Are you lucky to get these kind of emails to apply for a research position you recently advertised? John Carmack on Twitter: People like the idea of hard and fast rules, but putting +/-infinity as a factor in a policy decision is almost never the best plan. Hiring is an obvious example, with "requirements" that … Continue reading On hiring
Ever since I started my career as a rad-onc trainee, I have always been tantalised by the idea of personalised radiation therapy (and cancer therapeutics). I could write tomes of material on how to achieve it. I think it actually represents the holy grail of radiation therapy. However, there is no marketing hype behind the … Continue reading Can we have predictors of radiation response?
This post was "inspired" by an editorial from Scientific American (and I am riding its coattails) because I needed someone to call out the broken process. The essay does make some generalisations, however. Yet, it is still relevant because we, as scientists (and clinicians) owe it to our patients who look up to us. We … Continue reading Good science, Bad Science: Why don’t we get a “cure” for cancer?
I am not doing a full-fledged review here, but there are some learnings I'd like to share here from my experience. iPadOS/iOS is not a writing medium. I am still wrapping my head around it. Developers are expending insane energies in propping up a medium that doesn't work. Devices with keyboards work. Effectively and efficiently. … Continue reading Choosing the right academic software (Mac/iPadOS/iOS)
I had planned to do some kind of a "review" for reference managers. However, the author has done a better job than I could do. His workflow dictates Paperpile. I like the application, but their web service is entirely dependent on Google. I dislike Google Drive- it syncs horribly, and there's no comparison for Dropbox. … Continue reading #Reference Manager Showdown: a full review of #Papers 3, #Zotero, #F1000, and #Paperpile (+ ReadCube)
RadOncNotes 