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

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#91

Post by cgtyoder »

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…

> Yet another thing I discovered is that for engineers one of the most important words they use in discussions is "no"...

This paragraph is a great insight - knowing how someone else is going to receive your (as you perceive it) constructive criticism cuts down miles to the destination of achieving the common goal. Speaking so your listeners will be able to "hear" you without perceiving an attack is critical in cross-discipline groups.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#92

Post by musicale »

rq1 wrote: post #25

I really wanted to like this writing but it seems that the author doesn't know what's a decision graph. It should have been better concluded and summarized by a decision graph. :)

Decision graphs are too easy to understand. That's why we avoid them for machine learning.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#93

Post by musicale »

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…

> if you are ever involved in academic research and you hear the words "that's just engineering" be very wary

An eminent computer scientist (Jeff Mogul I think) once pointed out that computer systems research is basically engineering.

I concur with this assessment and suggest that it's something that systems researchers should be proud of. After all, engineering means you're actually designing and building something that could potentially work.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#94

Post by b215826 »

> Like mathematicians, theorists in Computer Science take the greatest pride in knowing and using the most sophisticated mathematics to solve problems. For example, theorists will light up when telling you that they have discovered how an obscure theorem from geometry can be used in the analysis of a computer algorithm. Theorists focus on mathematical analysis and the asymptotic behavior of computation; they take pride in the beauty of equations and don't worry about constants. Although they usually imply that their results are relevant to real computers, they secretly dream about impressing mathematicians.

This is true about all fields that involve substantial amount of mathematics, e.g., physics and economics. In physics (and to a lesser extent, economics) you see a sort of "rift" between experimentalists and theorists very often, with both groups thinking that they are better than the other. Even among theoretical physicists, you tend to see this sort of petty rivalry: high-energy theorists thinking that they are better because they are after the fundamental laws of the universe, condensed matter (both hard and soft) theorists who feel that they are the better lot since their theories can be compared with experiments, hard-condensed matter theorists often look down upon soft-condensed matter theory as being a "classical" discipline invented to bring in more grant money, etc. While there's some truth to all these beliefs, rather than engage in this petty rivalry, it would actually do a lot more good if people just did honest work in their own fields.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#95

Post by Something1234 »

stcredzero wrote: post #61
mattkrause wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Missing confidence intervals" is my (IMO) legit pet peeve. People fit frighteningly complicated models with millions-to-billions of parameters. They throw in hairy regularization schemes justified by fancy math. When it comes time to evaluate the output, however: "Our model is better because this one number is bigger than their number [once, on this one test set]."

As an undergrad, my circle had this drinking game called "Big Number." It came about because two of the biggest wastoids were the last people awake in the wee hours of Sunday, and one of them said to the other, "I'm too drunk to deal. Let's just roll dice, and the one with the biggest number drinks." Of course, over the years, the game developed dozens of other rules.

Cool Story. Any details on more of the rules?

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#96

Post by graderjs »

de_nied wrote: post #89
graderjs wrote: post #69

This is pretty awful, as in mean. Why would you deliberately want to insult someone who hasn't done anything to you? If it's getting them back sure, but as sport? Just cruel. Despite all the equations, it seems to me that your work didn't require any real mathematical sophistication. Did I miss something? (This is an especially good ploy if you observe others struggling to understand the talk because they will not wa…

This is pretty awful, as in mean. Why would you deliberately want to insult someone who hasn't done anything to you? If it's getting them back sure, but as sport? Just cruel. Despite all the equations, it seems to me that your work didn't require any real mathematical sophistication. Did I miss something? (This is an especially good ploy if you observe others struggling to understand the talk because they will not wa…

Whaat? Your comment is invalid. This is totally different, this is not an insult it's my reaction, don't know you difference?

Reaction to this guy issuing instructions on how to be cruel.

Now this de_nied guy is objecting to someone calling out bullying uses the schoolyard bullying tactic of repeating the words back to you. What's wrong with you? Unless you're a bully... Or is the de_nied guy the bully who was bullied?

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#97

Post by graderjs »

callesgg wrote: post #72
graderjs wrote: post #69

This is pretty awful, as in mean. Why would you deliberately want to insult someone who hasn't done anything to you? If it's getting them back sure, but as sport? Just cruel. Despite all the equations, it seems to me that your work didn't require any real mathematical sophistication. Did I miss something? (This is an especially good ploy if you observe others struggling to understand the talk because they will not wa…

The article is supposed to be a joke. If the author did not intend for it to be a joke, you can make the conclusion that the author has psychopathic tendencies.

Right.... I just didn't read it that way, but i get that some people could. Thanks for pointing it out. It's weird i didn't think there was anything jokey about it, i definitely see this type of thing could be a joke. I just didn't see that there at all. I guess that says more about me and what I'm at that i couldn't see it as a joke...i should probably lighten up

I read it like the guy meant it because he felt unfairly sidelined and had some departmental spat with computer scientists...i don't care about that spat, i just thought he was being mean. Maybe it is a meant as a joke... But they say in every joke there's truth, and a lot of comics are the most angry people inside. Humor is their sublimation

Edit: i find this one funnier

https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/essay.jargon.html

But it definitely has an edge of bitterness within the cs department, as i suspected initially. The themes i read into the first essay are clearly present in the second. I think i was right that this guy has an axe to grind. Just because he writes some supposedly satirical essays doesn't mean he isn't a toxoc person inside or possibly out...

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#99

Post by l0b0 »

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…

This takes on a sinister tone in connection with interminable "which X is the best for this project" discussions. Evaluating all Xes would take infinite time because new Xes (JavaScript offshoots, Python package managers, CMSes, IDEs, build systems, you name it) are coming out faster than you can fairly evaluate them, and every person on the project has used at least one X. So the question basically boils down to

1) try Foo because of all the Xes all of us have tried it was the only one which didn't cause manic depression,

2) continue the discussion until the most ruthless/charismatic/stubborn person "wins", or

3) try new shiny Bar, because all the cool kids are using it.

I wonder if this is part of the reason so many projects go for the new shiny thing: in a group of reasonable people a lot of the time all of them will agree that all existing solutions suck.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#100

Post by medstrom »

mattkrause wrote: post #52
tralarpa wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

"Missing confidence intervals" is my (IMO) legit pet peeve. People fit frighteningly complicated models with millions-to-billions of parameters. They throw in hairy regularization schemes justified by fancy math. When it comes time to evaluate the output, however: "Our model is better because this one number is bigger than their number [once, on this one test set]."

Confidence intervals aren't even that informative. Like using boxplots when you could inform the viewer so much more with sina plots [1]. Why not show me the whole posterior probability distribution (perhaps helpfully marking the 95% highest density region [2])? Or if you don't have a distribution, show me the 95%, 97.5% and 99.5% intervals.

[1] https://clauswilke.com/dataviz/boxplots-violins.html

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/highest-den...

Post reply on HN