> thinking you can do it without spending time and effort on it is naive
Well, yeah. I am not a 22 year old. I'm nearly 60. I have been developing non-trivial hardware and software for decades. I have both hardware and software I am responsible for that is currently orbiting the planet. Robotics, real time image processing in FPGA's, industrial controllers, video processing, distributed control systems, motor controllers, advanced illumination systems, audio processors, video and audio switching equipment, etc. I can't even remember all the work I have done. Believe me, I know CS isn't just programming. I have studied most of the theory on my own, as well as applied it.
This is hardly wanting to do it "without time and effort", in fact, it is quite the opposite. Someone can get a CS degree in four years and go to work. I went to college for a while and then went to work as a hardware and software engineer for 40 years in a range of industries and applications, from low-level embedded systems to genetic algorithms training neural networks. I think I have put enough time and effort into all of this to not be ashamed of the idea of taking a damn test to pass courses like intro to programming, data structures, algorithms, etc.
I mean, seriously, this is a real question. Why is it that universities assume students know nothing? OK, a high school graduate will, more than likely, fit that category. Someone who has learned through work across many years, even if it is five or ten, probably comes to the table with the vast majority, if not all, of the basic knowledge and likely a good percentage of intermediate and advanced. Yet universities force people to sit down and "learn" variables, loops and branching statements. What a waste of human capital and time.
> However, coding is one thing, theory is another one. Even if you know theory pretty well, you will need to review a bit which kind of imposes a speed limit on how fast you can pass said courses
Yes, definitely. For example, I did a lot of work with genetic algorithms about ten years ago. Jumped-in head-first, read a pile of university-level books on the subject. However, I haven't touched any of that in probably five or six years. I would likely have to do a deep review for two or three months before being able to take a real test on the subject.
I am looking at the online program offered by the University of London. Not sure if they have the ability to just take tests one one's own schedule as opposed to only being able to take a test at the end of the term, which defeats the purpose by imposing artificial time constraints.
The other thing I see at universities in Europe is that they don't tend to make you waste a year of your life taking non-degree coursework. One ought to be able to obtain a degree in CS, Engineering or Mathematics without having to devote a year passing courses in history, philosophy, etc. We could argue about the idea of general education, etc. Well, this ought to be a part of primary and secondary education. In the US, that extra year or more devoted to non-degree coursework can cost you USD $30K, $50K or $60K, depending on where you go. This is insane.
Yes, give people the option to study such courses, and, if they have career value or are valued by employers, graduates can list them as part of their resume. The reality is that the vast majority of employers don't give a shit. This ads no value at all. I would much rather a CS student spend another solid year on real CS course work than on general education. Far more value in that.
I bit of a rant, I know. It just bothers me to see young people in the US leave school with debt they did not need to incur. Last I checked the hiring process at FAANG companies does not include an essay on ancient European history. And yet our students spend tens of thousands of dollars and a massive amount of time (opportunity cost) getting enough of a good grade on this stuff to be able to obtain a degree.
While you're trying to do this, look into CLEP tests. They do what you're looking for, but in many topics, not just CS. Want to test out of your humanities requirements? CLEP tests let you do so (at least for many universities).
In the US, get an associates degree (which you can speed up by CLEP tests) and you can also knock out a lot of other mandatory but non-major courses for a lot of state colleges, at least. I've had a few friends who did this, getting math or physics associates. Then they were able to primarily take CS courses for their CS degrees with maybe a few other mandatory electives that weren't previously covered (language requirements they couldn't test out of as typical monolingual Americans like me, mostly). This can shorten the time needed for the CS program to a comfortable 3 years, and if you can convince the department to let you skip some of the intro courses (based on professional experience) you might drop it further. Total, then, would be about 1-2 years for the associates (depending on how much you can test out of) and 2-3 years for the bachelors.
Also talk to professors about independent study courses, you may be able to knock out extra course requirements in summer terms where they don't normally offer courses, keeping the calendar (but not semester) time lower.
That seems like an interesting idea. I am also trying to see about not having to waste any time on non-major subjects. This is a horrible thing. I understand and agree with the idea of general education. That should happen in high school. Burning a year (or more) of someone's time in university doing unrelated coursework is a travesty.
It's both about the cost --which isn't trivial-- and the time. Most of our degrees have at least a year of stuff no employer has any interest in paying for. Education being the racket it is, there is no way to challenge it. This quickly points you in the direction of non-US universities, where this nonsense does not exist.
A friend of mine, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer, went through a radical change of diet. This included juicing lots of vegetables and cutting out most meats.
He thinks the dietary adjustment played an important role in his cancer disappearing five years ago.
Yes, this is a sobering diagnosis. And it has spread to the liver, which likely means the prognosis is far worse.
I take your point about quality of life for what might remain. These are tough decisions those of us around her are going to have to make.
I have friends who have reported about acquaintances who beat pancreatic cancer diagnosis and went on to live twenty or thirty years. I suspect these were early onset rather than stage four.
This company seems to have had early success with metastatic pancreatic cancer. We've reached out to see what they have to say.
"Pancreatic cancer kills an estimated 47,000 people annually; it is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the U.S., and 57,600 new cases are expected in 2020. Less than 5% of these patients will live for more than five years after diagnosis, and the median survival prognosis is 5 to 8 months."
One thing I didn't cover is that "cancer" isn't one thing.
And neither is pancreatic cancer.
Steve Jobs had a rarer and less aggressive form.
That's why he lived with his diagnosis as long as he did.
His pancreatic cancer was a different pancreatic cancer from the most common pancreatic cancer.
The median survival rate for pancreatic cancer is low because it tends to be diagnosed late.
This is the case with your friend because the cancer is at stage four.
In terms of quality of life, seeking enrollment in a clinical trial involves a lot of meetings and paperwork and often travel.
Keep in mind that the driving force of the clinical trial you link is a business venture with a medical component.
The trial is randomized which means some enrollees won't get the treatment being tested.
In terms of anecdotal evidence of long survival, misdiagnosis is a real possibility as one goes further and further back, e.g. a person diagnosed in 1955 who lived to 1985.
I'm not sure why the patient can't make their own decisions, but I don't have all the facts.
> I'm not sure why the patient can't make their own decisions, but I don't have all the facts.
She is older (85+) and not equipped to navigate the more complex aspects of this.
This is also where the quality of life part becomes far more significant. At this age...given the likely prospects...it might make more sense to go for quality of life and make good memories during whatever time might remain than anything else. These are difficult topics to discuss and even more difficult options to consider because it isn't all about making purely analytical decisions.
The current guidance is a six week course of chemo followed by an evaluation of outcomes to support further actions.
I talked with my beloved outlining what you've described. Nearly all stage four chemo-therapy is palliative. It is a tradeoff between symptoms of the disease and side-effects of the chemo chemicals. The advice was to try chemo and see how it goes, if the side-effects are too much then stop. There's no reason to complete a palliative treatment that's not palliative. The goal of the treatment is to reduce the tumor burden on the patient.
My advice from years of living with someone who helps people going through what you and those around you are going through:
1. Bring in hospice as soon as the patient qualifies. Helping people through the dying process is what they do everyday. There's counseling for the patient, the care-givers, and other family members. Before during and after. There are also chaplin services. And of course nursing.
2. Right now all the healthcare protocols are new and conservative due to Covid-19. Hospice will have the best grasp on what institutionalization of the patient will entail, how to navigate the new reality should institutionalization happen, and how best to avoid it under the current circumstances.
3. There is unlikely to be a sudden shift in family dynamics in terms of relationships. If people have always been close, that's probably the way it will stay. If people have always been unhappy with each other, plans should presume that that's the way it will stay...this probably won't suddenly fix tense relationships.
There is an analytic view, but it is difficult to accept and feels rude to articulate. Yet, we all know that life only lasts not long enough. And making the most of the not long enough is entirely rational.
Again, I sorry you are going through this and hope it all goes as peacefully as it can.
I have a 15 year old Windows 2000 machine running a PCI based piece of test equipment. No problems or performance issues. It has not been on the network for at least 10 years, if not 15. On the rare occasion a data transfer is needed it's either a floppy (yes!), CD or thumb drive. Works fine.
It isn't because of their title. It's because of their authority. You can argue against access but ultimately do not have the authority to prevent it. They can fire you.
I once had an IT guy who was making up his own passwords for workstations and servers. When he refused to provide them to me I had our attorney meet with him so he could clearly understand the implications. He was holding the company hostage and violating policy. He provided the passwords at the end of that meeting and was fired on the spot.
> thinking you can do it without spending time and effort on it is naive
Well, yeah. I am not a 22 year old. I'm nearly 60. I have been developing non-trivial hardware and software for decades. I have both hardware and software I am responsible for that is currently orbiting the planet. Robotics, real time image processing in FPGA's, industrial controllers, video processing, distributed control systems, motor controllers, advanced illumination systems, audio processors, video and audio switching equipment, etc. I can't even remember all the work I have done. Believe me, I know CS isn't just programming. I have studied most of the theory on my own, as well as applied it.
This is hardly wanting to do it "without time and effort", in fact, it is quite the opposite. Someone can get a CS degree in four years and go to work. I went to college for a while and then went to work as a hardware and software engineer for 40 years in a range of industries and applications, from low-level embedded systems to genetic algorithms training neural networks. I think I have put enough time and effort into all of this to not be ashamed of the idea of taking a damn test to pass courses like intro to programming, data structures, algorithms, etc.
I mean, seriously, this is a real question. Why is it that universities assume students know nothing? OK, a high school graduate will, more than likely, fit that category. Someone who has learned through work across many years, even if it is five or ten, probably comes to the table with the vast majority, if not all, of the basic knowledge and likely a good percentage of intermediate and advanced. Yet universities force people to sit down and "learn" variables, loops and branching statements. What a waste of human capital and time.