[HN Gopher] You and Your Research (1986)
___________________________________________________________________
You and Your Research (1986)
Author : ftxbro
Score : 111 points
Date : 2023-05-01 17:47 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cs.virginia.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cs.virginia.edu)
| scsteps wrote:
| I've always had trouble balancing between working on things that
| I consider to be important vs things that I am excited about. In
| my experience I've always gotten good results from the things I'm
| excited about and not what I consider to be important.
|
| Should I consider what I feel excited to be important?
| Personally, sure, but objectively speaking the world might not
| think that way.
| umutisik wrote:
| What makes you excited about something in the case when it's
| not important?
| jzelinskie wrote:
| Here's a recording from '95 entitled the same:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1zDuOPkMSw
|
| I also highly recommend reading the Stripe Press book also with
| the same name: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1732265178
| teddyh wrote:
| Better video quality, same source material:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3msMuwqp-o&list=PLctkxgWNSR...
| netcraft wrote:
| I came to also recommend the book. The last half is about
| specific engineering topics, but the first half is packed with
| great ideas and thoughts that anyone will find valuable.
|
| Its also a beautiful and well made book.
| 6451937099 wrote:
| [dead]
| 6451937099 wrote:
| [dead]
| mathisfun123 wrote:
| There's a part of this that's never ever commented on
|
| >I don't like to say it in front of my wife, but I did sort of
| neglect her sometimes; I needed to study. You have to neglect
| things if you intend to get what you want done. There's no
| question about this.
|
| As someone that got married during their PhD and is now finishing
| up and reflecting: it isn't worth it. Neglecting the people in
| your life that love you in the pursuit of "science" is no
| different than neglecting them because you have a drug habit or
| because you're an inveterate gambler _or because you 're chasing
| fame and fortune_. The science will get done regardless and the
| only thing you accomplish is ensuring your own interests. Suffice
| it to say I'm taking steps make sure my next gig has more room.
| JHonaker wrote:
| It really isn't talked about enough. I am contemplating leaving
| my PhD despite being ABD with the majority of the interesting
| work done simply because the neglect it inflicts on my family
| is the cause of the overwhelming majority of conflicts in my
| life.
|
| I truly love working on the problem, investing time in research
| papers, and experimenting, but I have no desire to stay in
| academia. Plus, I have a well-paying full-time job (that I took
| during the pandemic to save my wife from having to shoulder our
| living expenses basically single-handedly while growing our
| child inside of her).
|
| > Suffice it to say I'm taking steps make sure my next gig has
| more room.
|
| I hear you. It's crazy how mentally abusive a lot of people's
| relationship with their PhD is. I'm convinced it's one of the
| reasons so many people with PhDs marry other PhDs. They're the
| only ones that "understand" the level of single-minded devotion
| you have to have to be an early career researcher.
| nunuvit wrote:
| Higher education isn't made for people with a family life.
| There's no real reason for this, but there's no pressure to
| change it because there's always someone else in line ready to
| take your place.
| BlandDuck wrote:
| I am a reasonably successful researcher, and I admit to
| neglecting my wife sometimes, especially in my early career.
|
| However, I would venture that being successful in any career
| --- be it research, business, politics, arts --- requires a
| certain amount of focus and neglect of your family and friends.
|
| But later, if you succeed, you can make it up to them and make
| it worth it for them as well.
| ke88y wrote:
| _> However, I would venture that being successful in any
| career --- be it research, business, politics, arts ---
| requires a certain amount of focus and neglect of your family
| and friends._
|
| A warning for the younger readers in our midst: this is _NOT_
| how most relationships work. You normally don 't get to
| mismanage a relationship and then "make up for it" later.
| When you do, there are almost always lasting scars.
|
| That said: this might be true for business and politics. But
| academics? LOL. Becoming a professor, even at a top
| university, is a pretty pathetic definition of "success". A
| professor is a mid-level manager position that pays about the
| same as an entry-level position at a top tech or finance
| firm. Most people involved in allocating budget / selecting
| projects understand that the work being managed is mostly not
| valuable; that's why they don't mind telling you that you
| need to pay your subordinates about what they'd make at
| McDonald's.
|
| It's a first line management job where pay is not enough to
| "make up" for the lost years and the work almost always
| literally doesn't matter.
|
| _> But later, if you succeed, you can make it up to them and
| make it worth it for them as well._
|
| This might be true in business and politics, and to some
| extent in arts, but it's not true in academia. And to the
| extent that it is true, it's enabled by pushing shit down the
| hill.
|
| Which is why I'm a lapsed academic. I turned down my TT
| offers because I realized that I couldn't, in good
| conscience, build a career out of abusing junior labor. And
| universities put hard constraints on how you pay and manage
| PhD students, so avoiding at least financial abuse is mostly
| impossible.
| [deleted]
| andrepd wrote:
| Have you considered some people might not conflate
| "success" with "net worth"? Wealth = success is a very
| tired trope, I thought everybody realised what a sham that
| way of thinking is.
|
| Who cares if they make more or less than a techbro? If
| they're happy with their job and they earn enough to pay
| for things they want (house, vacations, whatever), then
| they should chase the rat-race of the "ladder of success"
| because...?
| ke88y wrote:
| Where do I make such a conflation?
|
| We aren't talking about nurses or school teachers. We are
| talking about professors at large research universities.
|
| Your sibling comment speaks of working "nights and
| weekends" with frequent travel. That puts an enormous
| amount of work and stress on their partner, and faculty
| usually don't make enough money to offset those
| contributions.
|
| Deciding not to optimize for wealth is perfectly fine.
| Doing to do so while working nights and weekends with
| frequent travel isn't. Optimizing for "prestige" is
| infinitely worse than optimizing for "wealth", because at
| least the latter can be shared and has utility beyond
| pure ego.
| andrepd wrote:
| Again, it's not about prestige, it's about love of
| science and research. But yes, you do have a point about
| working nights and weekends. It's not as if "the grind"
| is not something which is glorified in the tech industry,
| though :)
| ke88y wrote:
| I don't think there is any problem with loving science
| and research.
|
| Deciding to sacrifice your nights, weekends, and
| financial life to work on science and research is okay.
| But it's also enormously selfish. Other people who spend
| time doing "what they love" -- ski bums, for example --
| at least recognize their selfishness as such.
|
| Being selfish can be okay. But it's probably not great to
| be selfish and try to build a life-long partnership.
| Especially if you don't realize you are being selfish.
|
| I won't tell anyone not to ski bum or not to do a PhD.
| But I will gut check people when they get confused about
| the difference between selfish and selfless dedication to
| a craft. An academic career -- the type where you spend
| nights and weekends without at least contributing a
| modicum of financial comfort to those around you -- is
| selfish.
|
| At the end of the day, most grant-funded projects are
| _born_ useless. There isn 't as much of a difference
| between ski bumming and PhDing as professors like to
| pretend.
| BlandDuck wrote:
| I am sorry that you feel that way. I know this is a
| widespread opinion. My own experience is different.
|
| I am at now a point as a researcher where I am financially
| secure, work on interesting problems, and have time for my
| wife and children. My colleagues, junior as well as senior,
| seem to be in similar situations.
|
| To be clear, in my case "focus and neglect" meant working
| weekends and evenings and lots of travel for some years
| before we had children. I see successful people in other
| careers doing the same.
|
| My current situation does not involve anything remotely
| like "pushing shit" or "abusing junior labor". I have no
| "hard constraints" and I see no "financial abuse" at my
| university.
| ke88y wrote:
| If your university has a PhD program, we simply have
| different definitions of financial abuse.
|
| I couldn't accept the job and look myself in the mirror
| while knowing that not only do my direct reports struggle
| to get by and can't save tax-deferred for retirement, but
| that I'm one of the only employers in the country who
| doesn't even pay FICA taxes.
| s5300 wrote:
| >>But later, if you succeed, you can make it up to them and
| make it worth it for them as well.
|
| Just incase anybody is unaware - this is _really_ not how
| interpersonal relationships work. Especially romantic
| interests. You may one day find yourself with a lot of money
| /power but nobody who truly loves you (or enjoys your
| company) for who you are - or with not much to show for your
| years of tunnel visioned neuroticism, symptoms of complete
| burnout, & also nobody who loves you.
|
| I'm not trying to say there's something wrong with dedicating
| a large chunk of your life to a pursuit like they've
| mentioned - I'm just saying don't be surprised when people
| you've neglected have moved on to greener pastures in that
| time.
| abhayhegde wrote:
| I agree that this issue has never been talked enough. I am
| doing PhD now and recently went through a breakup which mostly
| happened because I could not give enough time for the
| relationship.
| ke88y wrote:
| As a PhD, I now believe that pursuing a career in science is an
| enormously selfish and entitled life choice for anyone who
| doesn't have a trust fund.
|
| It's not just neglect during the PhD. Even a non-neglectful
| academic is asking _a lot_ of their partner. Stipends are low.
| Post-docs require chasing term-limited positions around the
| country, often with little to no savings, for up the half a
| decade. Building wealth is impossible, having a family is just
| barely possible, and the process takes you well into mid-life
| depriving your partner of a career and a real relationship.
|
| I have seen more divorces during post-docs than during PhDs.
|
| Everyone I know who made it through PhDs and post-docs without
| scars fell into one of two categories: unmarried or wealthy. I
| think academia's biggest open secret is that a HUGE number of
| academics -- especially in and around large metros or in nice
| climates -- are chasing a prestigious and comfortable job
| because their trust funds allow them to not care about the
| money and their upbringing makes it difficult for them to deal
| with having a manager.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > As a PhD, I now believe that pursuing a career in science
| is an enormously selfish and entitled life choice for anyone
| who doesn't have a trust fund.
|
| This is because the career was originally set up for those
| who were independently wealthy, or at least rich enough to
| have a spouse who didn't work. All of this stuff happened
| within the last 150 years, and it was made worse in recent
| years following the massive increase of skilled people in the
| discipline.
|
| A career in science also differs based on whether you're an
| academic or in industry. On whether you're out their seeking
| grants, or out making products to sell.
|
| These are all decisions being made based on what people
| demonstrate that they will tolerate. No different than the
| Japanese Karoshi-culture. If your Ph.D. or Post-Doc
| supervisor won't allow you to have a life outside of science,
| then dump them. Leave them up the creek without a paddle.
| They are not your only option.
|
| At its absolute worse, the hours involved in an academic
| Ph.D./Post-Doc aren't significantly worse than a chronic
| precariat worker. I had two jobs during a particular semester
| when finishing up my A.S., and averaged 3.5 hours of sleep
| per night (outside of the weekends). I've read about a guy
| who spent _years_ walking and taking transit for 8 hours each
| day from his house to his 8-hour a day job. 16 hours per day
| just dedicated to work. Ultimately his job and /or co-workers
| pitched in to buy him a car.
|
| The harsh hours in scientific academia is ultimately a
| choice. And the choice is not between science and a life. The
| choice is between science _with this particular supervisor_
| and a life.
| reachtarunhere wrote:
| One of the points of the talk is emphasis on working on
| "important" problems. It does make sense to not work on
| incremental things for merely publications so it is definitely
| good advice. However once you decide to do so what is "important"
| becomes a difficult question.
|
| I like this article from Daniel Lemire which explores this
| further
|
| https://lemire.me/blog/2010/03/22/so-you-know-whats-importan...
| Swizec wrote:
| The way I've always interpreted this is that if even you don't
| think it's important, why are you doing it?
|
| Sure you can't accurately predict what will and won't be
| important long term, but _you_ should think your work is
| important. Whether you're right or wrong time will tell.
| reachtarunhere wrote:
| Yes my interpretation is that this is more an advice on what
| not to do - frivolous stuff you don't believe in
| emrah wrote:
| > It does make sense to not work on incremental things for
| merely publications so it is definitely good advice.
|
| True but unfortunately this is how funding works based on what
| I saw during my time working at various labs.
|
| You need to provide enough evidence that what you are after is
| going to "work". Most of the brand new ideas get resources by
| repurposing data from existing funded projects. If you don't
| have what you need, you finangle the funded project to produce
| the data the new idea needs.
|
| I'm all for not syncing resources into crazy ideas that will
| never work but current state of affairs (it's getting worse) is
| too conservative
| marcosdumay wrote:
| It is important to point out that on his speech (and the book)
| he tells people to work on important problems (always on the
| plural), and that he never say not to work on non-important
| ones.
|
| In fact, I remember the book having a very clear assumption
| that you can't work on important things all the time anyway.
| But well, there has been some time since I've read it. But it
| is a very sensible and nuanced advice for highly ambitious
| people.
| gumby wrote:
| I heard him give this talk at Ames back in the 80s. The advice
| and perspective are worth following even if you don't plan to be
| a research scientist.
| pighive wrote:
| Thanks for sharing this, I came across the same material in a
| different format (either slides or may be a video couple of years
| back, can't exactly remember). What stuck to me is "If you are
| not working on an important problem, your work is not important".
| I tried to take a positive spin from this statement by
| considering whatever work I am currently doing is important
| enough to solve an important problem but it's really hard to
| convince yourself after some time when it is clearly not.
| Needless to say, I am still looking for that important problem.
| shae wrote:
| Get the book! It's packed with great content.
| ssn wrote:
| Any recommendations on similar materials? I.e. advice on how to
| manage research.
| Sevan777 wrote:
| Currently reading The Sciences of the Artificial? by Herbert A.
| Simon
| rg111 wrote:
| "How to Take Smart Notes" by Sanke Ahrens.
|
| Even if you decide not to use the Zettelkasten method, this
| book is still a great read.
| Calavar wrote:
| I think there is an enormous survivorship bias here. Research
| advances come in alternating of periods torrents and droughts,
| not in a steady trickle. Hamming, Shannon, and their
| contemporaries worked at a time of revolution in computer
| science.
|
| Let's put deep learning aside for a second. Can anyone here name
| a single academic in any other subfield of computer science who
| had a string of groundbreaking research works where every one of
| those works is from 1980 or after? I can't. And that's almost
| half a century that we're working with. Many people who defended
| their PhDs in the 1980s are already retired.
|
| This applies to plenty of other fields as well. Medicine, for
| instance: There were surgeons in the 1960s and 1970s who have
| half a dozen new surgical techniques to their name. (If you want
| some examples, look up Michael DeBakey, Mark Coventry, and Thomas
| Starzl.) You will not find a single academic surgeon today who
| comes even close to that, and at least in my opinion it's not
| because modern surgeons lack drive or creativity or the ambition
| to tackle big problems.
|
| Hamming is probably right that the role of luck in the sense of
| serendipity is overblown, but he ignores role of luck in the
| sense of structural factors that are out of your control. Because
| he and his colleagues largely operated in a context where all
| those structural factors were completely optimized.
|
| If you decide to start a PhD in a field 10 years before that
| field is destined to hit a multi-decade rut, if your advisor
| fails to make tenure partway through your PhD and your lab is
| shut down, if you get your first academic appointment in an
| environment where research funding is trending down and
| regulatory burdens are trending up, these are all factors that
| are by and large out of your control that can significantly alter
| the trajectory of your career.
| kragen wrote:
| i agree! hamming even talks about this a bit in his talk
|
| your chances of doing great research are slim if you're born in
| kenya in the 01940s, no matter how much drive and creativity
| you have, but that's not because 'research advances' have
| 'droughts', it's because you're not being allowed to do great
| research, even if plenty of research advances are happening out
| of your reach
|
| (unless you're richard leakey)
|
| that's what's happened to modern surgeons, nuclear engineers,
| aeronautical engineers, chemists, etc. the usa and eu today
| have mostly become the kenya of the 01940s, where only the
| occasional richard leakey is allowed to excel, and thus we have
| entered the so-called great stagnation
|
| but restrictions are much looser in computer science than in
| most fields. we still have:
|
| - oleg kiselyov (sxml, probabilistic programming, relational
| programming and thence the reasoned schemer, type checking as
| small-step abstract evaluation, tagless staged interpreters,
| stream processing without runtime overhead)
|
| - dan bernstein (twisted edwards curves including curve25519,
| breaking aes with cache timing attacks, nacl, tweetnacl, qmail,
| salsa, poly1305, striking down usa export controls, organizing
| the pqc conferences)
|
| - fabrice bellard (qemu, ffmpeg, tcc, lzexe, and bellard's
| formula, aside from nncp, which is deep learning)
|
| - jeff dean and sanjay ghemawat (epi info, leveldb, tensorflow,
| bigtable, mapreduce, spanner, 'the google cluster
| architecture', lots of internal google stuff, and again a bunch
| of deep learning stuff)
|
| - raph levien (io, advogato, the gnome canvas, libart)
|
| - graydon hoare (monotone and thence git, rust), and
|
| - rob pike (blit, utf-8, much of plan9, sawzall, and golang)
|
| - wouter van oortmerssen (cube/sauerbraten, flatbuffers, amiga
| e, false and thus more or less the field of esolangs, lobster,
| bla with first-class environments, aardappel, fisheye quake)
|
| i've left out the people i personally know well
| pbadams wrote:
| > Let's put deep learning aside for a second. Can anyone here
| name a single academic in any other subfield of computer
| science who had a string of groundbreaking research works where
| every one of those works is from 1980 or after?
|
| Shafi Goldwasser (Probabilistic encryption, zero-knowledge
| proofs, etc.) got her PhD in 1984.
|
| Leslie Lamport is just a bit before your deadline, his 'Time,
| Clocks' paper came out in 1978, but the bulk of his work was
| after 1980, including paxos.
|
| While there's definitely some truth to your Kuhnian view of
| 'times of revolution' in a field, I think it's hard to apply
| that to recent progress because it may just be that it's not
| clear which research works were groundbreaking without the
| benefit of hindsight. To me, the revolutionary period of CS
| research is still ongoing.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Almost every breakthrough in distributed systems is more
| recent. LZW is 1980s. Most data storage systems used today
| had their guts invented in the last 40 years, with only the
| top layer being older than that.
|
| If you look at "Computer science" as the narrowly-defined
| field of data structure and algorithm design in a vacuum,
| maybe things slowed down after 1980, but that's because
| problems with different constraints just became more
| interesting.
| Upvoter33 wrote:
| "Can anyone here name a single academic in any other subfield
| of computer science who had a string of groundbreaking research
| works where every one of those works is from 1980"
|
| Hennessy and Patterson for their work on RISC Patterson for
| RAID Dean and Ghemawat for MapReduce
|
| That's without thinking. There have been a lot of very
| important works since the 1980s.
| [deleted]
| linguae wrote:
| Indeed. The fact of the matter is that today's environment for
| researchers is completely different from what it was like in
| 1986 when this talk was given, though I mention it not to take
| anything away from this talk. The days of places like Xerox
| PARC and Bell Labs where researchers had considerable freedom
| and autonomy are over and have been for quite some time now.
| Many industry labs promote business-driven research instead of
| purely curiosity-driven work and expect their researchers to
| produce a regular flow of research results that can be
| productized, lest they be shown the door. Academia these days
| isn't exactly a bastion of freedom, either, with its "publish-
| or-perish" pressures needed to secure tenure and remain in good
| standing, as well as the need to raise grant money, both of
| which require pleasing external reviewers. Thus, successful
| researchers under this environment must find a way to manage
| the inevitable uncertainties of research while also producing
| enough output to make their evaluators happy. I find these
| "productivity" metrics stifling, but if I want to continue as a
| researcher, it's either play the game successfully or find
| another way to make a living.
|
| I've been thinking long and hard about this for years. Perhaps
| researchers who value freedom of inquiry and freedom from
| "publish-or-perish" pressures could work independently, perhaps
| being funded by fellowships (like the MacArthur Grant), from
| part-time work, or from a side business.
| jltsiren wrote:
| > Let's put deep learning aside for a second. Can anyone here
| name a single academic in any other subfield of computer
| science who had a string of groundbreaking research works where
| every one of those works is from 1980 or after?
|
| That's because of the nature of the field. CS researchers are
| kind of like NPCs or bureaucrats. The technical stuff we do is
| not interesting to the general public, but it enables other
| people to do more interesting stuff.
|
| You mention deep learning as an exception. I, as a researcher
| in another CS subfield, cannot name a single person who has
| done fundamental work in it.
|
| The "tragedy" of CS is that it's too relevant in the short
| term. If someone makes a breakthrough, other people will
| probably commercialize it in a decade or two. Afterwards,
| history books won't remember the person who discovered the
| thing but the company that commercialized it or the product
| launched by the company.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| Related: I'm annoyed by programmers who implore others to study
| "worthwhile things."
|
| I'm guessing most of us were obsessed with computers in our
| teens, and the job market just happened to align with one of
| our hobbies.
|
| Kids who are fascinated with classical piano or performance art
| don't stumble into lucrative careers unless they're in the top
| 0.1%.
| dblhumbucker wrote:
| I disagree with this sentiment.
|
| Although I'm not familiar with today's groundbreaking research,
| I think dismissing an entire branch of research simply because
| it goes against one's argument is a little funny. However,
| Hamming specifically states in his lecture that this could be
| applied to engineers starting companies, and there are numerous
| examples of founders who have started multiple successful
| businesses in this area.
|
| In the lecture series, Hamming explicitly emphasizes the
| importance of dedicating time to predicting what the next big
| step in one's field would be. He dedicated half of every Friday
| to trying to predict the future of computer science. One of the
| major points he drives home is that the next breakthrough in
| any field will not be what he or anyone else has worked on in
| the past. That is why it is worth striving to work on the right
| things.
| Calavar wrote:
| > I think dismissing an entire branch of research simply
| because it goes against one's argument is a little funny
|
| I don't think it goes against my argument at all. Deep
| learning is a place where many structural factors are
| currently optimized, so it has a glut of prominent
| researchers. The big names in deep learning like Hinton,
| LeCunn, Bengio took their first post PhD appointments 30 to
| 40 years ago. All three put out some good work between 1985
| and 2010, but all three became an order of magnitude more
| productive after 2010. They went from being members of a
| mostly irrelevant and overlooked research niche (neural
| networks were considered a dead end in ML) to being heads of
| research at multi-billion dollar companies. If it is really
| all about the individual, why weren't they that productive
| from the start? What changed? Well, the number of GPU cores
| hit an inflection point. Technologies for GP-GPU programming
| like cuda reached maturity.
|
| As I said, there is truth to what Hamming said too. The 1920s
| were primed for a revolution in physics, but there were
| thousands of physicists contemporary to Einstein, de Broglie,
| Heisenberg, and Bohr who didn't do anything of note. So what
| set the ones who won Nobel prizes apart from the rest? That's
| where Hamming's advice comes in.
|
| In other words, I can be convinced that Einstein or de
| Broglie would have reached the tops of their fields in any
| time or place and in nearly any field. But you cannot
| convince me that they would have made the history books if
| they were marine biologists in the 1990s. It doesn't matter
| how hard you think about where the next revolution in your
| field will be if there is no revolution to be had.
| lambdaloop wrote:
| It's funny, I was just thinking about this article this morning.
| When I first read it over 10 years ago, this quote really struck
| with me:
|
| > Another personality defect is ego assertion and I'll speak in
| this case of my own experience. I came from Los Alamos and in the
| early days I was using a machine in New York at 590 Madison
| Avenue where we merely rented time. I was still dressing in
| western clothes, big slash pockets, a bolo and all those things.
| I vaguely noticed that I was not getting as good service as other
| people. So I set out to measure. You came in and you waited for
| your turn; I felt I was not getting a fair deal. I said to
| myself, ``Why? No Vice President at IBM said, `Give Hamming a bad
| time'. It is the secretaries at the bottom who are doing this.
| When a slot appears, they'll rush to find someone to slip in, but
| they go out and find somebody else. Now, why? I haven't
| mistreated them.'' Answer, I wasn't dressing the way they felt
| somebody in that situation should. It came down to just that - I
| wasn't dressing properly. I had to make the decision - was I
| going to assert my ego and dress the way I wanted to and have it
| steadily drain my effort from my professional life, or was I
| going to appear to conform better? I decided I would make an
| effort to appear to conform properly. The moment I did, I got
| much better service. And now, as an old colorful character, I get
| better service than other people.
|
| > Many a second-rate fellow gets caught up in some little
| twitting of the system, and carries it through to warfare. He
| expends his energy in a foolish project. Now you are going to
| tell me that somebody has to change the system. I agree;
| somebody's has to. Which do you want to be? The person who
| changes the system or the person who does first-class science?
| Which person is it that you want to be? Be clear, when you fight
| the system and struggle with it, what you are doing, how far to
| go out of amusement, and how much to waste your effort fighting
| the system. My advice is to let somebody else do it and you get
| on with becoming a first-class scientist. Very few of you have
| the ability to both reform the system and become a first-class
| scientist.
|
| I tried to live that way for a couple years. Frankly, I think
| this way of living is unnecessarily restrictive. So what if you
| get slightly worse service? The clothes you wear and your
| expressions highlight your history and your culture. By self-
| censoring yourself, you end up just perpetuating the censorship
| of other views in the workplace. This goes double for scientists,
| as we are rather public facing and have room for wearing
| nontraditional clothes within our jobs.
| dang wrote:
| A perennial. Here are the threads with comments (if anyone finds
| others, please let me know!):
|
| _You and Your Research (1986)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31796353 - June 2022 (33
| comments)
|
| _You and Your Research - Richard Hamming_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27451360 - June 2021 (1
| comment)
|
| _You and Your Research_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25242617 - Nov 2020 (1
| comment)
|
| _Richard Hamming: You and Your Research (1986)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24171820 - Aug 2020 (1
| comment)
|
| _You and Your Research - A talk by Richard W. Hamming [pdf]_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23558974 - June 2020 (1
| comment)
|
| _You and Your Research by Richard Hamming (1995) [video]_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18505884 - Nov 2018 (10
| comments)
|
| _You and Your Research (1986)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18014209 - Sept 2018 (10
| comments)
|
| _You and your research_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14179317 - April 2017 (1
| comment)
|
| _You and Your Research, by Richard Hamming_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10280198 - Sept 2015 (1
| comment)
|
| _You and Your Research_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9279585 - March 2015 (1
| comment)
|
| _Hamming, "You and Your Research" (1995) [video]_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7683711 - May 2014 (25
| comments)
|
| _Video of Hamming 's "You and Your Research" (1995)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5567448 - April 2013 (1
| comment)
|
| _Richard Hamming: You and Your Research (1986)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4626349 - Oct 2012 (27
| comments)
|
| _Richard Hamming: You and Your Research_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3142978 - Oct 2011 (7
| comments)
|
| _You and Your Research_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=915515 - Nov 2009 (5
| comments)
|
| _Richard Hamming - You and your research_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=852405 - Sept 2009 (1
| comment)
|
| _You and Your Research_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=625857 - May 2009 (13
| comments)
|
| _You and Your Research (1986)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=542023 - April 2009 (4
| comments)
|
| _You and Your Research_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=524856 - March 2009 (1
| comment)
|
| _Richard Hamming: You and Your Research_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=229067 - June 2008 (7
| comments)
|
| _Why do so few scientists make significant contributions and so
| many are forgotten in the long run? - "You and Your Research"_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=52337 - Sept 2007 (11
| comments)
|
| _You and Your (Great) Research_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13218 - April 2007 (6
| comments)
|
| ---
|
| Note for anyone wondering: reposts are ok after a year or so
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). I'll play the "or
| so" card and call this one ok. In addition to it being good for
| curiosity to revisit perennials sometimes (just not too often),
| HN is also a place for junior users to have the pleasure of
| encountering the classics for the first time--an important
| function of the site!
| teddyh wrote:
| On video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3msMuwqp-o&list=PLctkxgWNSR...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-01 23:00 UTC)