Let's be serious, most people are regulars and this has been on the front page multiple times like constantly. And it was upvoted 4 times on new to get to the front page rapidly. It's not something new that we're all "Oh that's cool".
We also know there are tons of sock accounts.
And no half of the posts on front page can't be put in that since they aren't constantly reposted like this.
So, while there are a few people who will have learnt about this for the first time. Most of you know what it is and somehow feel like this is your chance to go look I'm smarter than Iain. And I think you've failed again.
Do you know the joke with "I'll repeat the joke to you until you understand it?".
That's why some things get reposted and upvoted. In hope of getting someone else to understand them.
By the way, do you complain about sock accounts when yet another "Here is this problem, and by the way we sell a product that claims to solve it" gets upvoted?
> Do you know the joke with "I'll repeat the joke to you until you understand it?".
Nope. That's not a joke. That's not funny.
> That's why some things get reposted and upvoted. In hope of getting someone else to understand them.
No, they get reposted and upvoted by sock accounts in hope that someone will finally be interested in a 30 year old programming language.
> By the way, do you complain about sock accounts when yet another "Here is this problem, and by the way we sell a product that claims to solve it" gets upvoted?
What does content marketing have to do with sock accounts?
I'm honestly not sure what point you thought was getting made. Do you honestly think people don't understand D? It's been looked at repeatedly and still nothing cool is built in it.
> What does content marketing have to do with sock accounts?
If you accuse interesting subjects of being pushed by sock accounts, why wouldn't content marketing, which has even more interest in getting to the front page, be pushed by sock accounts?
Interesting subjects? A 30(?) year old programming language that has been on here repeatedly is not an interesting subject. New programming languages are. Cool things written in obscure languages is also interesting.
The content marketing that is pushed by sock accounts is wank and generally drops pretty quickly and called out like this. But you just complain about content marketing because you're one of those people who think you should make money but no one else.
You're harsh but that's OK. There is a lot of truth in what you're saying. I really wish people would quit downvoting everything they disagree with. HN would be 100x better if both the downvote and flag buttons were removed.
To me, a C guy, the focus on garbage collection is a turn-off. I'm aware that D can work without it, but it's unclear how much of the standard library etc works fine with no garbage collection. That hasn't been explained, that I saw at least.
The biggest problem however is the bootstrapping requirement, which is annoyingly difficult or too involved. (See explanation in my other post.)
I'm not sure how I'm being harsh. It's literally a somewhat well known programming language being reposted for the 100th time or something silly like that. I'm literally just pointing out the truth and it's almost certainly the main poster downvoting things.
I wonder if the people in 100 years will refer to the current time period (now) the same way as we sometimes do to about ~100 years ago.
As in did the scientist and curious minds in the last century really have this golden period to just wander around in all these greenfields, whereas nowadays the fields are not so green anymore. Or is this just a normal phenomena of any time period?
It certainly was easier to get an academic job circa 1960. Things have gotten more difficult in physics because the experimental frontier has moved further away, I mean, you can make whatever theory you want and it is meaningless because we don’t have a machine that can measure the neutrino mass, observe neutrino decay, confirm physics at the GUT or string scale, detect the darkon, etc.
Even something like Mandelbrot’s work was disappointing if you were in grad school in the 1990s because it was not like enough progress was made in fractals post-Mandelbrot that you could get a job working on fractals or chaos.
There is a third type: rabbit. This is a golden age of rabbit holes. A quick rabbit jumps through complicated holes and tunnels to escape from something or chase something.
We can also call someone chasing a rabbit a fox. Like all the ones chasing LLM agents now.
To some extent. Many mathematical breakthroughs are not from mathematicians thinking in the office but mathematical minded people doing engineering work and bumped into big ideas. Mandelbrot was one of them, so was Alan Turing, Claude Shannon, Tony Hoare, …
They are engineers by trade, that is chasing the money as food. But money is not enough for them. So I would call them rabbits instead of foxes.
And morality and their conscientiousness (what a word).
If you look at the map of Europe, lay it over with that fiscal discipline and above, there is no mystery how things like income are spread out across the map, it all makes sense. Also a good confirmation that well regulated but proper capitalism is the easiest path for any country to long term prosperity.
Nowadays high citation numbers don't mean anymore what they used to. I've seen too many highly cited papers with issues that keep getting referenced, probably because people don't really read the sources anymore and just copy-paste the citations.
On my side-project todo list, I have an idea for a scientific service that overlays a "trust" network over the citation graph. Papers that uncritically cite other work that contains well-known issues should get tagged as "potentially tainted". Authors and institutions that accumulate too many of such sketchy works should be labeled equally. Over time this would provide an additional useful signal vs. just raw citation numbers. You could also look for citation rings and tag them. I think that could be quite useful but requires a bit of work.
I explored this question a bit a few years ago when GPT-3 was brand new. It's tempting to look for technological solutions to social problems. It was COVID so public health papers were the focus.
The idea failed a simple sanity check: just going to Google Scholar, doing a generic search and reading randomly selected papers from within the past 15 years or so. It turned out most of them were bogus in some obvious way. A lot of ideas for science reform take as axiomatic that the bad stuff is rare and just needs to be filtered out. Once you engage with some field's literatures in a systematic way, it becomes clear that it's more like searching for diamonds in the rough than filtering out occasional corruption.
But at that point you wonder, why bother? There is no alchemical algorithm that can convert intellectual lead into gold. If a field is 90% bogus then it just shouldn't be engaged with at all.
There is in fact a method, and it got us quite far until we abandoned it for the peer review plus publish or perish death spiral in the mid 1900s. It's quite simple:
1) Anyone publishes anything they want, whenever they want, as much or as little as the want. Publishing does not say anything about your quality as a researcher, since anyone can do it.
2) Being published doesn't mean it's right, or even credible. No one is filtering the stream, so there's no cachet to being published.
We then let memetic evolution run its course. This is the system that got us Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Mendeleev, Euler, etc. It works, but it's slow, sometimes ugly to watch, and hard to game so some people would much rather use the "Approved by A Council of Peers" nonsense we're presently mired in.
Yeah, the gatekeepers just want their political power, and that's it. Also, education/academia is a big industry nowadays; it feeds many people who have a big incentive to perpetuate the broken system.
We are just back to the universities under the religious control system that we had before the Enlightenment. Any change would require separating academia from political government power.
Academia is just the propaganda machine for the government, just like the church was the tool for justifying god-gifted powers to kings.
Interesting idea. How do you distinguish between critical and uncritical citation? It’s also a little thorny—if your related work section is just describing published work (which is a common form of reviewer-proofing), is that a critical or uncritical citation? It seems a little harsh to ding a paper for that.
That's one of the issues that causes a bit of work.
Citations would need to be judged with context. Let's say paper X is nowadays known to be tainted. If a tainted work is cited just for completeness, it's not an issue, e.g. "the method has been used in [a,b,c,d,x]"
If the tainted work is cited critically, even better: e.g. "X claimed to show that..., but y and z could not replicate the results".
But if it is just taken for granted at face value, then the taint-label should propagate: e.g. ".. has been previously proved by x and thus our results are very important...".
Going to conferences seeing researchers who've built a career doing subpar (sometimes blatantly 'fake') work has made me grow increasingly wary of experts. Worst is lots of people just seem to go along with it.
Still I'm skeptical about any sort of system trying to figure out 'trust'. There's too much on the line for researchers/students/... to the point where anything will eventually be gamed. Just too many people trying to get into the system (and getting in is the most important part).
The worse system is already getting gamed. There's already too much on the line for researchers/students, so they don't admit any wrong doing or retract anything. What's the worse that could happen by adding a layer of trust in the h-index ?
I think it could end up helping a bit in the short term. But in the end an even more complicated system (even if in principle better) will reward those spending time gaming it even more.
The system ends up promoting an even more conservative culture. What might start great will end up with groups and institutions being even more protective of 'their truths' to avoid getting tainted.
Don't think there's any system which can avoid these sort of things, people were talking about this before WW1, globalisation just put it in overdrive.
>people don't really read the sources anymore and just copy-paste the citations.
That's reference-stealing, some other paper I read cited this so it should be OK, I'll steal their reference. I always make sure I read the cited paper before citing it myself, it's scary how often it says something rather different to what the citation implies. That's not necessarily bad research, more that the author of the citing paper was looking for effect A in the cited reference and I'm looking for effect B, so their reason for citing differs from mine, and it's a valid reference in their paper but wouldn't be in mine.
> There is going to be a lot of debate over whether this specific operation was legal
There might be a local debate about the legality in the US. But from the outside perspective in terms of international law, there is not much to debate. Unless i missed some UN resolution, the US has no jurisdiction in Venezuela.
I have a hypothesis that we're getting closer to a cultural inflection point (maybe half a decade out). With every year, more important and very high-quality cultural artifacts enter the public domain, while at the same time, many low quality artefacts are produced (... AI slop). It'll be increasingly difficult to choose a good cultural artefict for consumption (e.g., which book to read next or which movie to watch). A very good indicator for quality is time and thus a useful filter.
In some years we could have the following: a netflix-like (legal variant of popcorntime) software system (p2p) that serves high-quality public domain movies, for those who like it, even with AI upscaling or post processing.
The same would also work for books, with this pipeline: Project Gutenberg -> Standard Ebooks. At the inflection point, there would be a steady stream of high-quality formats of high-quality content, enough to satisfy the demand of cultural consumption. You wouldn't need the latest book/movie anymore, except for interest in contemporary stuff.
The incentives are alright. Publishers who now start publishing too much low quality slop will lose readers (who has time to read all those low quality publications). Less readers leads to less citations, which will drag dawn their impact factor resulting in less authors willing to pay a high publication fee.
For those fields with an existing market, meaning there is more than one high quality journal, the market will provide the right incentives for those publishers.
I doubt that this is true except maybe for the top journals. Mid and low tier journals cater to scientists whose main incentive is to publish no matter how while moderately optimizing for impact factor (i.e. readers and citations). This lower quality market is huge. The fact that even top tier publishers have created low-ranking journals that address this market segment using APC-based open-access models shows the alignment between publisher and author interests will not necessarily lead to increasing quality, rather the opposite.
Does anyone actually read articles from those low tier journals? Many of those articles are illegible fluff pieces.
That top tier publishers create new low-tier journals for this market shows that they are very well aware of these incentives and risks. They are not flooding their top journals with low quality OA "pay to publish" articles, which was the argument from OP.
For academia's sake I hope you are correct, but my experience of the system leads me to suspect otherwise, though only time will tell.
One hope might be that it incentivises institutions away from the publish or perish mind set and starts to discourage salami slicing and other such practices, allowing researchers to focus on putting out less work of a higher quality, but I suspect the fees would need to be larger to start seeing this sort of change.
Calling a system that is 90% foss and public domain "owned" by anyone is a bit of a stretch. I can, fully legally, download all the text of Wikipedia for about 130gb and host it myself.
Besides, Jimmy Wales is awesome.
It's an oligarchy in reality and Wikimedia was having a discussion a couple of years ago about implementing the SDGs, which come from the UN and not the public (who are barely aware of them.)
HN isn't as homogeneous as you think. By this measuring stick, half of the posts on the front page can be put into question every day.
reply