u/SnooConfections1353

I’m 34, former military, with a bachelor’s in CS from UMD, a master’s in CS from Georgia Tech, and a master’s in computer engineering from Dartmouth. Currently work as a Sr. Eng Mgr in the DC area.

Most of my career has been in defense, government tech, and AI-enabled software. I’ve worked at major defense contractors, NASA, smaller startups, and contractor shops. My background is mainly in military, aerospace, maritime, defense, government systems, and applied AI.

Long term, I’d like to either move into venture capital, ideally focused on defense tech, dual-use, aerospace, AI, maritime, or govtech, or eventually reach the C-suite at a larger company.

Would a part-time or full-time MBA from a T15 school be worth it for those goals? I already have a strong technical background, so the main value for me would be the network, leadership development, business education, and access to recruiting opportunities.

At 34, would it make more sense to go full-time and make a stronger career pivot, or keep working and do a part-time MBA? I’m also wondering whether an MBA is really necessary for either path, or if I would be better off building more operating and leadership experience in AI, defense, and government technology.

Would appreciate hearing from people who have made a similar move from engineering, defense, AI, or government contracting into VC or senior leadership.

Sa politics, personality ang pinag-uusapan imbes na sistemang nag-iincentivize ng power consolidation, patronage politics, corruption, at kawalan ng transparency.

Sa kaso ng 14-year-old na namaril, ang default response ay parusahan nang mabigat. Hindi ako tutol sa accountability, pero kahit pinakamabigat na parusa pa ang ibigay, hindi nito maa-address ang root causes: social decay, economic disparity, poverty, mahinang education, social media, scarcity, at kakulangan ng parental guidance.

Puro reaction at punishment, pero kulang sa proactive thinking. Hangga't hindi ina-address ang corruption, inequality, at pagkasira ng social fabric, mauulit lang ang parehong problema.

The biggest value of OMSCS is the strong foundation it gives you and the Georgia Tech name on your résumé.

For people expecting the degree itself to land them a job, it probably will not. The brand may help your résumé get noticed and get you through the initial screening, but you still have to pass the interview.

Will OMSCS make you a better engineer? Undoubtedly. But to stay competitive, you also need to keep up with newer technologies, especially AI applications that seem to change every week, and master system design like nobody’s business.

TL;DR: Fromville is essentially a supernatural multiplayer game. The Man in Yellow, Boy in White, Kimono Woman, Martin, and possibly others are competing players with different agendas, but they must follow certain rules. Since they cannot act freely, they manipulate the townspeople through visions, lies, monsters, and familiar faces, using humans like pieces on the board.

The original child sacrifice may have started the game, while Jade and Tabitha are forced to replay it through reincarnation. Everyone trapped in Fromville is being tested to see whether they cooperate, betray one another, or repeat the original sacrifice. The only way to win is to learn the rules, recover the past, and stop reacting like pawns so they can finally make their own moves.

https://www.reddit.com/r/FromSeries/s/HF0zHUAE5D

I know there is a lot of anxiety about LLMs and the tech market, but current systems still seem limited by transformer-based next-token prediction. In some ways, pouring massive investment into scaling them feels like building a campus full of 1950s 'human computers' instead of developing a fundamentally different approach.

We are still in the early stages of AI, and approaches like Yann LeCun's JEPA architecture may be more promising for reasoning and world models. Are any OMSCS courses covering topics at this level, or are they mostly reserved for PhD programs and research labs?

https://preview.redd.it/yzdt2yfovj9h1.png?width=888&format=png&auto=webp&s=2c340a6752dab14490d4dc2af3e56c0cdae00c79

Correct me if I'm working but the only time na nakita ko si Sarah G. nag endorse ng politician was pag may talent fee. So bakit galit tayo pag neutral ang artista eh matagal ng MO yan ni Sarah?

I’m a new engineering manager at a small company. My CTO is very pro-AI and wants to turn the engineering team into more of a group of product owners and consultants who use AI to handle most of the technical work.

I’m also pro-AI, but I think we still need to develop people into solid engineers. With our current workload and small team, I do not think we can realistically do both at the same time. My concern is that this approach is holding back the junior engineers. If they are mostly managing features and doing product work, how are they supposed to become strong engineers, architects, or future technical leaders?

I have pushed back gently and respectfully and explained that we need to build real engineering talent so people can eventually step up, mentor others, and help grow the team in a sustainable way. So far, I have mostly been ignored.

Should I keep pushing back, or is this just a culture difference I need to accept? I cannot really go to the CEO or COO because the CTO is also a part owner. I also do not want this to be the hill I die on, especially in this job market, so I have been trying to support his vision even though I feel conflicted.

I know job hopping is also an option, but that is a separate topic. He is not a bad person. I think we just have very different views on what an engineering team should become.

I took a nontraditional path into tech. I started in the military doing systems administration and systems engineering, then moved into software engineering.

Since then, I’ve learned dozens of new tools and skills every year, from physical servers and network configuration to cloud, containers, orchestration, observability, frontend and backend frameworks, Kafka, microservices, data engineering, analytics, machine learning, MLflow, LLMs and generative AI.

I’m not an expert in any of it, but I’ve stayed employable because I adapt, learn fast and work hard. I’ve also worked for great companies and terrible ones, so I know bad leadership and shortsighted decisions exist. I still don’t see AI replacing most engineers anytime soon.

At my company, no one could just replace me or my team. The C-suite can barely use Excel formulas and macros. AI agents also don’t deploy, secure, monitor or maintain themselves. Even if AI reduces headcount, demand for technology keeps growing. As software becomes cheaper and faster to build, companies will automate more work, build more tools, use more data and add AI to more products and processes.

Ive personally seen cloud make infrastructure easier, but it didn’t eliminate infrastructure work. It created more systems and more demand for architecture, security, automation, reliability and observability. I think AI will follow the same pattern.

Maybe five engineers with AI can do what used to take seven or eight, but that is not the same as agents replacing an engineering team. and those who have tried failed (Ive seen it first hand). Agents are still far from operating without human maintainers.

What am I missing, guys? Am I underestimating how fast this is moving, or are people confusing task automation with replacing entire professions? Are some people falling into the Dunning-Kruger effect and mistaking vibe coding for building and maintaining production-grade applications?

EDIT: What I’m actually seeing is that it’s hard to find either a talented engineer or one with a great attitude. It’s even harder to find someone who has both.

With all the tech layoffs, I’m curious which group has more career regret.

EDIT: By “tech,” I mean engineering and technical roles such as software engineering or data science, not MBA roles within the tech industry.

I think AI is influencing these layoffs, but not because it can simply replace most workers. Many public tech companies still report growing headcounts over time in their 10-K filings, even while conducting repeated layoffs. It seems more like companies are restructuring, demanding greater productivity, and shifting investment toward different skills and teams.

For people who have worked on either side, which path has offered better long-term stability and career growth? Do business professionals wish they were more technical, or do technical workers wish they had pivoted toward business and leadership earlier?

Full disclosure: I’m an engineering manager at a small, tech-focused firm, but I often get pulled into business operations as well.

Something I’ve noticed about some MBA-type thinking is that nearly everything gets reduced to gains and losses. It does not necessarily have to be short-term thinking. Even long-term decisions are framed as investments that may or may not produce a return.

Under this mindset, spending time, money, or effort on something is either productive, wasteful, or justified by some future payoff. Even things that are difficult to quantify, like employee well-being, relationships, loyalty, culture, public service, or simply doing something because it has value in itself, can get translated into business outcomes.

Does MBA training encourage people to see the world this way, or are people who already have this highly transactional and efficiency-focused mindset naturally drawn to MBA programs and business careers? For people who do not naturally think this way, does that mean an MBA might be the wrong choice?

Unpopular opinion: A lot of immigrants or “expats” in the Philippines complain that they just want a good partner, but they often chase the people who feel the most familiar to them culturally. They gravitate toward those who are already heavily Westernized because they are easier to talk to, easier to approach, and closer to what they were used to back home. Then when the relationship ends up having the same problems they were trying to escape, they blame Filipino dating culture as a whole.

Meanwhile, they overlook more traditional or family-oriented Filipinos because those people may be more reserved, cautious, or harder to win over at first. But when approached with sincerity, patience, and real intentions, those are often the people who can become deeply loyal and grounded partners.

Basically, some people say they want a good partner, but they keep choosing based on familiarity, convenience, or easy access, then complain when it burns them.

Computing used to be about optimizing memory, compute, and energy.

Now it feels like we just burn tokens, waste GPU cycles, and call it innovation.

I get that AI is powerful, but somewhere along the way, brute force became the business model.

Hi everyone,

I’m curious if anyone here has experience with both Georgia Tech’s OMSCS and OMSCybersecurity programs.

The reason I’m asking is that I already have a BS in Computer Science and I’m currently working in an AI-native project/team. I’ve been thinking a lot about how cybersecurity in the age of AI is becoming more important than ever, especially as systems become more automated, agentic, and dependent on AI-driven workflows.

At the same time, OMSCS seems more focused on deeper CS and AI fundamentals, which I also think is extremely valuable. Having a strong foundation in computer science and becoming a true subject-matter expert feels even more important now, especially when a lot of practical knowledge and engineering judgment can get hidden or diluted by heavy reliance on AI coding assistants.

I could see myself eventually doing both programs in the future, but for now I’m only planning to choose one.

For anyone who has taken courses in both programs, or completed one and seriously considered the other:

• Which program felt harder conceptually?
• Which had the heavier workload?
• How would you compare the difficulty of the core classes, projects, exams, and overall time commitment?

I’m especially interested in how they compare for someone with a CS background who is deciding between deepening CS/AI/software engineering fundamentals through OMSCS versus building a stronger cybersecurity, systems, and security foundation through OMSCybersecurity.

Any honest experiences would be appreciated. Thank you!

Now while Season 1 is still better for me in terms of raw entertainment, like the reason we watch reality TV or cannot look away from a car wreck, you know it is messed up but you are still watching, Season 2 feels like it has more substance.

Maybe large chunk of it is due to where we are right now as a society. We spend so much time distracting ourselves with TikTok or YouTube Shorts that we do not really sit with the bigger problems. Season 2 kind of forces you to do that. It feels like it is holding up a mirror, and that is uncomfortable.

At times it can feel a bit preachy, not gonna lie, like an anthology drama version of the Korean move the Parasite. But it is also a little unnerving, like realizing I do not usually step back and look at my own life like that. At the same time, it is weirdly comforting because it reminds me I am not the only one thinking this way.

It almost feels like an alternate version of my life. Like if I made some of the same choices as these characters, this is where it could go. As flawed as I am, it makes me stop and actually think about what I value and the kind of decisions I am making.

A lot of shows try to do this, but Beef Season 2 caught me off guard. I thought it was just going to be a black comedy, like Netflix trying to do something similar to White Lotus, but it ended up feeling more like a stressful case study of my own life.

Anyway what do y’all think?