> Most of this list is about how to dress for senpai; figuratively speaking. A pretty depressing take on "how to do important research that matters".
How is that the case? The tips seem to aim for impactful research: picking good ideas and executing well on them. There's a tacit assumption that such impactful research will win best paper awards, but that's actually not substantiated and isn't obviously correct, since best paper selection committees can't see the future. For example, many (maybe most?) winners of retrospective awards (test-of-time / influential paper) aren't papers that won a best paper award when originally published.
Most of the author's papers he cites in the post, including the membership inference paper which is one of the papers the author is "most proud of," didn't win best paper awards.
The Cuckoo Trie, an ordered index data structure explicitly designed to have
memory-level parallelism, which out-of-order processors can exploit to execute DRAM accesses in parallel:
It seems reasonable that the people optimizing code and writing the most efficient infrastructure are not the same folks who actually write trading algorithms. Now, supposedly a big part of trading firm's success is that its algorithms are faster than the competition's. So are the low-level infrastructure people paid as well as the algorithm folks?
How is that the case? The tips seem to aim for impactful research: picking good ideas and executing well on them. There's a tacit assumption that such impactful research will win best paper awards, but that's actually not substantiated and isn't obviously correct, since best paper selection committees can't see the future. For example, many (maybe most?) winners of retrospective awards (test-of-time / influential paper) aren't papers that won a best paper award when originally published.
Most of the author's papers he cites in the post, including the membership inference paper which is one of the papers the author is "most proud of," didn't win best paper awards.