Yep I missed that TQ.
That's what happens when I rush things.

I asked my external about this at the end of my viva.
He said he starts with the reference section. He knows who I should be referencing because he knows the general field and he's looking to check I've not missed anyone important. If he sees all the major players being referenced, he can be confident that I've done my homework.

So my immediate thoughts are that there is no need for separate sub forums. There aren't enough posts to warrant that and it will make the forum look emptier than it already is.
That needs urgently fixed. If you don't change this immediately, you'll kill the forum.
Until you start to get a lot of posts, you should strongly consider having a single repository.

Secondly, you want a "show new posts since you last logged in" button.

Looks nice though overall.
Apologies if I've duplicated the thoughts of others. In a rush..... :-D

Can't add much more than rewt has just said.

The average brand new PhD student is simply not going to be effective at coming up with an idea worthy of a PhD. They lack the experience.
The best solution is to start them off with the broad terms of their project specified for them and then allow and encourage the student to gradually branch out after a year or two when they have the safety of a paper or two under their belt.

PhD funding lasts 3 years (ignoring the 1+3 thing where the first year is lectures and assigned mini projects). A new student could easily waste a year figuring out what to work on. Then they would have just 18 months of actual research work before taking the 6 months to write their thesis (it is unethical to expect a thesis to be written without any income). I don't think you can produce PhD standard work in 18 months.

By all means, by the end of the PhD, the student MUST be able to do their own thing but in my opinion, it is inefficient and unfair to throw a young person straight into the deep end on day 1 and personally I can't understand why the system would advocate that.

He asked me "how would you write some software to store all the information in this phone book?" He tossed the book in the air, I believe it reached a height of 3 feet above the table before crashing down loudly in front of me. I particularly remember the way he said "in your own time" and relaxed in his chair, feet on desk and theatrically thumbed through the magazine.

The whole interview was a nightmare. I couldn't answer any of his questions and after 20 minutes he interrupted me in mid sentence saying "Yeeeeeeees, I THINK we should stop at this point, we're clearly not getting anywhere". I will never forget his last words as he showed me out of the door. He said "Hang on. Here, have a copy of our newsletter". I said no thanks.
I've never been more embarassed professionally in my whole life.

Honestly, I just wouldn't tolerate being treated like that now and would terminate the interview but I was young at the time. I'm glad I went through it because it's a great story. The funniest things to look back on are always those where you have been made to look daft. Also, from that day onwards I learnt to interview the interviewer. That was a massive change. There's nothing more liberating than terminating an interview early because you've realised the job or the environment doesn't fit what you are looking for.

Anyway, I wasn't joking about that book. I have already started writing it. Just got to get round to finishing it. It's full of little stories like that one :-D

You certainly don't want to be feeling ashamed. It's all part of your life's journey and without hiccups there is no experience gained and no life lived. Anyone who judges you as a person because of a degree classification is an idiot and not worth worrying about.

I still don't see why you need to send them anything other than your Masters and PhD certificates and then let them ask you for the other one.

Because you have 3 papers, I would be interested in chancing my arm on this if I was you.
I would look into PhD by publication and start asking questions.

I am pretty sure you'll fail but you have nothing to lose.

In terms of papers, you've done well but obviously I don't know whether you meet the criteria for independence of work and ideas but you are in a good place to race through a 3 year PhD (2.5 years works and 6 months research) if you can replicate that form.

Firstly, you gained two Masters which will trump your 3rd. You have then added a PhD which trumps the lot.

Secondly, the mental health thing should not be mentioned at all. It's a massive stigma everywhere and you're going to face a lifetime of justification and predjudice if you mention it.
You should make something up such as getting the 3rd because it took you a little while longer to work out how to study properly or whatever and that you've now demonstrably fixed those issues with your further qualifications.

I certainly wouldn't advise doing a PhD in the UK or Europe without having either a very good Honours or Masters degree in a related field first (ideally 1st class or distinction but many with a 2:1 or merit succeed too). Your masters in Project Management is useful but I can't imagine it will compensate fully. I think the US might be different although their PhDs are longer to compensate.

I wouldn't personally accept you but I'm not a supervisor.

When you say a Bachelors degree do you mean an ordinary degree or an honours degree?
Are you considering applying to the US?

In terms of what skills you will need, presumably you will using AI or some form of Machine Learning.
You'll therefore need to have a good grasp of Linear Algebra (see the 2 sets of 35-ish Gilbert Strang MIT lectures free on Youtube), Statistics and Probability, Calculus to Advanced Stroud level or equivalent and Optimisation. I would suggest a good grasp of discrete maths with algorithms as well. Python is a good choice and there are books on AI and ML using Python I think, so these may be helpful.

8 years is a long time away from your degree so you might need a refresher period to go back over the basics.

I would ask for a second supervisor who could provide you with extra support if needed.
That way you get the best of both worlds.

I only saw my supervisor once every 6-8 weeks and towards the end I didn't really need that either. That lack f supervisor contact time is reasonably normal. Meeting once a week would be a little suffocating for me and if they were expecting once a day I'd be working from home :-D

Your text editor might be able to add those line numbers for you.
Otherwise I'd send it back to the editor to get them added.

You seem to have become bogged down in issues which don't concern you in the slightest, such as the professionalism of your supervisor and fellow PhD students. What business is it of yours if your supervisor is writing a paper for another student?

My strong advice is that you knuckle down and focus on your own work and stop worrying about what other people are or are not doing. Getting your PhD and then getting a permanent academic post is going to be hard enough without all this unnecessary baggage.

Once you get your own career sorted out, you can run your group in whatever way you want.

Yeah, I know it's difficult but you need to get over your demotivation and learn to give them what they are asking from you.
Once you do that, you might find the abuse goes away.

I am more concerned about your reponse to rewt.

You now appear to be expanding your circle of blame to including your fellow students for not helping you. I have to tell you that if I was a fellow PhD student struggling with my own work and heard that you were complaining that you were failing because I wasn't helping you, we would be having a very intense conversation right now about your personal responsibility obligations.

I know this is hard to hear but I am convinced that the answer to all your problems lies in your own hands. This is a positive thing because you don't need to be looking to others for your own success.