3 ms·

Well, it's matter of perspective. It's not very possible that in 200 years or so, people are going to remember and study my work. That's reserved for the Newton

Well, it's matter of perspective. It's not very possible that in 200 years or so, people are going to remember and study my work. That's reserved for the Newtons and the Gausses of the world, and even then, they are acknowledged from a tiny percentage of the world's population. But I'm very grateful to work in a setting where I can solve exciting problems, get to collaborate and learn from really smart and passionate people, try (and fail) in designing software, and then sometimes find time for a hobby or two. The 'safe 9-5 job' exists, and as programmers, we always want a fresh challenge, but in many cases it's in our hands to create the opportunities so it's not 'meaningless'.

AstralStorm 8y ago
Unless you're a really good mathematician (I count hardcore CS as math) your work will likely not bring any advancement because it is low hanging fruit. Sometimes you get lucky like Apple, but the hard work was done by inventor guys like Kendall or a selection of electrical engineers in 80s. In short, if it's not academia, it's probably 10 years outdated already if not more... or just a minor tweak. (Like high end 10Gbit routing, hardly life changing. Or yet another ANN architecture.) Companies do not want a gamble and deal with science, they want instant gratification. (Except the few super rich like Google and Microsoft having small but great real research teams.) Yes, it is a high bar, but a big difference between feel-good and actually useful and life changing technologies.
- ehnto 8y ago
  It takes collaboration to make a difference, and from another perspective, computer science is worth just the paper it's written on until it's applied in the real world and actually changes something for the better. You could write a simple program, with 10 year old technology, that changes an entire industry. Imagine if no one applied encryption to eCommerce. Or imagine if no one wrote a messaging application that works over telecommunication protocols. Famously, the effects of penicillium mould had been known since the 19th century, the mould itself finally identified in 1928. But it wasn't until it was implemented by a team working on the practicalities of mass production that it began helping people, all the way ahead in 1940. Without the research paper we would have nothing, and without the implementors we would have something, but nothing useful.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Indeed. The point being you're supposed to implement the latest and/or proven and/or best techniques but we're reduced to sloppy work due to business requirements almost always. Your point about encryption is misplaced. Do not imagine impossible stupidity - even ancient Romans sometimes encrypted tax and military information. The difference is between brewing your own (common in 90s, crackable even then in a day of math or so) and using actual research. As for collaboration, it is overrated. Best work generally is done by a few actual geniuses in the specialty. (I can name a bunch in a few fields I'm interested in, like acoustics and audio algorithms.) They do need support staff of course. Usually the real ones are tenured professors with long development of a singular technology over the years. As for penicillin, it was one quite genius chemist (Pfizer; Erhardt was a comfectioneer so support) who developed means of mass producing it. (Among many other things later.) They worked for a company which got major government funding during wartime, which makes it almost like a tenure.

AstralStorm 8y ago

Unless you're a really good mathematician (I count hardcore CS as math) your work will likely not bring any advancement because it is low hanging fruit. Sometimes you get lucky like Apple, but the hard work was done by inventor guys like Kendall or a selection of electrical engineers in 80s. In short, if it's not academia, it's probably 10 years outdated already if not more... or just a minor tweak. (Like high end 10Gbit routing, hardly life changing. Or yet another ANN architecture.) Companies do not want a gamble and deal with science, they want instant gratification. (Except the few super rich like Google and Microsoft having small but great real research teams.) Yes, it is a high bar, but a big difference between feel-good and actually useful and life changing technologies.

ehnto 8y ago
It takes collaboration to make a difference, and from another perspective, computer science is worth just the paper it's written on until it's applied in the real world and actually changes something for the better. You could write a simple program, with 10 year old technology, that changes an entire industry. Imagine if no one applied encryption to eCommerce. Or imagine if no one wrote a messaging application that works over telecommunication protocols. Famously, the effects of penicillium mould had been known since the 19th century, the mould itself finally identified in 1928. But it wasn't until it was implemented by a team working on the practicalities of mass production that it began helping people, all the way ahead in 1940. Without the research paper we would have nothing, and without the implementors we would have something, but nothing useful.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Indeed. The point being you're supposed to implement the latest and/or proven and/or best techniques but we're reduced to sloppy work due to business requirements almost always. Your point about encryption is misplaced. Do not imagine impossible stupidity - even ancient Romans sometimes encrypted tax and military information. The difference is between brewing your own (common in 90s, crackable even then in a day of math or so) and using actual research. As for collaboration, it is overrated. Best work generally is done by a few actual geniuses in the specialty. (I can name a bunch in a few fields I'm interested in, like acoustics and audio algorithms.) They do need support staff of course. Usually the real ones are tenured professors with long development of a singular technology over the years. As for penicillin, it was one quite genius chemist (Pfizer; Erhardt was a comfectioneer so support) who developed means of mass producing it. (Among many other things later.) They worked for a company which got major government funding during wartime, which makes it almost like a tenure.