No offense, but your solution reads like a typical idea that Sillicon Valley startup could come up with, i.e., throwing technology at a wrong problem, ignoring human factor and applying monetization where it doesn't belong. It reminds me of this founder who wanted to replace hiring processes with people putting money on the person staying in the firm long enough.
Not all science is based on experiments. Furthermore, science is not usually done in two simple steps: creating a theory and validating it. In practice, it's a cycle of refirenement that often requires dozens of iterations and involves discovering new phenomena.
In your model, who decides if the 3rd party has invalidated the claim or simply conducted the experiment incorrectly? Everyone involved has a financial motivation, so there's no independent side to resolve this issue.
Perfectly said. Before attempting to solve a problem, it's important to consider the lenses/perspectives and that facts that you'll see nails everywhere with your hammers.
Peer review can be more structured, is already blinded in many cases, and could benefit from regular crowdsourced suggestions from a variety of scholars. In many cases, journals have begun many reform practices like valuing open sharing of materials and code, structured transparency checklists, and opportunities to publish null results. All wonderful advances that don't require hammers.
If we had a good way to pay people based on the value they add (basically solved for sales, but not for any other role), then you could construct a hiring process by betting on that value, and the most predictive interviewers would be rewarded. But until that's solved, I don't think there is a foundation for the betting. Time at the firm is the wrong metric.
> Not all science is based on experiments.
Okay, well I'm not talking about that kind of science. I'm talking about the science where the value of a theory is measured in it's ability to make testable predictions. I'm not really sure how the the other kind of scientists resolve disagreements.
I didn't claim to have solved the problem. I was outlining what I think a solution would look like, and contrasting that to the idea of peer review as the way to determine what is scientifically relevant, if we could only make it more fair.
I don't know this particular interview, but it's not necessarily about not liking Lex. I listened to many episodes of his podcast and while I appreciate the selection of guests from the CS domain, many of these interviews aren't very good. They are not completely terrible but they should have been so much better: Lex had so many passionate, educated, experienced and gifted guests, yet his ability to ask interesting and focused questions is not on the same level.
He's a shitty interviewer. Often doesn't even engage with his guest's responses, as if he's not even listening to what they're saying, instead moving mechanically to his next bullet-point. Which is completely ridiculous for what's supposed to be a long-format conversational interview.
The best episodes are ones where the guest drives the interview and has a lot of interesting things to say. Fridman's just useful for attracting interesting domain experts somewhere we can hear them speak for hours on end.
The Jim Keller episodes are excellent IMO, despite Fridman. Guests like Keller and Carmack don't need a good interviewer for it to be a worthwhile listen.
Trees, hedges, native grasses and shrubs: the kinds of plant you'd probably consider "weeds" in US suburbia. Within cities, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraced_house, and there are villages in amongst the fields and forests of rural areas.
Even in Belgium, one of the highest density countries in the EU, most existing and newly built houses are semi-detached, with about twice as much semi-detached + detached houses as there are terraced houses.
In France, terraced homes are rather uncommon outside the North close to Belgium, and old city centers. In fact, I don't even know if we have a name for detached houses, as far as I know they're just called "a house" while a terraced house is a "city house".
So I don't have the numbers for all of the EU but I don't think most homes are actually terraced homes in the EU.
And people do have grass lawns, but only where grass actually grows without too much care needed. Where I come from on the coast grass doesn't grow well on the sandy ground and lawns are uncommon, but a few kilometres inland if you don't do anything you get a mostly-grass lawn, with a lot of clover, daisies and often orchids growing in it.
> How about just give up and quit your job? It would have the same effect.
If by "it would have the same effect" you mean that it will be ignored, then maybe. But if you are saying that not attending international conferences is the same as not getting a job as a researcher in the first place, then I find this an exaggeration. Especially considering that one can participate in the scientific process by submitting their papers to journals, and that every country, including those in the Global South, can have their own conferences.
What you may refer to is prestige. But that's a separate matter altogether.
Have you ever participated in a research community? You’re going to be at a severe disadvantage compared to peers in the US if you’re unable to promote your work to, and network with, the leaders in your field (the majority of whom are based in the global North).
Also, many of the top publishing venues in CS are conferences, and it is not uncommon for them to require in-person presentations as a condition for acceptance.
So, in sum, if you want to have a scientific career, attending conferences in the US/Europe is almost a must, at least in CS.
> Have you ever participated in a research community?
Yes. A little bit. Though not in CS.
> You’re going to be at a severe disadvantage compared to peers in the US
> ...
> if you want to have a scientific career
What does having a scientific career mean to you? Are there universities outside of the global North? Do people hold positions in those universities? Is there any research work happening there? Can someone get a place there without travelling around the world? If the answer to these questions is yes, then how is it not a scientific career?
(I am not trying to compare the salary of a professor in a US university with one from a university in global South. I am simply curious about the blank statements "How about just give up and quit your job" or "if you want to have a scientific career").
As somebody from the "Global South", it's ridiculous to say that the average quality of work in top universities in, say, India, is on the same level as the average quality of work in top universities, in, say, the US.
This is not due to any difference in the inherent quality of the researchers, but due to (IMO) a lack of resources. This falls into two categories:
The first is the lack of a high-expertise peer/mentor community. Historically most research communities have centered in US/Europe. So even getting advice and mentorship is much more difficult, and the difficulty is exacerbated if you can't travel to conferences. Even if you manage to become established in your field, if you're not travelling to conferences and networking with other top researchers, you won't be privy to new research directions and questions, won't be able to take part in collaborations on interesting research projects, and won't have as productive a career as your colleagues in the global North. This also leads to a feedback loop (your research isn't exciting → you don't get to go to conferences to participate in research conversations → your research isn't exciting, and so on). In the end, the process of doing science is a social phenomenon, and you can't sequester yourself in your own country and expect to be a good researcher working on interesting problems.
The second category of resources is funding. The pool of money available for research is just much smaller in the global South, and makes certain kinds of research just impossible (think big distributed systems research, GPU-heavy ML research, etc.) So if you want to do that kind of research, you can't really stay in your home country.
> As somebody from the "Global South", it's ridiculous to say that the average quality of work in top universities in, say, India, is on the same level as the average quality of work in top universities, in, say, the US.
I am not making this claim at all.
> So if you want to do that kind of research, you can't really stay in your home country.
I remain puzzled by this statement.
I could understand the argument if it were phrased like so: "The best science in field X is done in countries Y and Z; I want to be part of the cutting-edge top-level research; therefore, I want to go to country Y or Z". Or if it were phrased like this: "Best-paying jobs in field X are concentrated in countries Y and Z; I want to get a top-paying job; therefore, I want to go to country Y or Z". But your argument is structured differently. You are claiming that if you want to do research in field X; indeed, if you want to have a career in field X, you cannot stay in your home country. What I do not understand is whether there is any research in field X done in your home country? Are there any departments in any universities at all in your home country specialising in field X? They may be third-rate; but do they exist? If they exist, then there must be someone working there, right? If that is the case, you cannot very well make an argument that one cannot be a researcher in field X, or have a career in field X without leaving the country.
This is kind of ridiculous if you know academics at all. Meeting people in person, knowing the right people makes a huge difference to even things like getting your papers accepted. Job committees in India look favorably at papers presented internationally. Most committee folks have no real idea about your work and go by prestige of vanues it was presented at, people who recommended you etc. Not being able to participate is essentially getting locked out.
You know, there is actually a world outside of the USA. Universities, research labs, companies of all kinds, and, surprise, people! This US-centric attitude is hilarious.
I travel on a B1/B2 visa for conferences. When asked for the purpose of my visit, a common follow-up question is if I am going to receive any remuneration for my talk.
It's a tricky question since sometimes speakers receive a reimbursement for travel costs. I imagine that answering "yes" might cause you a lot of headache.
A lot of countries (e.g. UK) seem not to have the clear B1/B2 separation that the US has with just a "standard" visa for US citizens and others covering routine business matters like attending conferences, meeting with customers, doing some work in your hotel room, etc. in addition to tourism stuff.
But you're right. No one really wants to hear about your travel expenses being covered or your nominal honorarium--which are absolutely routine for certain types of industry roles. Your company is covering it as a routine matter (and that applies if you're in business for yourself as well.)
The (usually) technically correct response is that your company will reimburse you in your home country.
My father-in-law is a salesman for women's apparel. Two of his largest lines are based in Canada, so he has to go there at least twice a year for sales meetings. However, his reimbursement is entirely covered by their US subsidiary. It's a working visa, but granted on entry and prohibits work that will be paid for in Canada (e.g., he can take orders for products that will be shipped to the US, but not for those that will be shipped to Canada).
This problem of late announcements also applies to travelers that don't need visa. Recently, a major CS conference announced accepted papers two months before the conference date. Since it was a large federated conference located in a tourist destination in Florida, in the middle of the season, traveling from Europe was particularly expensive when buying tickets on a short notice.
And there's the additional downside that it was too late to apply to workshops and posters at co-located conferences. Many major conferences take place in the US, which means that traveling just for a workshop paper might not be feasible for researchers based outside of the US due to university policies and budget constraints. Thus, it's a good opportunity to participate and publish additional results while you are already there.
The last mile argument is often ignored, but it's very important in this discussion. What's the point of traveling fast by a train, unless you're going exactly to the downtown? Without a reliable public transport, it might be more efficient to travel by car since you won't have to rent one or Uber everywhere.
It's ignored because it's the Achilles heel of all anti-car arguments. Even places with famed public transit don't actually provide the level of freedom and convenience rabid anti car people suggest outside of specific circumstances like rush hour and exclusive downtown usage. This is fine actually, public transit is awesome and we should build more of it, make it more reliable, etc because it benefits a lot of people but it's not a society level car replacer.
Even when you don't have the last mile problem, mass transit is much slower than a car. I can take light rail to the airport, getting to and from each train station on foot only takes a minute or two, but the train ride itself is 50+ minutes whereas the same journey with a car is about 20 minutes.
This is downtown Seattle to SeaTac I'm talking about, in case anybody wants to dispute this. Your starting point and destination can both be right on top of train-stations and cars still beat it easily because cars don't stop at a dozen train stations in between.
This said, I still use the light rail when I'm not in a hurry because it's pleasant. But there is absolutely a convenience price to pay with mass transit. Going anywhere takes longer in almost all circumstances, even when you account for traffic slowing cars down.
You are also allowed to have bike share, buses, subway/light rail, and taxis. No one is saying trains are the only mode of transportation. I’ve lived in midwestern states with miles of farmland. In the town center, a bus network and bike paths meant I almost never needed a car. Folks who lived outside of town had the option to drive in and park their car at commuter lots.
That observation is greatly amplified by the existing "successful" northeastern Amtrak corridor (relative to the rest of the Amtrak network), interconnecting northeastern cities like New York and Washington D.C. that have amongst the best local public transport in the US. Cities outside the northeast, not so much.
We were able to show the evolutionary behavior on the microscopic scale. And there were multiple experiments doing it so far - your statement on the lack of observability is false.
Indeed, and in particular it's the coupling of the eternal soul to the temporal body, that is held to be inaccessible to naturalistic inquiry. There are similar problems surrounding reproduction.
The thought process is probably the same reason we're all telling ourselves LaMDA and GPT-3 can't be conscious:
Our subjective experience of reality constantly eludes our ability to explain in terms of any physical or informational processes, so every time a system becomes explicable, it leaves the domain of "things which might be self-aware".
Some people take this in the other direction and attribute a soul to everything, others go further and say that even our self awareness is an illusion.
LD_PRELOAD trick allows you to intercept and virtualize calls to the CUDA runtime.