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

31–40 of 104 posts

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#31

Post by _y5hn »

swebs wrote: post #27
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.

That beginner-level Rust code made Coq barf. Rewrite your POC in Haskell before reverting back.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#34

Post by jwuphysics »

I can also provide some input on how to insult different kinds of astronomers depending on the field they work in.

Cosmology: Use the word "cosmology" interchangeably with "astronomy."

Simulations: "Did you include dust?" If they say yes then ask about magnetic fields. Either way, claim that they tuned their physical hyperparameters to achieve their results.

Observations: "Did you follow up with ?" Pick one that's especially competitive to request observations, such as Hubble or SOFIA or ALMA, so that if the answer is no they'll feel extra bad about their rejected Hubble/SOFIA/ALMA observing proposal.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#35

Post by bogwog »

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.

The full title:

> How To Criticize Computer Scientists > or > Avoiding Ineffective Deprecation And > Making Insults More Pointed

Am I missing something? Isn't your failure to read the full title a result of your desire to insult the author, rather than to criticize them? Wasn't this done already at Xerox PARC?

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#36

Post by sebastialonso »

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.

What a lame comment. I could have written one better If I had the time!

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#37

Post by akalsz »

iudqnolq wrote: post #32

This article had the most volunteer translations I've ever seen (26). I wonder why.

Well the Hungarian one feels like somebody took every single word in the essay and replaced it with the first result from a rather small dictionary.

Google Translate produces a better translation (which is of course still awful), but I have a feeling that the one in question was made by an earlier version of Google Translate as well.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#38

Post by TrailMixRaisin »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #28
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.

In my understanding this comes from the fact that many ML is more engineering than science but wants to be seen (or is reviewed as) theoretical research. So it fits the situation in the article even better.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#39

Post by ungamedplayer »

sokoloff wrote: post #26
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.

Like this:

LOL UR PPR SUX JK ;)

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#40

Post by teddyh »

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.

Link via MaxBarraclough elsewhere¹ in this thread:

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

1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26620225

Post reply on HN