Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linus Torvalds did not commit this

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 198 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#151

Post by dragonwriter »

vacri wrote: post #144
WalterBright wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should professors really be spending their time locking down all the ways students may try to cheat? At Caltech, proctoring exams (for example) is not allowed by institute policy. A student's honor that he didn't cheat is considered good enough.

> A student's honor that he didn't cheat is considered good enough. Individual students certainly can have this integrity, but the demographic as a whole is demonstrably susceptible to cheating. It also offends basic scientific process, in that it suggests that you don't need to bother with trying to make sure your results are robust; instead it relies on someone's word. Why bother having exams, then? Just ask "Do yo…

> Individual students certainly can have this integrity, but the demographic as a whole is demonstrably susceptible to cheating.

Certainly demonstrably true of a significant portion of the demographic of "college students".

Caltech would probably argue that Caltech students are not a representative sample of college students, and that generalization from the more general class to the more specific here is a textbook example of the fallacy of division.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#152

Post by philh »

[deleted] wrote: post #138
philh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a ten-player game, (a) stealing one utilon from everyone else and getting 20 for yourself is one kind of selfish tradeoff; and (b) stealing one utilon from everyone else and getting 5 for yourself is another kind of selfish tradeoff; and (c) giving one utilon to everyone else while gaining 10 for yourself is also a kind of selfishness. Cheating is (b), driving is (a). (You seem to be arguing that driving is (b) -…

[deleted]

The quantity means that (a) makes the world worse off and (b) makes it better off. That seems like a pretty significant difference to me.

> I never said my actions were capitalistic at all.

I got that impression from one of your deleted comments. Perhaps it wasn't intentional.

> If that makes me into an asshole and the world into a shithole, so be it.

That's not a "so be it" outcome, that's an "oh crap, let's try to avoid that" outcome. As a society, we try to avoid that by punishing (a). You can do your part by not doing (a) even if you think you can get away with it.

It's bedtime, so I'm tapping out now.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#153

Post by maxerickson »

dragonwriter wrote: post #148
tgb wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't you proctor exams? The time spent is small, less than 10 hours a semester, and the proctors can answer student questions or make corrections and clarifications to test questions. That it's a small disincentive to cheat is nice too, though in my experience only the most blatant of cheating would be caught. I say all this as someone who proctors exams.

> Why wouldn't you proctor exams? The time spent is small, less than 10 hours a semester, and the proctors can answer student questions or make corrections and clarifications to test questions. Because Caltech faculty (and, for undergraduate student exams, grad students) have better things to do with their time than proctor exams (and, perhaps more to the point, because Caltech wants to attract faculty and grad stude…

Honor codes and not proctoring exams (rather, the students doing it themselves) are a fairly common feature of engineering colleges, it isn't really something that contributes to Caltech standing out.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#154

Post by WalterBright »

vacri wrote: post #144
WalterBright wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should professors really be spending their time locking down all the ways students may try to cheat? At Caltech, proctoring exams (for example) is not allowed by institute policy. A student's honor that he didn't cheat is considered good enough.

> A student's honor that he didn't cheat is considered good enough. Individual students certainly can have this integrity, but the demographic as a whole is demonstrably susceptible to cheating. It also offends basic scientific process, in that it suggests that you don't need to bother with trying to make sure your results are robust; instead it relies on someone's word. Why bother having exams, then? Just ask "Do yo…

Many times I honestly believed I understood the material, only to fall way short on the exam :-) Scientists can honestly believe their (wrong) results are correct, because it's easy to have unintended sources of error. This is why others try to replicate results, it's not necessarily about catching cheaters.

Think of it like running a marathon. Is there any satisfaction from thinking "I honestly believe I can complete a marathon!" ? I don't think so, but there's a heluva lot from actually completing one. Same for a tough degree program.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#155

Post by dragonwriter »

maxerickson wrote: post #153
dragonwriter wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why wouldn't you proctor exams? The time spent is small, less than 10 hours a semester, and the proctors can answer student questions or make corrections and clarifications to test questions. Because Caltech faculty (and, for undergraduate student exams, grad students) have better things to do with their time than proctor exams (and, perhaps more to the point, because Caltech wants to attract faculty and grad stude…

Honor codes and not proctoring exams (rather, the students doing it themselves) are a fairly common feature of engineering colleges, it isn't really something that contributes to Caltech standing out.

> Honor codes and not proctoring exams (rather, the students doing it themselves) are a fairly common feature of engineering colleges, it isn't really something that contributes to Caltech standing out.

> Honor codes and not proctoring exams (rather, the students doing it themselves) are a fairly common feature of engineering colleges, it isn't really something that contributes to Caltech standing out.

I'm not saying Caltech is unique in doing that, I'm saying that in the universe Caltech operates in it would conflict with their recruiting interests -- both for faculty and students -- to operate in a different way.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#156

Post by undrcvr-lagggal »

dragonwriter wrote: post #147
undrcvr-lagggal wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He called github "braindamaged". Isn't that against the CoC?

> He called github "braindamaged". Isn't that against the CoC? So, you think he violated a Code of Conduct that did not exist at the time, in the course of explaining why he was not a user of the service (so that any Code of Conduct for that service would not apply to him even if it existed.)

Making the violation before it's formalized does not necessarily excuse it. Perhaps proper action is to remove the full post or specific parts.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#157

Post by vacri »

dragonwriter wrote: post #151
vacri wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A student's honor that he didn't cheat is considered good enough. Individual students certainly can have this integrity, but the demographic as a whole is demonstrably susceptible to cheating. It also offends basic scientific process, in that it suggests that you don't need to bother with trying to make sure your results are robust; instead it relies on someone's word. Why bother having exams, then? Just ask "Do yo…

> Individual students certainly can have this integrity, but the demographic as a whole is demonstrably susceptible to cheating. Certainly demonstrably true of a significant portion of the demographic of "college students". Caltech would probably argue that Caltech students are not a representative sample of college students, and that generalization from the more general class to the more specific here is a textbook…

That's a 'begging the question' fallacy, where the conclusion ('Caltech students are more honourable than that') is used as the premise (ditto).

Even if we all agree that Caltech students are not representative of college students in general, it doesn't automatically follow that there is no significant degree of cheating.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#158

Post by WalterBright »

dragonwriter wrote: post #151
vacri wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A student's honor that he didn't cheat is considered good enough. Individual students certainly can have this integrity, but the demographic as a whole is demonstrably susceptible to cheating. It also offends basic scientific process, in that it suggests that you don't need to bother with trying to make sure your results are robust; instead it relies on someone's word. Why bother having exams, then? Just ask "Do yo…

> Individual students certainly can have this integrity, but the demographic as a whole is demonstrably susceptible to cheating. Certainly demonstrably true of a significant portion of the demographic of "college students". Caltech would probably argue that Caltech students are not a representative sample of college students, and that generalization from the more general class to the more specific here is a textbook…

An interesting question is does Caltech's admissions process select (unwittingly or otherwise) people who are likely to follow the honor system, or do people tend to rise to an expectation of integrity? I suspect the latter is more likely.

I also suspect that a university with strong anti-cheating measures is expecting students to cheat, and students will naturally fulfill that expectation.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#159

Post by lern_too_spel »

dragonwriter wrote: post #147
undrcvr-lagggal wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He called github "braindamaged". Isn't that against the CoC?

> He called github "braindamaged". Isn't that against the CoC? So, you think he violated a Code of Conduct that did not exist at the time, in the course of explaining why he was not a user of the service (so that any Code of Conduct for that service would not apply to him even if it existed.)

He's making a sarcastic reference to this recent incident: https://b0wie.s3.amazonaws.com/second-response-full.jpg.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#160

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #155
maxerickson wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honor codes and not proctoring exams (rather, the students doing it themselves) are a fairly common feature of engineering colleges, it isn't really something that contributes to Caltech standing out.

> Honor codes and not proctoring exams (rather, the students doing it themselves) are a fairly common feature of engineering colleges, it isn't really something that contributes to Caltech standing out. > Honor codes and not proctoring exams (rather, the students doing it themselves) are a fairly common feature of engineering colleges, it isn't really something that contributes to Caltech standing out. I'm not saying…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN