The Haruhi problem reminds me of De Bruijn sequences, aka why I don't trust 5 button keyless car entry systems. Fords keypads do not have return keys, delays, or attempt limits. A 3125 button sequence can guarantee you will unlock the door. It would take about 10-20 minutes for someone who has practiced to break in. Someone this year made a bot that did it in about 5 minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bruijn_s…
You're worried about someone standing next to your car for 10-20 minutes pushing buttons and not messing up a 3125 number combo on a keypad with almost no tactile feedback?
The comment you're replying to contains:
> Someone this year made a bot that did it in about 5 minutes.
It's also the case that it's plausible one can interrupt & resume the sequence (at the cost of 4 extra button presses per interruption).
It is a fun little event that something posted on 4chan is used in a research paper. But that nobody knows how it should be cited is just plain wrong. They should maybe contact their research library and get a introduction to citing. All citation styles I know of can handle web citations. Anonymous authors is nothing new either. And you have things like the internet archive or Webcite[0] to make sure the web document…
It's not that nobody knows how to cite it, it's that nobody wants to cite things from outside of academia, perhaps because it lowers their own perceived prestige. I have seen this in computational linguistics where people frequently don't cite their data sources, which often come from outside of the field or outside academia altogether. Instead they put a link to a webpage in a footnote, which does nothing for assign…
To give you a counterpoint, I've read plenty of computer science and mathematics papers where someone cited an arXiv paper by an obscure or unknown researcher. I've even seen blog posts and email correspondence cited. In fact, in one of my own papers I cited an unpublished manuscript which you can't even find on the internet - you have to personally contact the author, who hasn't touched the thing in the last 25 years. For all intents and purposes, this manuscript - while valuable - only exists in the tribal folklore of the research community. But it's still cited and most active people in the field probably have a personal copy of it on their hard drive.
A 4chan poster told me that it was the Russian guy who turned down the Fields Medal (Grigori Perelman?). Take that with a grain of salt.
...who previously jumped out of the plane in the middle of the night over the forest with the blackmailed money, badly functioning parachute and survived, contrary to common sense. Because the posters there wouldn't try to troll. Yes, take that with... whatever.
Not at all, 4chan has* quite a few very smart people who for various reasons might not have "made it" in life. This type of thing used to be called "weaponized autism" or "autism" on site. This usage of autism really means something closer to "extreme obsession". * or at least had. I think that a lot of people left the site over the last few years as the site changed quite dramatically.
Pretty much all my sort-of-nerd friends and I left the site some time between 2012 and 2015. I think it all went downhill when Obama got his second term and the 'libertarians' became dislodged by full-blown Nazis. There used to be quite a few prominent academics on /sci/'s early days.
Maybe? I've always attributed the fall to a combination of the fappening, Moot's departure, and the 2016 elections. The huge influx of new users combined with a change in moderation absolutely destroyed the site. My memory isn't so good, but I don't think there was much political content outside of /pol/ and /b/ until 2015 or so. Might be dependent on what boards you browsed though.
I think you're right about Nazis coming in, but I think that it was much more contained when Moot was there. I guess maybe that provided the setup for the 2016 elections.
Not at all, 4chan has* quite a few very smart people who for various reasons might not have "made it" in life. This type of thing used to be called "weaponized autism" or "autism" on site. This usage of autism really means something closer to "extreme obsession". * or at least had. I think that a lot of people left the site over the last few years as the site changed quite dramatically.
Under the anonymous veil is hard to know if some poster is an accomplished person IRL. For all we know one of the anons that contributed to this problem is a Fields medalist whom is also a closeted weeb.
That's true, and in this specific case it seems hard to tell. I guess my idea of the average 4chan user of old is a college dropout shutin. That might be because when I started browsing being a shutin/NEET was the "cool" thing. I think this quote sums it up nicely: "In my online persona I pretend that I am ironically pretending to be a NEET living in my parents’ basement, but I am one in actual fact."
> Scientists often abhor citing from blogs, forums, and Wikipedia, as those publications "are not peer-reviewed by trustworthy professionals". Which is sad because most peer-reviewed material are not trustworthy either. https://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/believe-it-or-not-most-pub... https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... It's worrying that academia is slowly turning into a rigid "appeal to au…
Peer review is a base level quality check, not a correctness check in most disciplines. It provides value, indeed most of my papers have been improved by going through peer review. But it's good to be conscious of what it can and can not do. One thing that it does do is signal intent. It signals that you are willing to engage with the expert community, and specifically their feedback and criticism. Finally, there is…
> Peer review is a base level quality check
Ideally this is true. At the worst though, you'll end up with a peer reviewer that gets pedantic or one who's a member of a citation cartel [0] that demands that you cite his/her friends papers unnecessarily as a quid-pro-quo leading to publication. It's difficult to say how common this is in practice since academia is generally terrible about self-reflection, but I observed concerning evidence of this when I was still in science. In some fields at least, there's ample evidence [1] that peer review provides inadequate QC controls for methods sections, making it literally impossible to replicate results due to entire processing steps being omitted. This is why post-publication services such as PubPeer have become more and more relevant, since it has become obvious as time has elapsed how woefully inadequate the initial screening process is.
Some undergrad or masters should do some work to validate the work and write a paper about the validation. Then they'll be cited by anyone who wants to use the 4chan thing
It is a fun little event that something posted on 4chan is used in a research paper. But that nobody knows how it should be cited is just plain wrong. They should maybe contact their research library and get a introduction to citing. All citation styles I know of can handle web citations. Anonymous authors is nothing new either. And you have things like the internet archive or Webcite[0] to make sure the web document…
I agree. Its doesn't seems like that big of a deal to cite a web article. What's causing trouble is the stereotype among the research institutions to not trust/value communities like 4chan. I am glad that this is being highlighted.
Also lending strong support for the infinite number of monkeys theorem.
I think you misunderstand the population of 4chan. Across its diverse boards, there's all kind of people, and they don't fit into a single mold. For example, all kind of skilled laborers and handy homeowners, many with families, frequent the /diy/ board. The technology board /g/ is host to a lot of talented, high-earning programmers mixed in with tinkerer types. /toy/ is full of all kinds of folks, from teenagers wit…
Yeah, what you said was true maybe five years ago. There used to be quirky geek types being ironic all the time and making cool stuff. When I left though it was all Nazis and people who somehow stand Nazis 'interjecting' every few comments about the IQ of black people or evil SJWs. This can drain even the kindest, strongest soul. Even moot got tired of it and sold it to that Japanese con man.
It is a fun little event that something posted on 4chan is used in a research paper. But that nobody knows how it should be cited is just plain wrong. They should maybe contact their research library and get a introduction to citing. All citation styles I know of can handle web citations. Anonymous authors is nothing new either. And you have things like the internet archive or Webcite[0] to make sure the web document…
I read this more that if they follow common web citation guidelines, there’s a strong probability that 4chan will replace the target with goatse, or something worse.