Live data from Hacker News

How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

cs.purdue.edu

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#81
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do you productively deal with this? There’s got to be a way, I just don’t know what it is. The worse form of this is when they: 1) make poor choices faster than you can catch up 2) have a less senior team (in ability, not title) that can’t see more than a couple commits ahead to keep the damage in check.

> So how do you productively deal with this? Explain it in your exit interview.

I know you're joking, but it's considered impolite to explain things in exit interviews.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#82
post #73
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

This describes an uncomfortably high fraction of CS people.

And very clumpy. Some places are nearly full, some nearly empty.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#83
post #44

> 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 s…

I have to deal with a couple of people like this and it's a waking nightmare. I'm trying to figure out if it's even possible to mitigate their damage or successfully negotiate with them, or if I just need to change jobs. This behavior is especially bad when it comes from manager / team lead types.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#85
> I once sat through an hour lecture where someone proved that after a computer executed an assignment statement that put the integer 1 into variable x, the value in x was 1.

As someone who's mostly self-taught in CS (EE degree), I'd love to listen to something like this if anyone knows of a recording somewhere.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#86

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 es…

Or call them an astrologist. They love that.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So how do you productively deal with this? Explain it in your exit interview.

I know you're joking, but it's considered impolite to explain things in exit interviews.

Not if done professionally, positively, specifically, and helpfully.

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#89

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 want to admit to that after you imply it was easy.)
  Isn't this just a straightforward extension of an old result by Hartmanis? (Not even Hartmanis remembers all the theorems Hartmanis proved, but everyone else will assume you remember something they have forgotten.)
  Am I missing something here? Can you identify any deep mathematical content in this work? (Once again, audience members who found the talk difficult to understand will be unwilling to admit it.)

  Wasn't all this done years ago at Xerox PARC? (No one remembers what was really done at PARC, but everyone else will assume you remember something they don't.)
  Have you tested this on the chip Intel got running last week in their lab? (No one knows what 
  chip Intel got running last week, but everyone will assume you do.)
  Am I missing something? Isn't it obvious that there's a bottleneck in the system that prevents scaling to arbitrary size? (This is safe because there's a bottleneck in every system that prevents arbitrary scaling.)
Reminds me of low effort "comments" on Show HNs. Now I'm thinking that maybe people were deliberately trying to be insulting. But why...? Especially when people are being vulnerable sharing their work....

Re: How to Criticize Computer Scientists (2001)

#90
post #9

> they secretly dream about impressing mathematicians This made me chuckle, and then I read this: > systems researchers will light up when telling you that they have constructed a system that is twice as fast, half the size, and more powerful than its predecessor and thought "Oh God, that is me"! (I'm not in research) I almost don't want to read the rest. On a (possibly) less personal topic, I've found that non-compu…

In the past I've worked around non-computer science researchers and saw many places where having a programmer on-board would help greatly. It wasn't so much about understanding, I guess, but the apparent loss of ownership. Like if bits of the research get automated, then it isn't no longer their work, but the computer's.

They fall victim to the same thing every programmer in over their head rushing to finish does.

It looks to them like if they can just add one more floor to the house of cards it will be over, why bother explaining the whole project to someone else?

Post reply on HN