3 ms·

I sort of agree with whatever you just said. Perspective is very important as solutions emerge from the problems in play for these companies. I will probably ex

I sort of agree with whatever you just said. Perspective is very important as solutions emerge from the problems in play for these companies. I will probably extend this a bit further : these solutions also increase our understanding and mental models for better & secure products. What company X does is not only limited to X, but benefits others too. For corporate sway in research - its my personal opinion (any only limited to me), that citizen awareness is generally high. HN and similar communities are quick to spot gaping holes or flaws, and alternatives are plenty as well. There is fortunately a still healthy ecosystem of indie developers who contribute everything from Linux kernel to iOS patches. As you mention, as of present this does not seem a big concern and the alternative scenario (no academia-industry symbiosis) could be worse.

saagarjha 5y ago
Yeah, I definitely don't want to come across as asking for companies to stop publishing their research. The information is always interesting to see, and sometimes even trying to sus out the bias can help you better understand the companies themselves. Like, picking the example of C++, you can tell that Microsoft cares about ABI stability because they ship an OS that exposes APIs to binaries (Apple cares as well, but they're far less vocal about C++, but in the language they own–Swift–they've gone all the way to reifying an entire ABI stable interface for generics). The problem is when e.g. Google presents something about not caring about ABI stability, and whether unintentionally or not, recruits people to their cause, to the extent that I see Windows programmers who ship closed source software clamoring for Microsoft to "stop preventing C++ from being more efficient and better" because they read a bunch of stuff about how std::string could get a better layout or something. This definitely isn't wrong but the perspective is easily skewed by what your goals are, and it's easy to accidentally think Google's goals are the same as yours because they certainly have no incentive to suggest otherwise. The question of how much we actually avoid this is a complicated one to answer. I like to think that a lot of the obvious biases get caught, but I have also been around long enough to know that Hacker News is definitely not immune to this. My employer constantly falls into the trap of having a problem and then looking around to see how FAANG is solving it, then trying that solution largely uncritically, despite not quite being a FAANG. It's mildly amusing when your see a principal engineer with several times more experience (and compensation!) than you do get tripped up by it, but it only emphasizes that evaluating research with a critical eye is difficult to do and everyone struggles with it to some extent.
- srvmshr 5y ago
  > when your see a principal engineer with several times more experience (and compensation!) than you do get tripped up by it. Slightly off topic :) I feel by the time people become Principals, they lose the laser sharp focus because they are juggling too many things at the same time. Principals who work as IC on the team, however are much better since they are hands-on to the current problems.

saagarjha 5y ago

Yeah, I definitely don't want to come across as asking for companies to stop publishing their research. The information is always interesting to see, and sometimes even trying to sus out the bias can help you better understand the companies themselves. Like, picking the example of C++, you can tell that Microsoft cares about ABI stability because they ship an OS that exposes APIs to binaries (Apple cares as well, but they're far less vocal about C++, but in the language they own–Swift–they've gone all the way to reifying an entire ABI stable interface for generics). The problem is when e.g. Google presents something about not caring about ABI stability, and whether unintentionally or not, recruits people to their cause, to the extent that I see Windows programmers who ship closed source software clamoring for Microsoft to "stop preventing C++ from being more efficient and better" because they read a bunch of stuff about how std::string could get a better layout or something. This definitely isn't wrong but the perspective is easily skewed by what your goals are, and it's easy to accidentally think Google's goals are the same as yours because they certainly have no incentive to suggest otherwise. The question of how much we actually avoid this is a complicated one to answer. I like to think that a lot of the obvious biases get caught, but I have also been around long enough to know that Hacker News is definitely not immune to this. My employer constantly falls into the trap of having a problem and then looking around to see how FAANG is solving it, then trying that solution largely uncritically, despite not quite being a FAANG. It's mildly amusing when your see a principal engineer with several times more experience (and compensation!) than you do get tripped up by it, but it only emphasizes that evaluating research with a critical eye is difficult to do and everyone struggles with it to some extent.

srvmshr 5y ago
> when your see a principal engineer with several times more experience (and compensation!) than you do get tripped up by it. Slightly off topic :) I feel by the time people become Principals, they lose the laser sharp focus because they are juggling too many things at the same time. Principals who work as IC on the team, however are much better since they are hands-on to the current problems.