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

41–50 of 104 posts

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#41

Post by omginternets »

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.

Nah man, Rust has overplayed its hand and has been turned into a meme. We need a new Rust that's exactly like the old Rust before it was cool.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#42

Post by d23 »

> Have you tested this on the chip Intel got running last week in their lab?

This is my favorite, not because I've heard this particular one, but because I've heard this vein of low-effort comment after nearly every talk I've ever seen. "Did you consider this specific aspect of niche-thing-only-I'm-working-on?" Some people seem to always look for the opportunity to show how much they know about a topic rather than actually discuss in good faith the topic at hand.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#43

Post by cycomanic »

nickelpro wrote: post #19
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"

Well played sir!

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#44

Post by hn8788 »

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.

I had an insufferable coworker who doubled down on that attitude. If he hadn't thought of something, instead of just saying he could have done it, he'd start rambling about why it was a bad idea, and that he was smart for choosing not to do it. His whole attitude was "I know everything, and if I don't know it, it's because it's not worth knowing". Worst part was the non-technical management ate it up because he was so confidently wrong, so people got dragged into working on his convuluted solutions that just happened to always match up with his skillset.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#45

Post by PartiallyTyped »

TrailMixRaisin wrote: post #38
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with you. I beliebe that many people are trying to emulate papers like Vapnik's SVMs in an attempt to appear as ground-breaking because, well, the competition is enormous.

There isn't clear distinction between the engineering aspects and the theoretical aspects, as the article said, it looks as if we are trying to get approval by mathematicians so papers become a convoluted amalgamation of different ideas and more often than not actually provide the worst of both worlds.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#46

Post by cycomanic »

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…

Regarding the feeling offended to hearing "no", I think this has little to do with researchers/academics and more to do with managers and people who have to do it.

Generally, I would argue most researchers are very similar to what you attribute to engineers, e.g. they often answer "no" first (I have heard that commented on by outside observers multiple times). In fact researchers (academic or otherwise) are trained to find flaws in systems quickly, which typically involves saying "no that doesn't work because ...".

The flip side of the coin is that managers (and Professors or group leaders are essentially managers) don't like to be told that something can't be done. Especially if it was their idea. This is the same in many industry settings. So they really dislike to be told "no".

The irony is that at some point in the transition from researcher in the trenches (PhD, postdoc ...) to Professor/group leader many start to think that the PhD students/postdocs say know because they don't want to do the work. It's really weird, because pretty much everyone who is in academia is strongly self-motivated as they should know from their own experience.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#48

Post by collyw »

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 have a system full of reinvented wheels to keep running (going to try and replace them with more standard solutions).

The dev has now left but he would always insist that the existing solutions didn't meet every need. There was always one feature that required him to build some over engineered version of something. "Good enough" was never an option for him.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#49

Post by collyw »

omginternets wrote: post #41
swebs wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice comment, but you should rewrite it in Rust.

Nah man, Rust has overplayed its hand and has been turned into a meme. We need a new Rust that's exactly like the old Rust before it was cool.

I tried Rust a while ago (I do mainly Python) but not for long enough to get my head around it (the borrow checker).

Is it now past the peak hype cycle, or do people still love it?

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#50

Post by DangitBobby »

collyw wrote: post #49
omginternets wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah man, Rust has overplayed its hand and has been turned into a meme. We need a new Rust that's exactly like the old Rust before it was cool.

I tried Rust a while ago (I do mainly Python) but not for long enough to get my head around it (the borrow checker). Is it now past the peak hype cycle, or do people still love it?

I learned it a while back during some huge hype and put it down for a while after slow, minor, painful success. I recently came back and it feels much improved, and my troubles with the borrow checker seem to finally be something I have overcome. I think it will continue to be loved.
Post reply on HN