Not pictured: any attempt to argue that experimenting on the team that reviews kernel patches is a legitimate thing to do. They discuss it as if they were rese

Not pictured: any attempt to argue that experimenting on the team that reviews kernel patches is a legitimate thing to do. They discuss it as if they were researching something naturally occuring, like the animals living in a tidepool. I can imagine research on a "process" made up of humans as having some value. For example, testing EMTs on whether they correctly diagnose injuries, or testing TAs on whether they catch exam cheating. But I would expect the researchers to ask someone (in those cases, maybe the manager of the EMTs or the TAs, in this case I suppose Linus) whether this research is wanted, and for guidance on how to go about it. For example they could submit the questionable patches during slow times. Does anyone know if that happened? I assume if it had, they would've mentioned it. With that kind of permission, I wouldn't have a problem with this research and I don't think most people here would either. Without, this is the academic equivalent of those "just a prank, bro" youtube videos.