Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ted versus The Media Lab [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 162 posts

Re: Ted versus The Media Lab [video]

#51

Post by invalidOrTaken »

vanderZwan wrote: post #41
jffhn wrote: post #34

I like his view on how interfaces should be self-revealing. I used to feel dumb and waste time trying to figure things out, but then I decided that if I wouldn't get something quickly enough, that's because it was badly presented, and I had better discard it and move on. This approach saved me both much ego and time. (This can be read as a joke, but I'm mostly serious. I also use it when I design: I keep reworking th…

> This approach saved me both much ego and time. (This can be read as a joke, but I'm mostly serious. As an interaction designer I cannot stress how right you are about this and that it is no joke at all . There's a seven-year old comment here on HN[0] that really drove home the importance of looking beyond the tech-savvy bubble that we live in for me: > I look at UI changes in a totally different way now. My saw me…

I read some of the context at your link, and, not having a heart of stone, I can see why the desirability of changes isn't a sure thing.

However.

Balanced against that is the reality that those same users are often the most entitled about it when something breaks. Tears to jeers in an instant.

So I don't know.

Re: Ted versus The Media Lab [video]

#52

Post by dkonofalski »

jancsika wrote: post #14
xiaolingxiao wrote: post #2

This is well known in academia and exist outside of Media Lab as well. For example, I asked a professor (not associated with the Media Lab) about using hype to get grants. He said: "It's just like the stock market right, money goes here, it goes there, it's all story telling. I have to tell stories too because if I don't, then other people will tell this story and get the money. But I think I can use it better than o…

Just to add another data point: I asked an Ivy League professor about hype and they said the exact opposite of your Ivy League professor. Anyway, that's certainly the hype part that your anecdote refers to. Now how about the hokum? Did your Ivy League professor draw a computer on a cardboard box and put a kid inside there? Or did they use it for a bona fide machine learning research project? I think those are fair qu…

Just curious but what's the exact opposite of those statements? That he hasn't had to convince anyone of their work in order to get money? Or that it isn't based on that but on results? As someone that doesn't live in that world, I have no idea what the "exact opposite" of that really is.

Re: Ted versus The Media Lab [video]

#53

Post by catalogia »

asynch8 wrote: post #30
catalogia wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a pot calls a kettle black, that doesn't mean the pot is wrong.

no, it means that the 'kettle' is a hypocrite. There is another saying, 'practice what you preach'. Don't hold people to a higher standard than you hold yourself

> no, it means that the 'kettle' is a hypocrite

Correct.

> Don't hold people to a higher standard than you hold yourself

I disagree. Of course it's best to practice what you preach. But failing that, if you can't or won't reform yourself (and Ted obviously won't; old dog, new tricks, etc) being accurate in your criticism of other people is better than saying nothing, which in turn is better than defending the bad behavior of others.

Charlatans calling out other charlatans is a net good for society.

Re: Ted versus The Media Lab [video]

#54

Post by dkonofalski »

bildung wrote: post #26
kanzure wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have to tell stories too because if I don't.... Sounds like reputation afforded to academia (professors) might be inappropriate. Besides, science shouldn't be judged by reputation but by fact and result. The idea of evaluating the quality of an idea by one's social standing is sort of odd... for someone who should be preaching science.

This is what you get when you introduce market mechanisms into research institutions. If the researchers have to solicit external sources of finance, they effectively become (part time) sales people. As the financial sources are by definition external, the people behind them have no clue about the actual research. So what can the researchers do to close the sale, if the actual science won't work? They necessarily hav…

I agree with this 100%. I'm a data scientist that works with large demographics and just putting data out there to people does nothing. You have to tell a story around it and give it context for it to make any sense to most people. The most important part is sticking to objective statements about the data and then justifying the actions that are a result of new data.

Re: Ted versus The Media Lab [video]

#55

Post by jvilk »

mattkrause wrote: post #48
zaroth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know several people who graduated from the Media Lab with masters/doctorates, and they are all of this exact mold: taken captive by pipe dreams and their own delusions of what this stuff could do, while their advisors are churning through students and packaging new narratives. I have a pretty hard time with the theory that Doctoral MIT graduates are an exploited underclass. Doctoral students everywhere are overwo…

> Doctoral students...heavily monetize that credential at the end of it. Ha! If only! To continue doing research, the usual next step is a postdoc (~$50k/yr). Industry positions pay better, but outside of ML, there aren't tons of them and biotech (for example, which the media lab does) salaries aren't crazy high. I'd bet that anyone with a PhD could have made more money with a masters degree and a switch to industry.

> I'd bet that anyone with a PhD could have made more money with a masters degree and a switch to industry.

This is common knowledge for those pursuing CS PhDs. You don't do it for the money. If you only care about money, a master's degree is what you want.

Re: Ted versus The Media Lab [video]

#56

Post by xiaolingxiao »

CalChris wrote: post #50
xiaolingxiao wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I think overt exploitation is what happens when you have a situation where there is very thin or no layer of management between the most savvy players of the game ( professors, founders or VCs ) and fresh meat ( engineers or grad students ). They're both situations where the predators walk freely amongst the prey and take as they please. Also SV was an extension of academic-military-industrial complex, and they…

You should group founders with the engineers and grad students rather than with the VCs. We have to figure out a market opportunity and a product to fit it, seed that ourselves, eat ramen, pitch it, recruit for it and then make it and sell it. We do all that for well below market rate wages for a chance a big return. Moreover, founders get common stock, same as engineers. VCs get a management fee and a carry. They al…

Ok yeah fair. Some founders are better situated than others, but in general yeah most get the raw end of the deal.

Re: Ted versus The Media Lab [video]

#57

Post by throwaway_tech »

diydsp wrote: post #38
xiaolingxiao wrote: post #2

This is well known in academia and exist outside of Media Lab as well. For example, I asked a professor (not associated with the Media Lab) about using hype to get grants. He said: "It's just like the stock market right, money goes here, it goes there, it's all story telling. I have to tell stories too because if I don't, then other people will tell this story and get the money. But I think I can use it better than o…

>they're really selling the image of technological progress. That's such a broad brushstroke. Consider, for example, Echo Nest's research in machine listening in Barry Vercoe's Music, Mind and Machine group. This all made it into Spotify when they acquired Echo Nest. His work led and pushed other researchers in the field at ISMIR, etc. Hard to downplay the impact of Spotify on our culture. This is not "hokum." And as…

>Hard to downplay the impact of Spotify on our culture.

I'd say it be hard to convince anyone that Spotify has had any material impact on our culture...but here we are. Music (sure); the internet (sure); smart phones connecting us wirelessly to the internet (sure); a single music streaming app with countless competitors (I have heard the name Spotify, but never used it, and yet I still stream music everyday...just don't see any impact on our culture)

Re: Ted versus The Media Lab [video]

#58

Post by maccam94 »

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #35
bildung wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what you get when you introduce market mechanisms into research institutions. If the researchers have to solicit external sources of finance, they effectively become (part time) sales people. As the financial sources are by definition external, the people behind them have no clue about the actual research. So what can the researchers do to close the sale, if the actual science won't work? They necessarily hav…

> So what can the researchers do to close the sale, if the actual science won't work? Maybe the problem is that the science won't work and they're trying to spin it otherwise.

Sometimes you have to spend resources before you can reach a conclusion, which is is a risk. People are always looking for low risk/high reward investments, and when they're unable to evaluate an investment for themselves they incentivize optimistic proposals.

Re: Ted versus The Media Lab [video]

#59

Post by exdsq »

mattkrause wrote: post #48
zaroth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know several people who graduated from the Media Lab with masters/doctorates, and they are all of this exact mold: taken captive by pipe dreams and their own delusions of what this stuff could do, while their advisors are churning through students and packaging new narratives. I have a pretty hard time with the theory that Doctoral MIT graduates are an exploited underclass. Doctoral students everywhere are overwo…

> Doctoral students...heavily monetize that credential at the end of it. Ha! If only! To continue doing research, the usual next step is a postdoc (~$50k/yr). Industry positions pay better, but outside of ML, there aren't tons of them and biotech (for example, which the media lab does) salaries aren't crazy high. I'd bet that anyone with a PhD could have made more money with a masters degree and a switch to industry.

A PhD can help with jobs that don't really require a PhD, especially in finance. I have a few friends who ended up joining large investment banks after their DPhils at a higher level than those who had joined straight after their bachelors as analysts and worked up. This is in the UK though, where PhDs can be 3 years and completed immediately after a bachelors, so they were entering the job market at 24/25.

Re: Ted versus The Media Lab [video]

#60

Post by azinman2 »

Chinjut wrote: post #49
diydsp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think they acquired Echo Nest for 50 million euros? It's the music discovery engine, not the streaming.[0] [0] http://the.echonest.com/pressreleases/spotify-acquires-echo-...

Companies make all sorts of acquisitions, insightful or random. The acquisition of Echo Nest certainly isn't the reason for "the impact of Spotify on our culture". I assure you, Spotify's success was in its licensing a very large selection of music to stream. Everything else is marginal.

Not true at all. Do you think Facebook would be as big without their feed, or YouTube as big without recommended videos or their front page?

Recommendations and turning that into useful products (like auto generated playlists, mood playlists, upcoming talent, etc) are a huge draw to Spotify and creates a high bar for new competitors (including Apple Music).

Post reply on HN