6 ms·

Is that not the case anyway? I admit I have no experience contributing but that's from hearing things like how the linux development team runs and people like S

by lovich 9y ago

Is that not the case anyway? I admit I have no experience contributing but that's from hearing things like how the linux development team runs and people like Sarah Sharp quitting over the abuse. It's given me the impression that if I don't create something that is up to a teams standard from commit 0 then I will be ridiculed in a public forum

throwawayjava 9y ago
Abuse from your own insular community re: a particular project is one thing; public abuse published in some of the most popular print media on the planet resulting in lost jobs/lost job opporunities is quite another.
- lovich 9y ago
  People use their open source contributions as part of their resume when seeking jobs, correct? That sort of abuse would reach outside the group if you were showing off your contributions as a necessary part of your career. I don't see as wide of a gap in effect on career between open source contributions for engineers and published papers for scientists as you seem to be implying
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    I think we are violently agreeing on the original question about whether that's bad for the OSS community, though?
- lliamander 9y ago
  I certainly have a fair degree of sympathy for Cuddy's losses, but should she have been given the accolades (TED talk, tenure track at Harvard, etc.) in the first place? Her work was interesting no doubt, and in our scientific age we have always celebrated the novelty and originality of the scientific geniuses that have advanced our understanding. But the real value of science has always been novelty plus certainty. The scientists who we esteem should be known as much for their industrious management of the empirical process (recruiting replicators, statistical auditors, etc.) as they are for they are for their creative insight.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    As I indicated up-thread, I'm mostly on your side of these politics. geofft's comment hits the nail on the head when it comes to what effect this did vs. should've had on her tenure case, I think. A study that fails to replicate is no indication of malice or even incompetence. Some say she should've run self-replications, but how many years self-replication studies are you willing to run on $20k/yr (in fact, how many post-college years have you made 20k/yr for a full-time job)? At some point you get the quality of science you can pay for, and throwing the grad student under the bus by denying them tenure a decade later is as shitty and spineless as Equifax throwing an IT guy under the bus for what was pretty clearly an organizational failure. IMO. Re: TED talks, TED is not a scientific venue, and most of the things I hear in TED talks are a hell of a lot less scientific than even Cuddy's most flawed studies. Also, I don't think those sorts of things should weigh much in hiring and tenure cases either way (aside from e.g. a usually marginal "service/outreach" category). If Harvard hired Cuddy because she gave a popular TED talk, then that was an extremely poor hiring decision by Harvard. But that's a separate issue from the one we're discussing.
    - lliamander 9y ago
      > As I indicated up-thread, I'm mostly on your side of these politics. I know, and I think we are mostly in agreement. I generally don't like seeing individuals dragged through the mud. It's also somewhat unfair to judge her actions pre-replication crisis by our standards post-replication crisis. I also agree that a single study failing to replicate is not an instance of malice or incompetence, in fact I think all scientists should expect it to happen. But that also means that no career should be built on the back of a single study. It seems that she is still sticking to her guns even after 11 failed replications. That does cause me some concern. > but how many years self-replication studies are you willing to run on $20k/yr? At some point you get the quality of science you can pay for... Then maybe one should more hesitant about promoting those results? > If Harvard hired Cuddy because she gave a popular TED talk, then that was an extremely poor hiring decision by Harvard. But that's a separate issue from the one we're discussing. I think it makes me more sympathetic to her case. If Harvard had not hired her, or TED not promoted her, she would not have been subject to nearly the same scrutiny or ire as she was. Ironically, she might have had a better shot at a good long-term career. But who, at that point, would have turned down either of these prizes? I know I wouldn't have.
zipfle 9y ago
I find it amazing and heartening to see this kind of humanistic, self-reflective discourse on hn, where I generally expect to find macho posturing.
srtjstjsj 9y ago
Before deciding that Linux (the most successful open source projecting history?) is poorly run. you have to weigh people quitting over the abuse against all the other contributors and maintainers building something that relies in part on that abuse. > It's given me the impression that if I don't create something that is up to a teams standard from commit 0 Linus has said that he reserves his abuse for senior people who should know better. It's his antidote to a complacent overclass that mistreats the kernel development process.
- lovich 9y ago
  I never stated that it was poorly run, acting like this might get better results. I was replying to the poster who postulated what could happen if a hit piece was ran in a public setting against someone for their OSS contributions and how it seemed like reality wasn't already too far off from that to me

by lovich 9y ago

throwawayjava 9y ago

Abuse from your own insular community re: a particular project is one thing; public abuse published in some of the most popular print media on the planet resulting in lost jobs/lost job opporunities is quite another.

lovich 9y ago
People use their open source contributions as part of their resume when seeking jobs, correct? That sort of abuse would reach outside the group if you were showing off your contributions as a necessary part of your career. I don't see as wide of a gap in effect on career between open source contributions for engineers and published papers for scientists as you seem to be implying
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  I think we are violently agreeing on the original question about whether that's bad for the OSS community, though?
lliamander 9y ago
I certainly have a fair degree of sympathy for Cuddy's losses, but should she have been given the accolades (TED talk, tenure track at Harvard, etc.) in the first place? Her work was interesting no doubt, and in our scientific age we have always celebrated the novelty and originality of the scientific geniuses that have advanced our understanding. But the real value of science has always been novelty plus certainty. The scientists who we esteem should be known as much for their industrious management of the empirical process (recruiting replicators, statistical auditors, etc.) as they are for they are for their creative insight.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  As I indicated up-thread, I'm mostly on your side of these politics. geofft's comment hits the nail on the head when it comes to what effect this did vs. should've had on her tenure case, I think. A study that fails to replicate is no indication of malice or even incompetence. Some say she should've run self-replications, but how many years self-replication studies are you willing to run on $20k/yr (in fact, how many post-college years have you made 20k/yr for a full-time job)? At some point you get the quality of science you can pay for, and throwing the grad student under the bus by denying them tenure a decade later is as shitty and spineless as Equifax throwing an IT guy under the bus for what was pretty clearly an organizational failure. IMO. Re: TED talks, TED is not a scientific venue, and most of the things I hear in TED talks are a hell of a lot less scientific than even Cuddy's most flawed studies. Also, I don't think those sorts of things should weigh much in hiring and tenure cases either way (aside from e.g. a usually marginal "service/outreach" category). If Harvard hired Cuddy because she gave a popular TED talk, then that was an extremely poor hiring decision by Harvard. But that's a separate issue from the one we're discussing.
  - lliamander 9y ago
    > As I indicated up-thread, I'm mostly on your side of these politics. I know, and I think we are mostly in agreement. I generally don't like seeing individuals dragged through the mud. It's also somewhat unfair to judge her actions pre-replication crisis by our standards post-replication crisis. I also agree that a single study failing to replicate is not an instance of malice or incompetence, in fact I think all scientists should expect it to happen. But that also means that no career should be built on the back of a single study. It seems that she is still sticking to her guns even after 11 failed replications. That does cause me some concern. > but how many years self-replication studies are you willing to run on $20k/yr? At some point you get the quality of science you can pay for... Then maybe one should more hesitant about promoting those results? > If Harvard hired Cuddy because she gave a popular TED talk, then that was an extremely poor hiring decision by Harvard. But that's a separate issue from the one we're discussing. I think it makes me more sympathetic to her case. If Harvard had not hired her, or TED not promoted her, she would not have been subject to nearly the same scrutiny or ire as she was. Ironically, she might have had a better shot at a good long-term career. But who, at that point, would have turned down either of these prizes? I know I wouldn't have.

zipfle 9y ago

I find it amazing and heartening to see this kind of humanistic, self-reflective discourse on hn, where I generally expect to find macho posturing.

srtjstjsj 9y ago

Before deciding that Linux (the most successful open source projecting history?) is poorly run. you have to weigh people quitting over the abuse against all the other contributors and maintainers building something that relies in part on that abuse. > It's given me the impression that if I don't create something that is up to a teams standard from commit 0 Linus has said that he reserves his abuse for senior people who should know better. It's his antidote to a complacent overclass that mistreats the kernel development process.

lovich 9y ago
I never stated that it was poorly run, acting like this might get better results. I was replying to the poster who postulated what could happen if a hit piece was ran in a public setting against someone for their OSS contributions and how it seemed like reality wasn't already too far off from that to me