人老了，感觉通过聊天聊出来感情越来越不是我的option了。直接问有没有谈恋爱意愿，然后无论得到什么反馈都比自己内耗强。

炒股有利于提高对失恋的应对能力

世界很大，好人很多。

🤣🤣🤣
😭🤡😇

完成了一半

半年前随手立下的小目标，看起来完成得还不错。口琴钢琴都在练新曲子，也在家里尽可能的多陪伴一些；现在一边随手翻译（包括文献和发到 B 站 的视频），一边用 LaTeX 做各种趣图；新的常礼勋赏也不少，外拍也被摄得很爽。虽说留下了缺憾，也第一次面对了生老病死，但还是挺过来了。希望能这样坚持到明天日出吧。

因为你有管理员权限，我就不行

一些我了解到的企业信息，如果之后有了解会进一步补充。（希望等我真的开始广投简历找工作的时候可以了解至少 10 家企业。）具体是哪家就隐藏了。

• 任何公司说的听起来很诱人的待遇政策一定要问清楚条件！！！没有主动解释条件就是在耍流氓，甚至是故意在诱导别人提高自己的吸引力。自己有实打实的竞争力和独特地位不会用这种手段营销。

就是一般来说，你在市场上 take 别人的单会有一定的 impact，当你的资金量大的时候会尤其有这个问题。
举个例子比如你是一个 intraday 的 low/mid-freq statistic arbitrage 策略，每天或者每几分钟入场一次，假设入场时机不是 open/close auction 等没有 spread 的时机，那你每次入场的时候可能由于资金量不小，会导致你的资金对市场产生很大影响。比如原本你的 alpha 可能只能赚几个 bps，但是由于下单不够精细导致产生了很大的冲击成本，那你的 alpha 可能就被成本吃掉很多，甚至完全失效。
所以这时候为了解决一种“在规定时间内达成规定仓位”的问题，就产生了 execution 这个环节。目的是在于减少交易成本，这一步一般都偏高频，做的精细的话会有更高频的 signal 做辅助，做得好做到比市场成交的 vwap 低几个 bps。如果做的特别好的话甚至可以单飞成为一个高频策略。

业界普遍做法是用 RL 做 execution

有感而发（癫），十分抱歉 🥲

花到名字登上卢浮宫的程度也还是蛮厉害的，感觉比普通的消费高一层次。

刷到了 25 届的就业质量报告，可能是终于轮到自己找工作，才终于对这种就业去向有了切身的感受。

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/FIAWvQza2QwVIPVpaZbo6g

从本科到博士的全面扩招，本科入学那年记得新生统计报告，总共 4300 多人，到毕业时是 3900 多人。但疫情后这三年：本科 4300-4800-5500，硕士 5600-5800-6300，博士 930-1000-1200。

去央国企的数量越来越多，国家电网 450-530-600，几大军工央企兵器、船舶、航空、航天、科工、电科、中核，每年大概都有 500-600 人。以前以为是西安没有互联网企业加上学校实习氛围一般所以去大厂的人少，实际上经历秋招之后发现很多人都有大厂的实习转正，但宁愿去央国企求稳，即使 23-25 这三年互联网已经回暖，甚至校招薪资白菜都能倒挂 22 年的 sp，ssp，大家仍然会犹豫家乡的央国企。

华为和比亚迪每年一定程度上还是能够兜底，即使去年华为绝大部分去上海，比亚迪去深圳，还是总共有将近 700 人

2022 菜鹅空突安东诺夫机场，vdv 精锐落地成盒后大家都认为大规模空突在现代战争是无效的，但是美军这次证明不是空突这种战术不行，而是大鹅又菜又爱玩。

Dear EEVEE,

You are receiving this email as an author of a submitted paper to ICLR 2026.

tl;dr
The ICLR organizers have been notified of an OpenReview bug that leaked the names of authors, reviewers, and area chairs for all conferences. While the bug has now been fixed, we are taking the following measures to prevent collusion:

1. We will be re-assigning each paper to a new area chair.
2. We will be reverting reviews and scores to their state before the discussion period. Reviewers will not be able to change their scores or participate in the rebuttal discussion further. Authors will be able to continue to post responses through the end of the rebuttal period (Dec 03 '25 09:00 PM UTC). The new area chairs will use the original reviews and the author responses when recommending an accept or reject decision.
3. We are disabling public commenting on all submissions to prevent abuse.

Any attempt to use the leaked information to harass or dox a member of the community, or manipulate the peer review process, is a violation of the ICLR code of conduct, and will result in desk rejection and ban from the conference. If you are aware of any attempt to contact, threaten, or influence the reviewers of any submission, please report it immediately to program-chairs@iclr.cc.

Background
On Nov 27, ICLR was notified of a software bug that leaked the names of authors, reviewers, and area chairs for all ICLR submissions. The bug impacted all conferences hosted on OpenReview, and we are grateful to the OpenReview team for fixing the issue quickly. More information about this bug and its mitigation is available in OpenReview's official statement.

Because this incident enabled deanonymization of all papers and reviews, it significantly increases the possibility of collusion attempts, such as authors intimidating or bribing reviewers to raise their scores. After the public disclosure of this bug, we began to receive reports of collusion attempts and additionally observed an anomalous uptick in reviewers increasing their scores.

Response
We understand that this incident deeply impacts our community, and we take your concerns seriously. We are taking the following actions:

To avoid collusion, we are preventing reviewers from changing their scores or participating in discussion going forward. Due to uncertainty around when the exploit was introduced, we are also reverting all reviews and their scores to their state before the start of the discussion period. We are continuing to allow authors to post responses and comments until the end of the rebuttal period.

Additionally, we will be assigning a new area chair to every submission. The new area chair will be tasked to carefully consider how the author response addresses reviewer concerns when deciding on their accept or reject recommendation. We recognize that it will be frustrating to authors and reviewers to have reviews reverted after the initial rebuttal process, and we additionally recognize that we are asking area chairs to perform additional work, but we believe this is the best course of action to prevent widespread collusion that could undermine the scientific integrity of ICLR.

We are disabling public commenting on all submissions to prevent abuse. We have removed public comments that exploit this information.

Anyone who attempts to use the information to harass, dox, or threaten a reviewer or author, or manipulate the peer review process, are in violation of the ICLR Code of Conduct, and they will have their own submissions desk rejected as well as banned from the conference for multiple years. If you are aware of any attempt to contact, threaten, or influence the reviewers of any submission, please report it immediately to program-chairs@iclr.cc.

The ICLR team will work closely with the OpenReview team in their response to the incident. OpenReview will be notifying all deanonymized users via email shortly. OpenReview will be thoroughly analyzing who exploited the system, and they are working with multi-national law enforcement about consequences.

Your Role as Author
Please continue to post rebuttals and responses to your submission(s) with the awareness that they will be read and taken into close consideration by the area chair. However, your responses will no longer result in discussion from reviewers.

Thank you for your understanding and continued participation in ICLR.

Sincerely,
ICLR 2026 Program Chairs

统一回复：
是传统意义上的好结局。
经过摆烂之后复习循环和考前拼命突击，楼主考试通过了。
后面或许会时不时更新一下自己的学术 (生活) 经历，再次感谢交大门和本楼所有门友们的资瓷！