The nightmare of giving academic talks

A very common situation everyone has to face, especially in the early stages of the academic career, is to give a talk. It is a perfect experience for your social anxiety, it gives you the occasion to present yourself and your research, being the best chance to extend your professional network (and we've already discussed on how important this is). I don't need to go any further to explain why you want to do it right, even great.

I have no authority to give you any advice on this issue, although there are some general tips to keep in mind. (a very nice discussion on this topic can be found here, or, you know, google it)

The first thing to consider is the kind of audience you have to face. I'm personally not a fan of changing your scientific message too much for different audiences, but academia may require different levels of formality. The best tip on this matter, in my opinion, is to let your personality shine in any situation, a talk from someone feeling comfortable is much more enjoyable.   


Nobody, in principle, cares about your research as much as you do. Therefore, your first goal is to make the audience care, not to show them how good you are. First, if it's not clear why they should care about your obscure research, they will never fully appreciate the beauty of your methods or the elegance of your results. Secondly, and more importantly, a talk is not a lecture, you are not there to teach them how to do your job. It seems rather trivial, but it is not uncommon to find speakers that, being too focused on showing the details, completely miss the main message of their talks. It is also obvious that 99% of the audience will not probably understand your over-detailed presentation, although nobody usually admits that, scared to look stupid. If you want to give a great talk, you should attract the audience to your topic, drive them through the most basic steps till they care about your problems, show them your ideas, not your tedious technical steps. In this way you will achieve the real goal: make them feel smart as much as you (and more than you, they figure it out in less time than you).

All of this should be obtained by showing also your humble smartness. A piece of cake!

Assuming that you succeed in this extremely difficult task (especially the first 26 times), here come the questions from the audience. You can measure  the effectiveness of your talk from this moment. A good strategy is to design your speech in order to drive the attention to specific questions of your choice. In this way, you will look smart and prepared on your research, the audience will feel more involved in your scientific process and you will take out some time from the possible nasty question waiting for you in some dark alley.

To fully accomplish that beautiful scenario, you need to know some of the people in front of you. Maybe there is an expert in a different field, known to always ask something about his/her research at any given seminar. As I said, do not change your scientific message, but be prepared to that predictable question, it will show your interest to topics other than yours.

Sadly, not all the questions will be reasonable or come from an innocent voice. The tip that never failed so far is: never engage. 

There can be the one that wants to show off and not really ask questions, but rather talk for a minute about something. This person will probably look smart to everyone except to you, because if you are the speaker you can (and you have to, in order to not being intimidated) spot an idiot. But the rule is: never engage, just thank for the comment and move on. 

Occasionally, you may find one of those people that translate their smartness in being a flaming asshole. Those that will begin their question with a very polite I don't agree with everything you said or ask you to step way outside your comfort zone just to catch you off guard. Being an asshole to look smarter is sadly a common habit in academia, but you are even smarter and you remember the golden rule

If caught off guard, do not panic, discuss it during the coffee break

The reason is that, let's say 95% of the times, you are the only one with a microphone, the only one that everyone can hear (if so, remember also to repeat the questions, it gives you time to think and you let everyone participate). Moreover, flaming assholes are not there to discuss with you, they just want to climb the ladder by stepping on you. Therefore, if you engage a discussion with someone, you will most certainly look like a crazy person speaking to the wind about something that no one else could possibly be able to understand. 

Considering that there is a possibility that you looked exactly like that during your talk, it is better to give a different impression during the question time.

You always have to remember that you are there to speak to everyone, use your power (the microphone) to make that happen. You will give a better impression, you will keep full control of the situation and, if you don't know the answers, nobody will really hunt you down during the coffee break: it is the bloody coffee break, the only religion tolerated  in academia.

Jessica Jones, how a superhero can be extremely realistic

Jessica Jones is not a TV Series that will be remembered for too long, but this second Marvel+Netflix product gives us few reasons to spend the next 3 minutes to read about it.

We are in the same universe of Daredevil, taking place in the same city, right after the events of the first season, introducing also a couple of new characters that appear in season 2, as well as opening up the way to new shows that will be released by Netflix in the next months. Therefore, before focusing on this show, I have the chance to point out a good aspect of this new Netflix policy. They started with Daredevil (that is amazing), that has some common characters with Jessica Jones, that introduces few heroes and villains appearing in future shows. This is a smart move by itself to capture the fans and it is also executed in the best possible way. You can easily follow every single one of these shows separately, without losing any information vital to the plot (at worst you don't get some reference, but it really doesn't matter). The other analog that is coming to my mind is The Flash/Arrow/others universe, doing more or less the same thing, but in a bad way. In fact, if you don't see all the shows, you miss something in the plot, you lose some important information. Or also, to leave the superhero madness for a second, in the Chicago Fire+spinoffs production, it just happens that you miss important parts of the plot, understandable to attract viewers to the smaller shows, but sometimes you don't have the time for the smaller shows. You know, sometimes you see people and go places.

This huge amount of superheroes on TV and in the movies will be a reason for a future post as soon as I find something interesting to say about it.

Going on topic, Jessica Jones is a private investigator with superpowers and a huge drinking problem. She was traumatized by some mysterious event and she lives as an outcast, essentially being for some aspects a bad person. The style of the narration is very similar to the Daredevil's one, thus giving us a product of good quality, a nice plot and, most of all, a truly terrifying villain. 

One of the aspects that caught my attention is that, probably for the first time in recent years, the authors make us live the drama of the victim of a rape. The traumatizing event, that, besides the origin story, defines the essence of the main character, also involved rape. It is fully acknowledged by the victim, never by the rapist. I found this a very powerful message that was somehow lacking in other shows. For example, the rape of Sansa Stark in Game of Thrones has basically no consequences on the poor Sansa, while we move our attention to the drama that Theon Greyjoy is living for looking at that rape. It makes no sense on a human level. Here we are, as it should be, fully focused on Jessica's problem, on how her life changed for that event, her pain, her rage, her need to escape.

If on one side we have Jessica dealing with the consequences of her actions, on the other we have Kilgrave, the villain that never cared about them. He is very well constructed and presented, improving the show significantly. He is extremely scary for the entire season not only because his power, mind control, is so potentially devastating (and we see the effects on how broken Jessica is) but also because he is clearly a selfish spoiled prick. He is so human to be the perfect incarnation of evil. He acts only for his own interest, stepping on everyone else, killing everyone, ruining their lives. He also tries to justify himself with a horrible childhood, but it turns out it wasn't true that either (and it was brilliant). 

So far it seems a show that will be remembered, a great show, so here come the bad aspects of it. 

Starting from the end, the entire scene of Kilgrave's murder is absolutely underwhelming, the plot was clear since the very beginning, the scene has no tension at all. Although I appreciated the fact that Kilgrave, after being careful for 12 episodes and calling out Jessica's bluff, lowered his defenses to give up to his obsession (or, to say it better, to the realization of his obsession), they could have played that much better, considering the quality of the rest of the show. Also the fact that Jessica gets away with murder charges in like 3 minutes is way too rushed. In other words, they needed some extra time to make it right and the next point is where they could get it.

Agent Will Simmons is absolutely useless for the plot. He starts by being a random cop, victim of Kilgrave, then it turns out that is some super soldier on drugs, for no reasons at all he kills a detective (yes, there was a reason, but the transition is too damn fast), then he betrays his obscure organization in like 2 minutes and 10 minutes later he gets captured by them. The end. Yes, I know that he will be a villain in the Marvel universe and yes, I know that his drugs are somehow connected to Jessica's superpowers (another thing that is so stretched that not even Jessica cares about it), but I found his appearances a big waste of screen time since when he goes to the hospital.

Some people didn't like that there is no evolution in Jessica, only in who is around her. She is exactly the same person of episode 1. It is not necessarily a problem and probably we can see some change in the next season, but for some people can be unsettling since the evolution of the main character is something that canonically happens in all the superheroes' stories. I actually liked that, it is something different than the usual plot, it is extremely realistic: she killed her enemy, but she still feels miserable, her problems are still there.

To conclude, it is not a great show, but it is for sure enjoyable and made me very curious on how is Netflix going to play the multiple spinoffs coming out in the next few months, especially the one that is supposed to collect all these heroes in a TV version of the Avengers (The Defenders, coming out the next year). 

Daredevil is the superhero we always wanted

If I have to think about a groundbreaking TV Series, the first title coming to my mind is Daredevil, created by Netflix and aired for 2 seasons so far (it is my way to tell you that there will be some spoiler ahead). Forget about the horrible movie with the mono-expressive Ben Affleck, this series is, for those that love superheroes' stories, a totally different cookie, something that set up the new standard for superheroes' shows. 

It takes place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, more precisely in the New York right after the first Avengers movie, but, besides a few mentions to a generic incident (at first I thought they were talking about 9/11) it doesn't have much in common with that. It is dark, deeply dark, not only because it takes place mostly at night (so cool shots and exciting fight scenes), but also because it explores the human brutality at a new different level.

The main character, Matt Murdock aka Daredevil, a blind lawyer fighting for the good cause during the day, dark vigilante beating up criminals during the night. In his quest for justice, for saving his city, he faces the loneliness of the heroes, lying to his friends and pushing them away from him. I found this character perfect in how it was presented along the two seasons. Yes, of course being a blind unarmed ninja with the spirit of an old-style boxer helped a lot in this judgment, but the main reason is another.

Daredevil is essentially and deeply a story of a hero finding his own limits and paying the price every time he tries to pass them. In the first seasons, such limits were coming almost exclusively from his enemies, the criminals. That first season, building up the existence of an obscure evil organization controlling the city, was groundbreaking by itself. I can't remember a TV show where the tension and the revealings where managed so perfectly along the entire season. The limit of Daredevil was to fight a faceless enemy, one punch at a time, without any specific direction. Only when the viewer started to appreciate that frustration, they gave us Wilson Fisk, powerful, apparently invincible. In season 2, on the other hand, the limits are coming also from his allies and friends. Even the worst characteristic of Matt Murdock (keep repeating to people his moral value, very catholic to some extent) is finding its limitations when put in front of the truth by Foggy, a very human character, the archetype of the mistreated best friend that keeps everything together.

When the good guy is the Devil, you expect a lot from the bad ones and this show is freaking perfect. We mentioned Wilson Fisk, the central character in the first season, the definitive step up when he makes his appearance in the second one. We saw his childhood drama and we saw how powerful he became before the Daredevil came in to ruin everything. I really appreciated that they didn't explain to us how that child became such a rich and powerful man, I like this kind of things to be a mystery. Season three will probably be about his rise from the ashes of the jail, painting the town with the blood of his enemies and chasing his loved Vanessa. I'm really looking forward to it.

I can't find any problem in the first season (maybe it can be slow from time to time), but something was wrong with the second one. Before telling you about that, let me say that I find it even better than the first one, this is how good the second season is. 

The Punisher is perfect. The interpretation, the fury, the madness, the precision, all of that is hitting you from episode one, with violent power. Then it kinda fades away, they decide to develop the two stories in parallel, the more realistic one with the Punisher, the trial, the violence in prison, Wilson Fisk, and the more esoteric one, with Daredevil and Elektra. Although it works, from time to time the contrast in the tone of the two story lines is too evident and less enjoyable. 

As a more evident problem in this season, I found the entire Blacksmith plot a mistake. I mean, they could have just mentioned his existence and his responsibilities in Frank Castle's family murder, leaving to the next season (or to the upcoming Punisher's spinoff) to solve it. Instead, they just introduced a very mysterious character, that you identify in the next episode and you see die in the one after that. The effect is just noise in an already very dense season. 

In conclusion, those two aspects notwithstanding, the second season lived up to the expectations of the first one and paved the way for an exciting third season and spinoffs. The story, the characters, the action scenes, the human struggle and the great use of the lights have already made this show the best in its genre. We just need to wait another year to be amazed again.

Can we say that GoT is not THAT good anymore?

As promised, I waited few weeks before coming back to you. HBO has aired 3 episodes so far, therefore do not go any further if you didn't see episode 3. 

Just to give few lines of safety for those that do not want to know any detail on the first three episodes of the sixth season of Game of Thrones, I will start with a comment that does not regard the plot. 

HBO, please, please, a thousand times please, turn the damn light on! In 150 minutes of show, at least half of them were shot in complete darkness or with (dark) shades of blue. Most of the times I had to guess who was speaking and which storyline was developed at that moment. The line between a cool mysterious dark shot and the black screen can be very thin sometimes and HBO has always been an acrobat walking on that line in past 5 years. However, in this season, I have to admit that they completely lost sight of the fact that a lot of people may not have perfect screens or, you know, may have some other light in the room and spend the all episode bending forward, gasping for a shred of a frame.

One of the brightest moment of the season

I want to start with the positive aspects of this season. On the Wall, everything is going as scheduled, I can't see (and, as said before, sometimes I literally can't) how they could do it any better, that bastard of Jon came back and that asshole of Olly is hanging. It is the most promising part of the story for those that look for pure entertainment, an invincible army from the north, a sadistic dog lover from the south, the first good choice of Sansa, hopefully a smart plot involving Rickon and Osha, Ser Davos being a politician. They can play that very well, let's see in they can keep the promise and when or if Littlefinger will make his appearance.

Arya(/Daredevil) and Tyron are separately keeping the interest for the rest of the world alive, but with two so cool characters is too easy, I expect more screen time in a couple of episodes or so. They are building a lot of expectation on Bran, the last flashback gave us the best sword fight so far (ok, one of the five best) and, although I'm a little skeptical about the utility of such flashbacks for the main plot, it is becoming very intriguing.

As you may have guessed from the title, however, I'm still disappointed by the show, in the same way the last season disappointed me. They decided to remind us the last season's prophecy, the one that took out every tension from a story line. We lost Myrcella as expected, we will lose Tommen as hoped (he is so boring that I'm cheering for the return of a zombie Joffrey as new king) and I don't see this reminder to be useful. Take as an example the second season of Breaking Bad, we saw that floating teddy bear for 12 episodes, wondering why, building expectations, creating a tension in the plot that was resolved in the season finale. Here we already have an insignificant king, at least make his death interesting somehow.

Speaking of not-occurred-yet deaths, the High Sparrow is still alive, I don't understand why, it makes no sense at all, those religious bullshits are taking too long to be eradicated from the show. I don't like them because they never surprised me, in two seasons they have just been playing the expected role of the homophobic fanatics, nothing new from any historical event ever happened. My fear is that they are building the Sparrows' story line so much because they will play a major role in the entire plot. This is both the only acceptable reason to tolerate their presence for so long and one of the main reasons of disappointment. In a world with dragons and undeads, do we really need religion to make something big happen?

The general impression is that they are pushing ahead too many story lines at the same time. In every episode we jump around to follow as many characters as we can, but the effect is a very slow and sometimes anti-climatic development. Something that never happened so consistently in the past seasons. It is true that the first episodes are always introductory and the fourth episode is a good one to kill the High Sparrow, but the show is heading to the wrong direction. It is becoming a show that you watch only because you care about the characters, not for the story, that keeps our attention alive just with a few brilliant punch lines or some funny scene of big men crushing small men. I'm not saying that the show is becoming a new version of The Walking Dead, but it needs to change the paste fast. 

The material to be great again is there, let some characters meet, it is time to cross their stories, and probably this rushing from one side of Westeros to the other is the price to pay in order to make it happen in the few episodes left (in the worst case scenario, season 7 will be the last one). See you again in 3 or 4 weeks.

Science needs patience. Scientists can't be patient.

A Calabi-Yau manifold,
the standard picture you put on your poster
even if you've never used one.

A few days ago, a paper appeared in the free database that is commonly used in theoretical physics. It is a paper written by Gerald 't Hooft, professor at the Utrecht University, 1999 Nobel prize winner and father of the currently most studied topic in theoretical physics: the holographic principle. 

The paper is very nice not only because it is written to make the reader understand what is going on (and, trust me, most of the time this is not the case, a lot of people is afraid to look stupid if they explain some basic steps of their research), but also because it is extremely honest about it. To use the author's words

We come not even close to solving this problem, but we propose various ingredients in phrasing the questions, possibilities and limitations that may serve as starting points.

This is an even more rare feature to find in nowadays papers since over advertising (and I'm not talking about the title, titles are complicated) is a very common habit. There are days where 5 or 6 papers claim to contain groundbreaking physical considerations when almost always they just contain a calculation slightly different than the previous one.

The final paragraph of the paper is the reason why I decided to write a post about it. 

However, the road towards these solutions will consist of very small but mathematically precisely formulated steps in our way of thinking. String theory was an interesting guess, but may well have been a too wild one. We are guessing the mathematical structures that are likely to play a role in the future, but we fall short on grasping their internal physical coherence and meaning. For this, more patience is needed. 

It is my firm (and Utopian) opinion that if science could really be patient in these days, there will be a revolution beyond our imagination. But sadly we can't be patient. Young scientists, the core and the future of scientific production, are forced to move around every few months and people expect them to produce something in those few months. It thus happens that you settle for a minor publication, for which you spent more time to write it than to think about it.

I'm not saying that we should only publish groundbreaking papers, with deep scientific meaning, but we should build up a system where those paper are not lost in the daily noise. To understand this concept, just notice that the day of appearance of a very nice paper, other 25 were published that day in that field (47 if we consider different but related fields of physics and mathematics). You can throw a rock and find 5 papers whose scientific question is not oriented to understand how nature works, but rather consider some exotic theory in some exotic context. This happens every day, with the exception that the good paper is not usually present.

You can blame the scientists that are publishing almost everything is passing on their desks, but it is also easy to imagine why they feel confident with this habit. In a real world (not the one made of candies where we all want to live), you need to get founded to keep going, to move to the next contract, to apply for the next position. To get funded, you need to produce something because the committee (that is not composed by experts in your field, the experts are, by definition, a strong minority) has to confront you with other candidates. So you over advertise your work, you throw strong claims every now and then, you take small shortcuts that nobody will have the time to check and, more generally, you dress your shit like a princess and hope that it will be kissed by someone.

Sadly, patience is what science needs, but also what the vast majority of scientists can't afford if they want to survive the instability that this profession brings in their life. It is true that I can spend days, or months, or years, thinking about the building blocks of nature, but eventually I have to find the time to sit down and test my hypothesis. That second step is precisely what will make me a scientist, but if my day has to be dedicated to find the next grant, while I keep my name alive in the community with small publications, I will hardly find the time or the energies to do so. 

In conclusion, I couldn't agree more in what professor 't Hooft wrote in his paper and I think that everyone should follow his lesson (and his style in writing papers), but realistically I know that only senior staff members have the chance to apply that lesson. This is not very encouraging for the future of science since they are not the future of science.