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

How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

cs.purdue.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 104 posts

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#11

Post by cturner »

I feel it misses a reliable take-down of the systems people. Recipe: (1) ask the person if they have evaluated some framework which would take months to evaluate; (2) suggest that their hard work reinvents the wheel; (3) step back and enjoy a smug victory.

On the odd occasion that they have evaluated the framework you named, you can simply try again a few minutes later with a different framework. If you are challenged, use condescension to imply that the victim did not try hard enough.

This tactic works even for situations where the victim has used a first-principles approach to completely demolish a problem to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. 'Reinventing the wheel' is a type of sin. The mere suggestion of it will stick like shit to a blanket.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#12

Post by fancyfredbot »

This is great fun, but did anyone else think the suggested insults for experimentalists were very weak? The Xerox Parc one is good but most experimentalists would love a question about bottlenecks! And who cares about testing on Intel's latest chip? I suggest a proper insult would suggest an easily avoided bottleneck or unnecessary point of failure.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#13

Post by bonoboTP »

dspillett wrote: post #5
rapjr9 wrote: post #2

As an engineer supporting researchers I ran into a peculiar problem. If I suggested an idea they often HAD to ignore it, because they couldn't claim it as their own. Especially the grad students who were trying to get a PhD by coming up with a unique idea of their own, but also the profs because it would be an admission that they "the experts" didn't understand what they were doing. So I had to lead them to come roun…

> Even worse, we'd build a "proof of concept" that ignored all the engineering, and then try to get other researchers or companies interested in the system as though it was complete. This is far from unique to academic circles...

Career science / academia has these problems in general. But probably also industry as well. (Like who takes credit for what, if it's someone else's idea, it must be axed etc., if it comes from the boss' favorite then it must not be questioned etc)

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#14

Post by bonoboTP »

aspaceman wrote: post #3
rapjr9 wrote: post #2

As an engineer supporting researchers I ran into a peculiar problem. If I suggested an idea they often HAD to ignore it, because they couldn't claim it as their own. Especially the grad students who were trying to get a PhD by coming up with a unique idea of their own, but also the profs because it would be an admission that they "the experts" didn't understand what they were doing. So I had to lead them to come roun…

I really think this misses the mark. Grad students don't treat their prof as infallible - at least good labs. In most labs, the grad students are the ones actually doing the work and research. The prof is just the marketing man. And a good prof in CS will understand they're the clueless marketing man. It's not really feasible for them to keep up with writing code and the whole grant writing (and networking with compa…

> I get the impression ML profs are a load of shit tbh.

The field has exploded over the recent years and the new people are somewhat filtered for the ability to hype up hiring committees.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#15

Post by esjeon »

> Like mathematicians, theorists in Computer Science take the greatest pride in knowing and using the most sophisticated mathematics to solve problems.

This reminds me of some papers that got their proofs wrong by applying some fancy theorems. The fact that their results are correct clearly suggests that those theorems were added as a second thought.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#16

Post by [deleted] »

fancyfredbot wrote: post #12

This is great fun, but did anyone else think the suggested insults for experimentalists were very weak? The Xerox Parc one is good but most experimentalists would love a question about bottlenecks! And who cares about testing on Intel's latest chip? I suggest a proper insult would suggest an easily avoided bottleneck or unnecessary point of failure.

[deleted]

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#19

Post by nickelpro »

miklosme wrote: post #17

> In fact, this is merely an extension of a ploy used by children on a playground: "Oh yeah? I could have done that if I wanted to." Or by adult professionals on Hacker News.

A rather bold usage of "professionals" there, and for that matter "adult"
Post reply on HN