hey ken, questions for ya:
- what is your favorite monotype to play in general (from any generation) and why?
I still really like Gen7, because there’s enough diversity for most types to not consistently run the same 6-8, and once you learn where common z-crystals are held, the meta is pretty quick to pick up. That being said, usage in tournaments doesn’t always align with that, but it is possible. Right now, though, I really like Gen9 more. New toy syndrome and Enamorus is her. As for specific typings to play, I haven’t really “mained” a type since maybe 2018? I like different archetypes on different types, but other than that I’ll play most anything.
- Are there any specific monotype teams, mons, or archetypes you absolutely despise playing against? What about love playing against?
I love playing against stall. I’m well aware I’m in the minority on this, but I think the longer games are generally more fun because they require more planning for longevity as opposed to just the next 3-5 turns. The only teams I hate playing against are the random double focus sash teams in SM…
- In your studies as a PhD researcher, what have been some pitfalls or challenges you've encountered in the process of synthesizing and generating knowledge and information, and how have you circumvented / overcome them?
Generally for the field I work in, it’s hundreds of failures for any single success, if not a much worse ratio. Keeping that in mind, I wouldn’t really look at anything as a pitfall but more so just an additional data point that helps design further molecules. Synthesis on the other hand is much easier to solve sometimes, since it’s really easy to design a molecule we think might be great!!! But going into a lab and making that may require figuring out new chemistry and sometimes figuring out how said chemical transformation works (more academic than industrial, but depending where you are, sometimes the pursuit of the mechanism is worth it). Generally, circumventing troublesome syntheses just means throw everything you possibly can at it until something works; there was a specific transformation I was working on last year that I screened probably 30 conditions for before finding even one that remotely worked well enough to even consider using. If nothing works, sometimes you have to make the tough decision to drop the target molecule.
- As a PhD researcher, how often do you feel you make actual tangible progress towards a goal / project / experiment? is it daily? Once a week? Once in a blue moon?
With the turnaround time where I’m currently employed, we make a lot of progress in pretty short timeframes thanks to our synthesis to biological data cycle times being relatively short, and unfortunately being tasked with optimization data coming from something that would not be the most traditional screening cascade. Even negative results help guide us to develop and then make better molecules.
- How does the process of being a collegiate athlete, someone whose success depends on making advancements in one's athletic skills, compare to being a researcher? Do you think that the competitive drive of being an athlete translates to the world of research?
I think both take a fair bit of “failure is not failure” as a mentality, since I was a collegiate swimmer and even if I didn’t “win,” I still got a data point about where my training was at for the season. It translates pretty well, at least for me, because you won’t always be the best and you won’t always get better results, but you continue moving forward anyway.
- How do you think the ken of 2013 would view the ken of 2023?
Probably would be shocked he’s living in California, but other than that, happy he was done with his PhD and still surprised at the amount of telling people “not that kind of doctor.”
- do you have an excess of graphic tees?
I do not!
small ken
I have never heard of you before in my life.
who are you???
still small ken
Edible maybe, but
