u/justingreg

As a PI, I often tell first year student in our first meeting that the first two years of PhD is tend to be the hardest and that there can be adjustments they need to make: where you are adjusting to a lot of new things you didn’t really properly expect: qualifying exam, choosing topic, advisor/trainee communication, time investment, research style and writing. It’s a learning process and after they go through them they will fly. And I tell them to be prepared for objective criticism when I observe anything they need to change especially in the first two years . However I still am not sure what is the best approach to motivate student after I made them aware of this. Some people just don’t like it when you challenge them and cannot face any stress or pressure . Anyone wants to share their approach and what works for you, both as PI or students’ perspective?

My own experiences is that my PI used to mix praising and criticism together so I can feel both motivated and wanting to learn. And I am also generally a stress tolerant person and generally don’t mind objective criticism and advice given to me. But I am not the kind of extremely extroverted person who likes to say beautiful words to motivate people. Any advice or experience to share? How do you motivate students?

My own take is that I work extremely well with students who intrinsically like the subjects and topics and they can take my criticism well. For those who are not ( unfortunately not all students share the same motivation level) I don’t have a good formula or approach to motivate them properly. Any advice ?

My style : I tend to be a little dry. So I only talk about work related with students and I don’t go off the topic. I also don’t say or sugar coat anything to try to motivate them. If I observe mistakes or unacceptable presentations I point them out directly in a very respectful way. But this can be a lot for some first year students who cannot take objective criticism on their work.

Yay! Finally climbed to the 16xx after staying in 14xx for a while. I only play it for fun and never care about elo but still happy that I hit it. I am not sure what the improvement I made here— all I could think of is better decision making. Anyone here want to share their experience? What are the differences between 16xx to 14xx? And if I want to go from 16xx to 17xx and above, what improvements I should make based on your experience?

I am INFP ( or occasionally INTP). I thought INFJ and INFP have quite many similarities, but in real life I find myself difficult to get along with them to become good friends or develop longterm relationships. Sometimes I begin with friendship with them because we share many similar values, but those friendships tend to drift apart not long. To me they are:

1. They cannot give you the social

connection/

1. energy that

sometimes

1. INFP

wants to receive.

1. they usually are not the one who initiates contacts.
2. they are too judgmental. Often times they like to point out things they don’t like; sometimes that’s too much negativity for me. I also feel uncomfortable when they pick on things about me.

Real: gg Danny. His actual Elo appears to be close to 2000, but he created a 13xx-rated account named Erdoganuv Gulagovič and plays against players in that rating range. After winning, he shames his opponents while claiming to be a new 13xx player (even go out of his way to do so)

Please watch out for this kind of behavior and report the account if you encounter it.

I know this is can be unpopular opinion, but I’m genuinely curious whether anyone else had the same experience.
Before visiting Paris, I was very excited. Instead, I left feeling disappointed.
I can absolutely appreciate the city’s history and architectural significance, but I found the experience of actually being there far less enjoyable than I expected.

The Haussmann buildings are elegant individually, but after a while they started to feel repetitive. Street after street, I saw the same cream-colored façades, balconies, and ornate details. Instead of feeling charming, the city eventually felt visually overwhelming, repetitive and overly decorated to me.

I was also surprised by how many people live in small, expensive apartments inside these grand historic buildings. It made me wonder whether preserving the city’s historic appearance sometimes comes at the expense of everyday comfort and quality of life.
One thought I kept coming back to was that much of central Paris reflects a vision created through top-down planning in the 19th century. It’s undeniably historic, but it also made me realize something about my own preferences: I don’t want to feel like I’m living in the past. I appreciate history, but I don’t necessarily want history to dominate everyday life.

I’m simply wondering if anyone else came away feeling that Paris was more famous than enjoyable, or that it just wasn’t the right fit for them. If so, what gave you that impression?

One of the most fascinating aspect of the franchise for me is the process of human turning into a deadlite. I wonder if anyone shares this interest and if we can have a competition or festival together where everyone is pretending to be possessed and experience the wonderful transformation ? It would be super fun! Also how does infant deadite work ?

It’s such a good movie and I like the relationship dynamic much more than evil dead rise. If feel real especially for the two complex characters such as Susan and Joseph. People say they are not likable. But they feel so real. >!If I lost all my family members in tragic ways in one day out of desperation I think I may also be tempted to reunite with them —- especially if I am not entirely sure what does deadite entail.!<

>!I think having Susan wanting to be reunited with them is very creative yet it feels so real once you understood this character.!<

I find the way >!Susan!< and >!Edgar!< turn into Deadites really fascinating, and I’m curious how everyone interprets the exact moment each transformation happens.

Was the transformation gradual, with a period when they were partly human and partly Deadite? Or they were simply just crazy before they even turned into deadite ?

At the dinner table, >!Edgar’s!< eyes have not yet turned green, and he can still speak somewhat normally. When he tried to kill himself earlier, was his action caused by his deadite influence already? Or was he not turned until in the car and the dinner scene was only his own craziness?
The same question applies to >!Susan!<. When she tells Joseph that “everything is better now” and asks him to give her the dagger, had she already turned and was manipulating her? Or was she still human but mentally affected by everything that had happened? Did she only fully become a Deadite later in the bathroom?

I find both transformations especially interesting because the boundary between their human and Deadite selves seems intentionally unclear and their human version was already crazy. What do you guys think?

My theory is that >!Susan!< wasn’t turned at all until the bathroom and her craziness before was just her true self. For Edger there was a transition when he was half deadlite half human.

The time it takes to corrects errors, the time it takes for you to set them up and the time it takes for you to make sure they are doing the right thing, clean the room thoroughly, is wayyy more than the time it takes to bring a broom to clean the room myself. It is so stupid and if you task them to clean one room they only finish half of it and return home. There is no fking way to force them to clean the other part of the room.