Does anyone else miss enscript -2G?
Yes! :-)
Google’s Jeff Dean’s undergrad senior thesis on neural networks (1990) [pdf]
101–102 of 102 posts
Re: Google’s Jeff Dean’s undergrad senior thesis on neural networks (1990) [pdf]
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not really trying to be snarky, just point out the difference in approach. Research is in fact documentation - of what others have done. Papers that are entirely surveys or comparisons of different approaches can be excellent and would make good citations in any practical work.
Not really. The point is that in research we want to generate and further knowledge. This is distinct from generating and documenting facts. If you don't link into the web of knowledge there is (implicitly: leave that task up to the reader) you are just documenting facts. This is not academic. What did reading this Master thesis teach me? That two approaches perform reasonably (by what standard?) with a size trade-of…
>> The point is that in research we want to generate and further knowledge. This is distinct from generating and documenting facts.
Hence the desire to constantly look for novelty in academic work. Engineers don't necessarily care about novelty, they need to solve a problem at hand for practical reasons. Documenting what they've done, how it performed, and what they learned (if anything) is still important to write down for others who may want to solve similar problems.
I personally find the quest for novelty often reads like some kind of desperate need to justify the work or to get it funded. Solid work can stand on it's own even if there's nothing new about it, while mediocre work seems to stand so long as it's go some element of novelty.
If I've already decided what method I want to use to solve a problem, finding a well-done implementation and documentation on it is all I really want. If I don't know what solution to apply to a problem, a survey that documents the various approaches and makes some comparisons is what I want.