Red Hat net income is growing pretty consistently though [0].
With this price for debt, IBM could be cash-flow positive on this deal within a couple of years even without any big synergy, just by the simple effect of cumulated growth on (net) income.
Basically Pearl argues that classical statistics completely ignored the concept of causality so far and introduces a complete framework to bring causal inference into statistical/data analysis. The framework is based on graphs and asks for causal hypotheses (like econometricians would do with instrumental variables) and allows to compute/quantify causal effects.
Anyone working with data should probably read this book. The fact that Pearl brought in a professional math/science writer as co-author is a huge boost to the main ideas accessibility and make for a nice albeit deep summer read.
First, because Olin is ludicrously selective, and second, because Olin only offers founding-friendly majors. I don't think a pre-med intending to become a surgeon should really be faulted for "failing" to start a company, but that's effectively what the article does.
Well, pick one. Either there's a cause, or there's no cause. Either they're full of shit, or they deliberately did this. You can't credibly claim both to dismiss them.
I'm not talking about whether Olin is a good school, it obviously is. I'm saying that "rate of company founding" is a nonsensical axis of comparison. It's like noting that Olin produces 100% fewer Stanford grads than Stanford does.
Olin alum here (and one of the listed founders). The bigger impact of the small graduating class size in this case, rather than extreme statistical outcomes is powerful network effects.
You're more likely to think something a large percentage of your cohort (and people you closely know personally) goes and does is cool, doable and worthwhile. A chunk of your peers at Olin will go found meaningful companies (startups or "just" businesses) and you will think of taking it up too. I never considered being a founder before going, or even most of my life attending Olin, but it became something I considered very seriously and eventually diving into after graduating, and needless to say best choice of my life.
The other cool thing is even if you don't start your own company, you are part of such a small and tight-knit community with all these founders, and founders-to-be! I have personally worked on projects, lived, or had drinks with all but 3 of the founders mentioned in this article, and I am definitely one of the more introverted people who went there.
If you don't mind, can I ask a question about Olin? It looks like it's full of cool kids that make stuff and go on to make more stuff.
My guess is that they only accept kids with a track record of making stuff, like the kids that are in the robotics club.
I've got a sharp kid who I would like to turn into a maker kid but he's currently not that kid. He's a math guy, wants to try and get a PhD in math. I'd be happier for him if he became a maker of things, that's what I am and it's worked out well for me, both financially and it was satisfying.
So I'm wondering if Olin would take on a kid and try and form them into a maker or is that just asking way too much. His GPA is so so, 3.6 something, his ACT is 32 I think, I know the math part was 34. That was his only try at the ACT, he can do better. He's taking a gap year and working on retaking the ACT, he's shooting for a 34-35 overall.
Thanks for any insight and congrats on going to that college, it looks sweet!
Unrelated, but as someone who has experienced much distress over what my parents would be 'happy for me to be' I find that language super creepy. DEFINITELY not trying to attack you or even suggest that what I am about to say is the case for you, just saying I hear that language and go straight to the image of someone projecting their own desires onto someone else possibly to their detriment.
Yeah, you are right. I certainly wasn't trying to be creepy and you can rest easy that I haven't pushed my kids like I was pushed (in fact the kid in question regrets that I didn't push him).
I just am dismayed that my kids don't build stuff. Building stuff has brought me so much pleasure and satisfaction. I want that for them, for their happiness, not mine. I'll be gone one day and I want them to be good whatever they do.
Olin alum here - in my graduating class (2013), a majority seemed to have experience "making things" when we entered Olin but there was also a large contingent that was super passionate about and actively pursuing non-engineering activities. I think the admissions teams looks more for passion/hustle/doers than "makers".
Absolutely apply. We have a bunch of people that don't really care about physical stuff at all, and would rather just think about the problems.
That said, the classes aren't going to all be about math and only math, a lot of classes have physical projects. But the projects are tightly integrated with theory. I learned multivariable calculus by modeling a boat with some curves, and then building the boat out of foam to see if the calculated angle at which it tips was the same as reality.
If you kid can get excited about project-based learning, Olin is an awesome option.
I'd be happy to talk to you more if you have more questions.
The simple answer is: your kid should definitely apply.
1) To be completely honest I can't speak to the current admission climate and criteria, I enrolled in 2007 with the 5th class. Things have likely changed a lot (they do when the institute is that young and application and admission demographics change rapidly at this age).
2) Myself, I grew up in a quiet conservative Middle Eastern city (first international cohort rep!), never "made" things that I could put on a resume, and mostly just had solid grades in math/sci/compsci. I had solid SAT scores, never took the ACT, and my GPA was hard to translate (I didn't attend an AP/IB curriculum) for direct comparisons. The admissions team emphasizes that individual scores are of low relevance, as are aggregate GPAs -- Olin is primarily looking for kids who show a passion and/or aptitude in STEM/entrepreneurship which can't always be represented by scores. This is why the final stage of the admission process is a weekend-long in-person interview+team builds+campus tours where they (and you) try to evaluate whether you will survive/flourish/despise Olin's pedagogical practices, and this is ultimately the deciding factor. Parents are welcome.
3) As Olin grows older, the graduating classes have polarized more and more into founders, and pure scientists. My class ('11) had ~35% join PhD programs in everything from solar power to cancer biology, over half with prestigious grants such as NSF. And more people are becoming not only founders, but embarking on various philanthropic and/or entrepreneurial journeys, from SV startups to building solar cookers in West Africa. This is a shift away from joining Google/Microsoft/Facebook/IBM/etc, which clumped was previously the largest cohort of a graduating class (and has shrunk to ~20% now).
The hypothesis is that both these people are actually the same -- they absorb skills, look at the world, try to reason from first principles and their recently gained knowledge whether something could/should exist and improve human lives, and then just goes and does it. Pure academics is the long-term pursuit of human improvement, contributing to the greater corpus of human awareness, and entrepreneurship/makerhood is the near-term, fast-moving version. They are just essentially the same mindset applied on different timeframes.
My point is that I think you shouldn't worry about which of these perspectives he pursues at this point -- if he's the kind of kid who'll like it at Olin (he may not), the path he'll eventually take will be influenced by where he feels he can contribute the most effectively. Olin will give him some exposure to more people on the maker-side of that spectrum.
I'm surprised to find no mention of Solaris by Stanislaw Lem among the fiction references. In this novel, a whole planet is somehow a living organism, truly alien to human conception of life.
Great summary but also important to note that Kuhn didn't believe (unlike Popper) that science moved towards some final destination or explanation. Instead he saw each paradigm as optimal for what it was trying to express.
Yeah, I think I was struggling with this aspect. I recall my professor saying something like "it's not that general relativity is correct and newtonian mechanics was wrong, it's that when a general relativist says 'mass' they are talking about something different than when a Newtonianist says 'mass' - after all, you have to measure mass differently in those two things, they behave differently, etc. It's more that general relativity doesn't say anything at all about Newtonian mass." But I never bought that (even if they were talking about different things, it seems like they were trying to talk about the same thing), so I figure I'm missing something from Kuhn's argument.
If you believed the world is flat you can still get from one village to the next one and you wouldn't fall of the earth. It's true enough for what it is trying to accomplish. If you want to navigate longer and longer distances or go to the moon however this believe will meet it's limits.
The primary thing people struggle with in general with science and philosophy of science is actually more fundamental in other parts of life to which is Truth.
Popper thought science helped us approach the some objective Truth. Kuhn realized (and I agree) that truth is always depending on the context in which it's defined.
Personally, I learned to think of scientific ideas along two axis - precision and usefulness. To reuse your professor's example, in so far as you accept that Einstein and Newton were really talking about the same concept of "mass", general relativity is much more precise than newtonian mechanics - but newtonian mechanics is much more useful than relativity, is the sense that it's precise enough for 99.9% of applications (including sending spaceships around the Solar System) while also being significantly easier to use.
It was an interesting book, lots of good points that contributed to the west's success. But, it's certainly not without its critics. He gives almost no credit to human agency.
RE "He gives almost no credit to human agency", I wonder what's the current state of that discussion. My current belief (as always, subject to change) is in technological determinism - i.e. available technology level shapes the "parameter space" of social and economical structures, and individual agency is a secondary factor. This seems to match my knowledge of history and history of science, as well as observations of current social dynamics. I'm not a scholar in the area though, so I don't know what's the best criticism of that view.
On that topic Harari's Homo Deus is a pretty interesting read. He argues that Humanism is the de facto "new" (2-3 centuries old) religion. Soon to be replace by the celebration of something even more global -- data.
Our Data, Who art in the Cloud, hallowed be Thy Index, Thy Algocracy come, Thy Classification be done, in IoT as it is in the Cloud, lead us not into Underfitting, but deliver us from Anecdotal Reasoning. For Thine is the algocracy and the market share and the celebrity: of the Network, and of the Server, and of the Holy Algorithm, DateTime.Now() and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.
With this price for debt, IBM could be cash-flow positive on this deal within a couple of years even without any big synergy, just by the simple effect of cumulated growth on (net) income.
[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/RHT/red-hat/net-in...