3 ms·
That's a fair point. The issue is that many of these papers don't seem to acknowledge that industry has (unpublished) solutions, and are somewhat naive as a res
by mdwelsh 11y ago
That's a fair point. The issue is that many of these papers don't seem to acknowledge that industry has (unpublished) solutions, and are somewhat naive as a result.
- irremediable 11y agoFair. This happens less in my field, but a lot of that could be because, for medical applications, people are far less willing to certify without published validation.
- knughit 11y agoAnother way to look at it: avoid the open/academic community stop doing xrypto research because NSA mathematicians are (secretly) way ahead of them? "Open" is a different league from proprietary. It doesn't matter that they are behind proprietary. but it matters when they are working on the wrong problems.
- mcguire 11y agoIt's unfortunate that, in science, if it isn't written down, it doesn't exist. Having been bitten by the 'but we already know how to do that' comments, I find this particular aspect of industry to be very irritating. There are 3 possibilities: The unpublished solution is brilliant. The solution fits for very limited constraints applicable only to that situation. The solution is a half-assed hack that only looks like it works. In only one of those situations is the 'naive' comment valid.