While I agree that we need to put sanctions against bad actors, I see that many of the actions being carried out are either media influenced or could be percieved as PR stunts. Namely, are you asking the same from the people in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and US? Because at the very same time, these countries are bombing other countries and killing the civilians there. We should act the same to all bad actors, not just select few.
I’m not a native speaker, so this might be a dumb question. So far, I always associated word “discover” with “something is there, someone just managed to stumble upon it while wondering around”. Thus, I find the word’s use quite strange when it comes to scientific work, especially equations —- the authors probably didn’t wonder around and invested quite a lot of work to come up with the equation.
Does it make sense to say “someone discovered an equation for X”? If not, what would be a better word?
I don’t think I dismissed the value of the paper. I pointed out that implementation may not be that good, and best paper award and quality of the implementation most of the time are not correlated.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Look at the chubby implementation and the subsequent paper - implementation and edge cases were the hard part, that took a lot of skill to get right. The algorithm is important, but labeling one as easy is far away from real world experiences.
I never assumed that PhD students can’t code. They can and they are pretty good at that. My point is that their incentives are in writing papers and running experiments that support claims in their papers, not produce reliable software. It might be reliable, but mostly it’s not. When we use tools build by PhD students, it’s usually when there are companies/startups built around it, and that is what I refer to as having skin in the game.
The sibling comment described it well. In addition, the majority of github commits are done by the people that are listed in the alumni section, while they where PhD students. There aren’t many commits from people listed as current members, and last significant commits are from the last year.
That’s all fine and dandy, but it only means that there is some good/great research in the topic. Winning best paper awards doesn’t say a thing about the implementation and handling of various edge cases.
Like many research projects, this one will also probably last as long as there is funding. Remember, the goal of PhD students is to publish papers, not develop and maintain software. Thus, without skin in the game, I couldn’t trust my data/workloads to such systems.
Dunno, I can't speak with certainty that I wouldn't stay and leave, as everything depends on the situation, but switching to a less demanding job and lower pay seems as something that would benefit me in the long run. My mental health and family are worth any price difference, that is, they can't pay me that much to stay in a shitty situation.
Thanks for clarifying, and really sorry that you had to go through all of that. As I read, I see that there were many factors at play, some of them personal, some of them cultural -- in my country, the health insurance doesn't depend on employer, for example. But on the other hand, I also saw some people here killing themselves to work, mostly not to let down others.
Why going through all of that (honest curiosity)? 4 people quit and you had panic attacks just to deliver something for a company that didn’t care much. Wouldn’t it have been easier that the whole team left early on? Your mental health would be way better, as well as of your teammates.
Ah, I love how people love to paddle flawed ideas in order to protect their mindset.
This article goes into great depths to explain all the fallacies when it comes to energy and bitcoin: https://www.ofnumbers.com/2021/02/14/bitcoin-and-other-pow-c.... tl;dr is that bitcoin is just wasting energy and no amount of text will help improve that situation. It should be outright forbidden.
Maybe people do notice, but it’s not easy to report back? Or they notice the system runs slowly? Or they just accept the fact that all systems (extrapolating from several banking, public service, and publishing sites) are crap, and need to live with it?
Isn’t then the court statement illogical? The judge admitted he lied, yet the appellate court states that they uphold the original verdict because Dozinger bribed the judge?
> Through a controversial discovery process, Chevron obtained, among other things, Donziger’s private diary entries. But the company’s central piece of evidence was the testimony of their sole witness: Alberto Guerra, a disgraced Ecuadorian judge who’d been removed from the bench over allegations of corruption and who had accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars and other benefits from the company. After meeting with Chevron’s lawyers 53 times, Guerra testified that Donziger and his team had offered the judge in the original trial a $500,000 bribe and had ghostwritten the 2011 decision against Chevron. In a related case three years later, he admitted he had lied in his testimony.