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

21–30 of 104 posts

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#21

Post by tralarpa »

cturner wrote: post #11

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 challenge…

You can attack them even if you have no idea what they are doing. Just look at the plots in the report and mumble something about "missing confidence intervals", "unrealistic workload", and "it's not even heavy tailed".

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#22

Post by MaxBarraclough »

ntechau wrote: post #18

Criticism should not be insulting. The primary title of this document is a thinly veiled attempt of shrouding the author's true intent. It's clear from their final words on the topic that they mean to insult, not criticize.

Agree. Articles like this are good fun (another favourite of mine is How to Write Unmaintainable Code [0]), but misleading titles are still poor form.

For good general advice on productive criticism, I recommend How to Criticize with Kindness, by the philosopher Daniel Dennett. [1]

[0] https://github.com/Droogans/unmaintainable-code

[1] https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#23

Post by skohan »

cturner wrote: post #11

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 challenge…

"Not reactive enough"

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#24

Post by tralarpa »

skohan wrote: post #23
cturner wrote: post #11

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 challenge…

"Not reactive enough"

"Have you tried to quantify the QoE?"

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#26

Post by sokoloff »

thenoblesunfish wrote: post #20

I would actually love the non-joke version of this article about how to constructively criticize, especially when you have to do it via text.

Your meaning is perfectly clear (and I’d also like that article), but for some reason 25% of my brain is stuck reading “text” as “text message” and imagining someone banging out a critiquing response in T9 mode on some old Nokia phone.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#27

Post by swebs »

cturner wrote: post #11

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 challenge…

Nice comment, but you should rewrite it in Rust.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#28

Post by PartiallyTyped »

esjeon wrote: post #15

> 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.

If you browse r/MachineLearning, you will see many people complaining about unnecessarily convoluted mathematics that are literally there to appease reviewers and don't actually say anything useful.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#29

Post by bigjimbo »

cturner wrote: post #11

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 challenge…

I always liked this quote from Alan Kay - "Reinventing the flat tire"
Post reply on HN