightly behind physics.

File: 99 KB, 1036x1041, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:35:37 2020 No.11948818 [Reply] [Original]

Why does Computer Science get so much hatred on /sci/?

Salary wise, it's about the same (or better) as any other hard science and is only slightly behind physics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:39:13 2020 No.11948825 Damn maybe I should get an economics degree. Those business econ chads always did seem to be rich for doing a whole lotta nothing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:41:15 2020 No.11948829 >>11948818 Also OP, what is the source on that info?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:43:32 2020 No.11948834 >>11948829 Excel spreadsheet I created to rank the salaries found on https://www.kaggle.com/wsj/college-salaries/data.. The data was compiled by the Wall Street Journal

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:47:39 2020 No.11948844

>>11948818
>Why does Computer Science get so much hatred on /sci/?
Because much like /g/ the faggots on this board never shut the fuck up about it. Also CS doesn't mean jack shit when you break it down, its a family of specific careers none of which are labeled "CS".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:48:27 2020 No.11948847 fucking normies would never understand that CS is objectively the best degree

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:53:37 2020 No.11948854

>>11948818
Look at it this way. Good ol’ Steve can graduate with a BS in CS and be on the fast track to making 200K by the time he’s 30 with zero student loan debt while anon here will be working towards a PhD straight out of undergrad with accumulating interest on his sallie mae loan. By time he’s finished, he’ll be 26, deeply in debt, and will be lucky to land a well paying job depending on his grades, and if we’re being honest here, /sci/ people aren’t the smartest of the bunch, so they’ll most likely be pigeon holed into academia teaching aspiring CS chads linear algebra and will go home to their bland wife and spaghetti for the next 30 year. Moral of story: don’t be like anon and get a CS degree.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:57:50 2020 No.11948867

>>11948818
>Why does Computer Science get so much hatred on /sci/?
This has been answered dozens of times. The undergrad major has a large number of stupid students who went in expecting easy money, and these students don't realize that they're stupid.
With that said, I think some people underestimate how bad that problem is in engineering fields.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 00:59:41 2020 No.11948871 >>11948867 I'm a CS/Math double major and half the kids in my freshman year programming courses were Computer Engineering transfers

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:00:21 2020 No.11948873 File: 209 KB, 988x400, 1550356048684.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11948818 >Why does Computer Science get so much hatred on /sci/? It's the least math intensive stem mayor.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:09:42 2020 No.11948900 >>11948834 Got ya. Interesting info. I have even less qualms now about doing that finance/econ degree that I mentioned earlier. Real easy money. Makes sense when FA's don't even need degrees to clear 300k+/year.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:13:58 2020 No.11948909

>>11948873
That's just the difference from a codemonkey who probably isn't even a CS major (probably a "hobbyist" or pajeet) and somebody actually in CS.

It has less math than Math (obviously) and physics, but more than Biology and (probably) Chemistry.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:16:03 2020 No.11948914 >>11948909 >more than chemistry well if you exclude quantum/physical chemistry, biophysics and mathematical biology then yes this is correct. they're still tards.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:19:35 2020 No.11948921

>>11948818
>unironically believing meme sources
1. This data doesn't match with data from government sources
2. This doesn't take into account number of job openings. Chemical engineering does pay the most but within the next decade there will only be 2000 new job openings in the US. The major is a dead end irregardless of the supposed high pay only enjoyed by a tiny group of people.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:21:29 2020 No.11948926

>>11948921
>1. This data doesn't match with data from government sources
The data is from the WSJ, though a bit outdated
>This doesn't take into account number of job openings
Granted, but I am not aware of any objective way to measure that AND compare it to the income without coming up with some arbitrary formula that would be criticized for biases

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:22:59 2020 No.11948934 File: 44 KB, 646x525, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11948873 I don't know what I was expecting

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:23:36 2020 No.11948935 >>11948818 people who get degrees in it aren't usually the best people. thats why nothing inherently wrong with computer science. people go into it for the money so you get retard money seekers.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:28:54 2020 No.11948939

>>11948818
>Salary wise
no one gives a fuck about your salary. what makes or breaks a field of study is not it's wagecuck attributes but instead what separates a kino subject from a niggerlicious one is how rigorous and aesthetically pleasing it is. For this reason, I personally enjoy math more than physics even though I majored in physics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:29:02 2020 No.11948941 >>11948818 Because /sci/ is not /g/. Simple as that. Comp Sci is the only industry that's innovating right now.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:38:35 2020 No.11948957

>>11948818
>Salary wise, it's about the same (or better) as any other hard science and is only slightly behind physics.
salarywise it's not even close but expect the paycuts to come

>>11948941
>industry
academia for CS is pretty garbage
all milled out non replicated papers that exist as resume filler for a google job

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:42:32 2020 No.11948963 >>11948818 We literally had this thread and it hit its logical conclusion: >>11942065

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:43:06 2020 No.11948966
File: 71 KB, 540x540, 1595817970408.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11948818
Just started my CS Major and most of the fellow students are Gooks. I thought with the Corona virus lock downs it would be nearly impossible to have this many gooks in my class, but no. They're still everywhere. Most of them were wearing fucking sandals and tracksuit pants, they all smell like fucking eggs AHHHHHHHHH
I've been doing programming as a hobby and even did a Degree at tafe (AusFag community college) and now im stuck doing basic introductions to what the fuck a processor and RAM is with all these smelly gooks who I can't tell if they're my age or 15. We don't even get to program anything until the 2nd fucking semester and even then its a reintroduction to Java...

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:44:10 2020 No.11948968

>>11948871
literally everyone takes intro programming.
you'll find computer engineering dropouts / transfers taking the most codemonkey courses in the CS departments, while the CS majors worth listening to usually take graduate algorithms, complexity, OS, etc..
Incidentally, most of them are math / CS double majors, soo

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:45:23 2020 No.11948973 >>11948909 >>11948914 >It has less math than Math (obviously) and physics Yeah if your program is bad and you don't focus on theoretical CS. Actual theoretical CS in grad is based

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:46:43 2020 No.11948979 >>11948957 >academia for CS is pretty garbage What do you mean by academia? Undergrad is good at the top 15-25 schools, and top 40 grad programs (phd) are ridiculously well funded for high impact research.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:50:31 2020 No.11948992

>>11948957
>salarywise it's not even close
>>compare to physics, math, chemistry, and biology
>>better than all of them for starting median wage and 25th percentile salary
>>slightly behind physics ($1800/year) for 50th percentile salary
>>physics and math are ahead for 75th and 90th percentiles
>>but CS is still making well into 6 figures at those percentiles
>>CS's average rank across all percentiles is only beaten by Physics
Seems like it's pretty close (or better) than the others.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:50:35 2020 No.11948993

>>11948973
No, you don’t understand they simply do more math than CSfags its not even debatable. Diff geo and functional analysis, measure theory and PDE’s is much harder than combinatorics and numerical analysis.
>>11948979
He’s saying the quality of CS research is extremely poor and doesn’t replicate well. This is especially true in ML/deep learning and in applied CS fields like comp bio. He’s not talking about how big the brains of CSfaggots are or who took more math you fucking retard lmao. Physics is the only field with solid methodology and understanding of statistical analysis of experimental results, that’s why their shit actually replicates. They also study well understood phenomena unlike most other STEM research fields.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:52:51 2020 No.11949006

>>11948973
It makes no logical sense that math would have less math than CS. Math is, by definition, 100% math. Physics will also be almost entirely equations and math problems, outside of some lab stuff.

A proper CS course will have math (and moreso than generic biology/chemistry), but it's not even close.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:53:33 2020 No.11949008

>>11948941
>Because /sci/ is not /g/.
computer science (proper) is /sci/. not /g/
your software dev job is not CS
your distro aesthetics thread is not CS
your plug n chug into tensorflow is not CS
your ugly grep / bash hacks are not CS

This is CS:
http://ramakrishnadas.cs.uchicago.edu/gct4.pdf
This is CS:
http://world.std.com/~rjs/indinf56.pdf
This is CS:
https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/DIFGEO-ppm.pdf
This is CS:
http://cs.brown.edu/~mph/HerlihyS99/p858-herlihy.pdf

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:54:02 2020 No.11949011 File: 426 KB, 630x1190, reproducibility-graphic-online3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11948993 >He’s saying the quality of CS research is extremely poor and doesn’t replicate well. This is an issue in general.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:55:21 2020 No.11949014 File: 502 KB, 950x950, the rig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11949008 >implying my rig isn't /sci/

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 01:57:55 2020 No.11949021

>>11948993
>No, you don’t understand they simply do more math than CSfags its not even debatable
Yes, I do. I double majored in honors for both.
>Diff geo and functional analysis,
most undergrads do only deCarmo for diff geo. Most undergrads, unless they're the top 10%, do not do functional except maybe for baby functional in analysis ii. I know, because I was one of those students.
>measure theory is hard
as an undergrad? Most of it, at the Folland level is just following the results in the book and using basic properties. The proofs are involved but they're not "hard"
>PDEs
LOL not at the undergrad level
>harder than combinatorics
lmao
>numerical analysis
not exactly comparable?
>He’s saying the quality of CS research is extremely poor and doesn’t replicate well.
Not true in theory for obvious reasons, and not exactly true for any paper you'd see from JMLR either?
>Physics is the only field with solid methodology
Ah, you're that fag who infests these boards again. Yeah, fuck off bud - lmao physics has its own problems with both funding and actual research at the PhD, especially on the side of theory these days. Only condensed matter groups are generally putting out good theory work.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 02:00:14 2020 No.11949028

>>11949006
>It makes no logical sense that math would have less math than CS.
I didn't mean to imply this, but I do imply that TCS is a subfield of mathematics. It's literally just theorems in propositions-proof-lemma using the familiar notation, structures, language, etc.
>Physics will also be almost entirely equations and math problems, outside of some lab stuff.
This is the most naive view of physics. The mathematics of physics are well studied in mathematical physics, but physics itself is distinct from mathematics, and a lot of the big work splits the difference. The methodology of mathematicians and rigor isn't even comparable.
>but it's not even close
have you never done domain theory, computational topology, or topics in complexity theory? Any of the papers in
>>11949008

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 02:15:50 2020 No.11949047 >>11949028 I never said there wasn't math in CS. But there is a LOT of CS which is not math, while comparatively much less so in physics. Please work on your reading comprehension before you start making snippy comments towards others.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 02:19:53 2020 No.11949052

>>11949047
>But there is a LOT of CS which is not math, while comparatively much less so in physics.
I'm not going to claim experiment doesn't have mathematics, but I am going to say that the mathematics in physics isn't being studied like mathematics a lot of the time. If you're in a room with a physicist and one with a mathematician, what they're "doing" with mathematics is fundamentally different, while what mathematicians and theoretical computer scientists do is literally the same, but with different department culture.
>But there is a LOT of CS which is not math
>Please work on your reading comprehension before you start making snippy comments towards others.
Lmao, work on yours first. I literally said:
>Yeah if your program is bad and you don't focus on theoretical CS.
I've been talking about theoretical computer science this entire time. Fuck most other fields except systems and (some) computer vision and theoretical machine learning...which is still mostly theory anyway.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 02:36:24 2020 No.11949073

>>11949011
Its not an issue in physics and it is much worse issue for soft sciences and fields like CS.
>>11949021
>Double majored
Then your experience doesn't apply
>most undergrads only do deCarmo
This isn't true at all lmao what are you talking about? I don't want to dox but I know for a fact that at the flagship in my home state they use Lee.
>They're not hard
And neither is Algo Analysis or Combinatorics brainletry. Measure theory and Real Analysis are much harder as they are significantly more abstract and rely less on preexisting intuitions.
>Not at the undergrad level
Again lying, we do PDE's in my physics and math programs and we have proof based PDE's courses that teach out of Evans. Everyone doing theoretical physics, applied math, and dynamical systems does Evans level PDE's as an undergrad.
>Not comparable
It is because combinatorics, graph theory, and numerical are the only serious math that these kids are exposed to.
>not true
It is overwhelmingly true for ML especially for applied CS, the unreal number of horrendous papers that end up in physics and bio journals with ML techniques should be an indication of how shit the "theory" really is.
>Only condensed matter groups putting out good theory
Imagine thinking this, you don't know anything about physics research.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 02:57:30 2020 No.11949103

>>11949008
Thats the problem with Computer Science. Heaps of pajeets and code monkeys come to it thinking its all about programming but then they realise you have to do all the other shit that comes with the degree and very little programming (From my experience with my CS degree that is)

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 03:26:59 2020 No.11949141

>>11949073
>Then your experience doesn't apply
...yes, it does, because I've done programs for both at a top 25 school for both.
>I don't want to dox but I know for a fact that at the flagship in my home state they use Lee.
deCarmo is standard among most undergrad math programs. We did ours mostly out of lee, but that's not standard in math programs
>And neither is Algo Analysis or Combinatorics brainletry.
I never claimed anything about algorithm analysis? I think the basic algorithms class is pretty bad, but algorithm analysis in general is pretty difficult when you take off the training wheels.
Also, what's this beef against combinatorics? It sounds like you encountered like 2-3 counting problems in your intro to proofs class and think that's all the field is - try any of Lovasz's books or any yellow book on combinatorics and tell me it's "brainlet."
> proof based PDE's courses that teach out of Evans.
for math majors, sure
>everyone doing physics
LMAO no. You are seriously overselling the mathematical capabilities of most physics undergrads in a proof based PDEs course. I know a handful that double majored, and some of them are great, but a lot of the physics undergrads are way in over their head. Anyway, I'm less surprised at Evan's popping up and more that you try and finagle physics undergrads into the same sort of "prestige."
>It is because combinatorics, graph theory, and numerical are the only serious math that these kids are exposed to.
Yeah if you're stupid and don't focus on TCS. There are plenty of applications of other mathematics in CS, and particularly I knew a guy who got into robotics because of motion planning in robotics.
>techniques should be an indication of how shit the "theory" really is
you're blaming the bad ML, usually done by physics people, on CS? LMAO. Again look at anything from JMLR and you'll find theory that's more than fine.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 03:32:05 2020 No.11949144

>>11949073
>>11949141
I know you're literally this one physics "grad" who lurks around CS hate threads to preach about how only physics research matters, about how much you hate ML, and about how much this means CS is bad. Anyway
>Imagine thinking this, you don't know anything about physics research.
Imagine thinking this, you don't know anything about computer science research. Also
>He thinks combinatorics relies on pre existing intuition
generating functions, analytic combinatorics, algebraic combinatorics, matroids, etc all say hi.
Regardless, it's weird to be in physics and not appreciate combinatorics, seeing how much correlation inequalities show up

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 09:28:54 2020 No.11949679 >>11948941 >Comp Sci is the only industry that's innovating right now. How the fuck are people so deluded that they say shit like this seriously?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:15:31 2020 No.11949997 File: 490 KB, 449x401, Girls.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11948900 > finance/econ > thinks he's going to make 300k Hope you're going to an Ivy bud.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:51:46 2020 No.11950120 >>11949997 fax. Average Ivy League econbro earning their 9 figures entitlements really does boost the average for the rest of the economics teachers.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:50:32 2020 No.11950278

>>11949073
>Its not an issue in physics and it is much worse issue for soft sciences and fields like CS.
The data shows 70% of published physics experiments fail to be reproducable. Seems like a big issue to me.

CS would seem to be less prone to this, since you can just verbatim copy the source code.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:54:23 2020 No.11950289

>>11950278
>the data shows 70% of physics research fails to reproduce
That’s a survey of whether any research in those fields listed have failed to reproduce results you fucking brainlet. It doesn’t say anything about the percentage of research published that fails to reproduce.
>CS would be less probe because of code
You’re unbelievably stupid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:56:25 2020 No.11950297 >>11950289 >claim algorithm does a thing >include a code implementation of the algorithm >does it do the thing? >y: publish it >n: back to the drawing board brainlet

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:00:41 2020 No.11950310 >>11950297 Do you know how many CS papers are retracted?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:04:25 2020 No.11950322 >>11950310 Do you know how many Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc papers are retracted?

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:15:42 2020 No.11950360

>>11950322
>Physics
not a lot
>Biology
A significant amount, Biology is the hardest hit by brainletry and shitty experimental design, misunderstanding of statistical analysis (see: innumeracy)
>chemistry
Not familiar, but I'd assume a fair amount.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6377/725.summary

https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3360311

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:44:31 2020 No.11950448 >>11948934 I'm very much ashamed that they're from my own country.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:32:49 2020 No.11950599 >>11949997 >FA >300k The example I used doesn't even involve a college degree. Seethe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 16:47:35 2020 No.11950849 File: 79 KB, 876x667, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] NO NO NO WE GOT TOO COCKY, BROS

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:52:05 2020 No.11951189 Computational Science and Engineering (CSE) is the best of both worlds but no one here seems to know the degree exists and being offered at top schools like MIT/Harvard/Stanford.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:54:38 2020 No.11951192 >>11951189 https://www.siam.org/students-education/resources/for-undergraduate-students/detail/graduate-and-undergraduate-programs-in-computational-science program list

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 19:00:53 2020 No.11951209

>>11951192
What are the differences between Computer Science and Computational Science?

Caveat:I'll leave out the hardware part in the following discussion. Hardware is mostly a subject in computer engineering, which may or may not be a part of computer science (it depends on the school).
Computer science is the study of algorithms, with a goal to develop general purpose algorithmic tools and paradigms that help solve any computational problem. It can broadly be divided into:
-- Theory (algorithms, complexity, theory of computation etc.)
-- Systems (OS, computer networks, compilers etc.)
-- Artificial Intelligence (learning, planning, vision, NLP etc.)
Computational science is essentially a simulation based treatment of natural and social sciences. Here computation is only a tool, a stepping stone, to understand the behavior of some systems. It can be considered a modern rehash of mathematics applied to science, with the aid of computers. Again, it can be roughly broken down into:
-- Foundations of numerical methods (numerical linear algebra, probability theory etc.)
-- Simulation of continuous systems (numerical solution of ODEs and PDEs)
-- Simulation of stochastic systems (various versions of monte carlo method)

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:16:48 2020 No.11951518

>>11948979
https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/hiv3vf/d_the_machine_learning_community_has_a_toxicity/
i have heard this from many professors, most of which who left academia for industry

>>11948992
>Seems like it's pretty close (or better) than the others.
that's what i figured but i really can't tell you and i'm not autistic enough to start scraping salary data

https://www.levels.fyi/
i can confirm these are accurate for starting salaries but comp is much more variant as you get further up
100k as median entry level salary i could totally believe, but again everyone i've met in software either makes under 60 or above 120 when they started with nothing in between so i don't think it's a normal distribution

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:38:10 2020 No.11951564

Econ M.S. Here. Can confirm that the reason econ is number 1 is that econ teaches you what matters.

90% of econ degree holders don't work in econ. I for example work as a data scientist in a tech company. I know my salary is higher than my peers despite having less experience and an unrelated degree because I negotiated, played firms against each other, and lied.

Studying econ transforms you into a homo economicus. Look it up. There are a few studies about it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:59:37 2020 No.11951602

>>11948818
What makes you think the reason someone might dislike a field of study is because of the associated pay? I think this is why computer scientists and engineers are generally disliked by mathematicians and physicists - most people studying mathematics and physics, and even chemistry, are doing it as a passion project, for love the field and the pleasure of discovery, while the majority of compsci and engineering dorks cannot shut up about money. A simple inspection of this thread reveals that.

It really comes down to math-lite STEM fields feeling mentally inferior to mathematicians and, secondly, physicists, and feeling the need to compensate by bragging about money, as if anyone outside of undergraduate studies in mathematics or physics gives half a shit about money.

>>11948847
Unless your intent is to research CS, it is objectively not, and you are better off majoring in mathematics if you want to research CS, as the computer-specific knowledge necessary is trivial in comparison to the mathematics. To put it in terms you might understand, the vast, vast majority of people I know working in industry in CS making those kinds of salaries do not have degrees. They have certifications (at most) and robust portfolios/working experience. You will be a dork with a 4-year degree making the same money as someone who has been doing it since they were 13 or 14 and can demonstrate a more robust working knowledge than you ever will. On top of that, the people I know in industry who do have CS degrees had to attend certification/training/bootcamps to get in the door in industry, because no other program than CS leaves you are woefully unprepared to actually work after you finish school.
Getting a CS degree is, at best, 60% of what you actually need to do to use a CS degree.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 22:09:22 2020 No.11951616 >>11951602 Isnt that most degrees? Virtually nothing in my EE program taught me anything that wasof value to employers

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 23:36:19 2020 No.11951803

>>11951602
The majority of top jobs in software are occupied by talented CS majors, but they’re not from the average state school with a mediocre program.
I mostly agree with your sentiment except your takeaway that engineering and CS are “math-lite” stem, at least in the research capacity. Engineering and computer science researchers do not look up to mathematicians and physicists with an inferiority complex - I’ve seen plenty of math students in CS and a surprising amount of CS students advised in the math grad departments. The separation between fields is largely motivation and culture - people will learn and practice what they need in order to do research on things they like. This is why a lot of traditional non-discrete math has penetrated into CS departments in the last 20 years, and why there’s a lot more math-CS departmental collaboration these days.

Hell, the theory of expanders, which is used extensively for thin groups / number theory, was largely studied and developed in CS departments.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 23:37:32 2020 No.11951806

>>11951602
>>11951803
What I mean to say is that I share your disdain for bragging about dollar signs, but I don’t agree with the implication that the research is motivated by the dollar signs first and not out of a passion for mathematics / mathematical science in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 23:47:13 2020 No.11951819 >>11948935 This is the most valid criticism of CS here. When I started uni I was astounded at the amount of brain-dead normies who didn't give a fuck about the subject and just wanted to learn JavaScript so they could be a code monkey

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 23:48:29 2020 No.11951821 >>11951806 It is motivated by greed.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 23:52:16 2020 No.11951828

>>11951821
Most of the big questions in CS are not motivated by greed. The proof for p != np wouldn’t give us anything immediately other than a negative result, but it would give separation bounds to explore more bounds in complexity.
Most of the motivation for quantum information in general is complexity theory used to study physics...and it’s still well funded for stuff that isn’t related to cryptography or quantum money

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:25:02 2020 No.11951886
File: 44 KB, 496x230, Screenshot_20200718-213328.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11950599
Listen bud, I'm 23 and clear 300k in fintech.

I'll tell you that if you're not at an elite school and interning in IB right now, your competition has already left you in the dust.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:29:11 2020 No.11951895

>>11951828
>quantum information in general is complexity theory used to study physics
This is not true I don't know how you could convince anyone that quantum computing which is the point of "quantum information theory" is motivated by the desire to study physics or anything other than creating new computer architecture.
>its still well funded
Yes all CS research that is deemed to be astronomically more profitable in application than what we currently use for industry is well funded. CS is literally the darling child of the DoD, and governments the world over because it is a tool for warfare, surveillance, controlling human populations and commerce. It is all motivated by greed. P!=NP is a fucking joke that no one gives a shit about outside of CS, of course its not motivated by greed its autistic nonsense.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:30:50 2020 No.11951897

>>11951828
This is like saying nuclear physics is well funded outside of applications to energy and weapons development. Of course it is! The applications are in energy and weapons development lmao, they'll fund literally anything related to this. Protein physics research is well funded, it has nothing at all to do with a desire to understand biological systems and everything to do with drug design and biotech you fucking retard.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:31:22 2020 No.11953967

>>11951895
>anyone that quantum computing which is the point of "quantum information theory" is motivated by the desire to study physics or anything other than creating new computer architecture.
Lmao if you read the literature and actual books, it’s literally not towards creating computer architecture. The results have applications to creating some systems, but they’re mostly about extending classical information theory, talking about condensed matter physics (explicitly, a lot of it helps classify hamiltonians), etc etc. the biggest result in the field in the last 3 years, MIP* = RE, is a pure result that has more implications for math and physics than “building the quantum computer.” Lmao, stop talking out of your ass.
>CS is literally the darling child of the DoD, and governments the world over because it is a tool for warfare, surveillance, controlling human populations and commerce. It is all motivated by greed.
You act as if the entirety of CS is given a check from DoD, as though every researcher is writing toward some application. This is clearly not true if you’ve actually *read* papers, results, and their “applications.” Nobody still working on sorting with fusion trees to “blast through the information theoretic lower bound” (good paper, recommend reading it) is doing it for any practical gains, because none such exist. This idea that pure researchers who are largely motivated by developing the subject in a novel, non-weapinized way doesn’t exist because the government and industry invested heavily into computers and security is at best naive and at worst you seething that people don’t have interests compatible with your worldview despite have the same “greed-free” desires to develop mathematics.

tl;dr just because you’ve convinced yourself that your research is pure doesn’t mean someone won’t pick it up and weaponize it. Hardy thought this way and now number theory is a weapon.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:35:44 2020 No.11953984

>>11951897
The applications of CS are wide ranging. When we’re talking about the applied side of any stem subject, the applications have to be filtered through the monetary gains of shareholders, but the majority of pure research in CS is ridiculously well funded despite theory research largely being about theory. Like, if you want to work on graphics, then getting funding from an animation studio doesn’t make it suddenly greedy - you can still want to work on say, reconstructing rooms from only beams sweeping across (CMU has a paper on this).
It’s absurd to think that writing grants means you share your research interests with the shareholders. It rejects the notion that pure CS is well funded (it is, despite how concerned with purity it ends up being) and it skewers literally everyone in stem who tries to get a grant as “motivated by greed.”

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:43:46 2020 No.11954010

>>11951895
>P!=NP is a fucking joke that no one gives a shit
This is untrue, given the funding into geometric complexity theory and clay’s bounty on the problem
>no one gives a shit about outside of CS, of course its not motivated by greed its autistic nonsense.
Kind of like how nobody gives a shit about the fractional quantum hall problem except condensed matter physicists? But you’d say “waaah, but understanding that has yielded information and general ideas that have developed ideas the general public has reason to care about,” which is exactly the case with P != NP.
At its core, the difficulty of the problem is how self referential it is, and solving it is way more valuable than the result itself, since solving it opens up computational theory to a much richer bed of math. The proof would be insane because of how much information and other results we’d get out of it.
It’s like saying we don’t care about fermat’s last theorem. However, we do care about it because we got all of ring theory and a fuckton of algebra, all of which have both theoretical and practical use.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:02:33 2020 No.11954049 >>11951886 >Fintech You're right though, I'll just go the FA route to clear the same amount with no degree and eventually work 10-20 hour weeks for half a mill

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:28:23 2020 No.11954126 >>11948818 It's dominated by people doing it for the money.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:31:10 2020 No.11954138 >>11954126 This much is true. I’d be less bitter if they were good at it, but they come in with an entitlement to a salary despite being bad.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:30:03 2020 No.11954327 >>11954049 Genuinely hope it works out for you man.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:09:21 2020 No.11954459 >>11948818 Scientists are humiliated by the CS fact that everything is just an array of numbers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:45:45 2020 No.11954963 >>11949021 Even in Mechanical Engineering we cover PDE's in a dedicated course, and then usually 3-4 more times. kek. Lots of undergrads do PDE's.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:48:41 2020 No.11954969 >>11951564 bait

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 19:20:23 2020 No.11955052

>>11951209
Computational science doesn't seem that good as an actual degree path. A lot of biologists and physicists only need two computational courses to be ready for their work. CSE would set you up to be a jack of all trades that can perform as a computational biologist, mathematician, and physicist but what job entails being all three. To be a computational physicist you get a physics degree, and so on for on the other disciplines.
Not a total loss as you can put "CS" on your resume and pretend you're a computer science graduate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 19:22:23 2020 No.11955061 >>11954963 PDEs need a more advanced course as well as LA. Undergraduate courses don't get into anything complex on those topics.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 19:52:33 2020 No.11955164

>>11954963
>>11955061
Brainlets detected. They were arguing about rigorous PDEs. Engineering and physics majors do not do rigorous PDE’s in undergrad. The anon was claiming that engineering and physics students take the same PDE’s class that requires at least 2 semesters of real analysis and is basically a soft introduction into functional analysis (Evan’s book specifically).
You look like a fool injecting yourself into the conversation because you took the “I learned how to massage more basic heat and wave equations with some arithmetic and integrals” - the class.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 19:57:46 2020 No.11955175 >>11948818 >as any other hard science kek

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 20:00:06 2020 No.11955183 >>11955175 >claim lol

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 21:50:01 2020 No.11955470

>>11948818

It's a certain breed of a CS major that's really grating.

It's the type that likes to boast online about all the skills they've learnt and struggles they go through in CS - as it's really hard, they fetishize FAAGMAAN to an unhealthily high degree and boast about how much money they will make. They also get really defensive easily for some reason.

At least with other STEM majors, people are more humble. They're like the nerd version of a finance bro.

>t.holds a math degree

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 22:46:12 2020 No.11955594 >>11955164 Evan's is pretty standard though for undergrad PDE. Usually you take 2-3 semesters. 1 year intro ODE&PDE and then one sem Adv. DE.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 22:52:36 2020 No.11955609 Because it isn't too hard of a degree (in /sci/ terms, still really hard for your average mushbrain normie), and they get paid MAD BUCKS for easy work

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 23:04:49 2020 No.11955628

Computer science is, at its core, manipulation of man built machinery to change the way the machine operates. Physics, mathematics, biology, astrophysics, etc, at their cores, are explorations of the world around us and are attempts at researching and figuring out how our existing world works.

So, how the fuck is computer science a science? I'm not undermining the achievements of any highly regarded programmer, I find it impressive, however I barely call to a science. What it is, is engineering. But "computer engineering" refers to a field where programming is combined with electrical engineering. Computer science and all the theory that goes on is still wrapped up in machinery manipulation - engineering.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 23:11:00 2020 No.11955646 File: 152 KB, 500x522, 1585086822119.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ChemE master race here, AMA

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 00:58:51 2020 No.11955802 >>11955470 Yeah this is pretty accurate. t. high TC CS degree holder

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 15:31:32 2020 No.11957569 File: 34 KB, 680x591, 307.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11948818 The comments in these threads are always a fuckfest. Never change, kek.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 16:17:25 2020 No.11957694 >>11948818 Chemical engineers earn the highest? Damn didnt expect that

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 16:29:43 2020 No.11957740

>>11955470
>FAAGMAAN
Apple and Amazon but what are the other two As

>They're like the nerd version of a finance bro.
Csfags are modern financebros, it's hard not to be when the top earners of your field regularly clear 200k straight from undergrad. Like even if you go to a mid tier state school like 2 in 5 of your classmates is making over six figures, that kind of environment attracts or breeds a certain mindset
Have you seen r/cscq? It's full of autistic feel good stories about how it's ok to not make infinite money

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 19:06:48 2020 No.11958351
File: 620 KB, 800x600, p.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11948825
I did economics and did not get on a single graduate scheme because I'm an autist that can't talk to normies. All the economics they teach you in university is mainly keynesian bullshit that empirically does not work. I unironically learned more about how the economy really works in my first week of lurking /biz/.

Glad I got rejected by those companies anyway, it forced me to seek out alternative ways to become wealthy and question the stuff I was taught. Fast forward 9 years and I'm a millionaire from trading options and crypto. Walk your own path anon - University can be a place you get brainwashed more than you get educated if you're not careful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 08:29:28 2020 No.11959828 ok bros, i like computer sci, not for my 200k salary at google but i want to research computer sci, am i still gonna get hate? yes i like maths

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 08:46:16 2020 No.11959849

>>11948818
Jealousy. It pays well. /sci/ is full of worthless jobless virgin neets and socially inept college students who think high of their abilities and jerk off to their self-reported high IQs but who are losers in real life. This is their place to vent their frustration towards the successful normies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 09:08:04 2020 No.11959878 >>11948818 >salary is the most important thing have fun being a code moneky for someone with an associates in business management who makes 2x you do. at least you get paid well while constantly thinking of suicide

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 12:03:10 2020 No.11960256 >>11957740 >Apple and Amazon but what are the other two As Imagine being this autistic. It's over for you bro YOU are the autistic one, can't even recognize a fucking joke

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 13:07:22 2020 No.11960470 How would an anon pursue CS knowledge? Ive watched 2 youtube vids lables introduction to to computer science, learned a little bit about binary code but where do I start untilizing my knowledge to see if it works?

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 13:15:37 2020 No.11960494

>>11948873
It's the fourth most math intensive major behind physics, statistics and obviously math.

To answer the OP's question, it's envy. Your chart is not only wrong in terms of salary but also in terms of employment opportunities. Chemical engineering obly has around 200 new jobs a year despite over 2,000 graduates every year. Electrical engineering is almost as bad and physics being there is a complete joke. Salary wise its better than any major bar none, employment wise it's better than any major bar none. So in order to cope /sci/ users need to attack it in a desperate attempt to save face.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math