6 ms·

It doesn't matter what color you are. It doesn't matter where you're from. If you create something like what Dijkstra created back in 56' (undeniable innovation

It doesn't matter what color you are. It doesn't matter where you're from. If you create something like what Dijkstra created back in 56' (undeniable innovation), then no door will remain shut. That's the beauty of Math, CompSci, or STEM as a whole. Not to be too blunt, but I'd rather we keep this soft, "everyone should be accepted" nonsense out of CompSci. The cream will rise to the top. Anyone complaining just needs to improve, or innovate. The author even says the reason for rejection is often "lack of novelty". Me personally, I'm not talented enough to even be in the same conversation as some of the people who are in that "universe", but that's okay - It just wasn't meant to be for me. If I "stay in my own lane", that creates more room for the gifted, and the elite.

mikkergp 4y ago
> If you create something like what Dijkstra created back in 56' (undeniable innovation), then no door will remain shut. That's the beauty of Math, CompSci, or STEM as a whole. Don’t get me wrong, this seems like a nice idea, I’d love to live in this world, but hasn’t it been disproven time and again throughout history? This board itself is flooded with engineers with great ideas being dismissed because of “realities of the business” or “changing priorities”, much less “political realities” etc et Al. In fact I’d say the reality is probably opposite,(as a matter of principal, obviously great ideas do eventually make it but) truly great innovative ideas are ignored, it is only the incremental ideas that don’t make anyone uncomfortable that are accepted.
- qzx_pierri 4y ago
  > This board itself is flooded with engineers with great ideas being dismissed because of “realities of the business” or “changing priorities”, much less “political realities” etc Your argument would be rock solid if those great ideas were only applicable/useful in huge bureaucratic organizations (which is the type of environment where bullshit ideas are given more attention than truly innovative and impactful ideas). We've all probably been there before, and I get your point 100%. However, the next step would be to go where your ideas can be heard. And if the idea is good enough, people will listen. Shouting into an org chart 10 miles deep to narcissistic C level executives has always seemed like a waste of time. So I don't disagree with you, but if you aren't being heard, speak to someone who will listen.
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    > However, the next step would be to go where your ideas can be heard. And if the idea is good enough, people will listen I don't see how your point is in conflict with my point. You originally said that "no door will remain shut". Your response seems to be similar to my point is that this is not in fact true, ideas have to be marketed to the people who need them or "the right doors". It is not in fact "the best ideas that will float to the top" by some objective measure but the most relevant/politically applicable/subjectively best to the audience" ideas that will float to the top.
karpierz 4y ago
The cream generally rises, sure. But at what rate? And how long will they stay in the game without recognition before giving up? And do those numbers differ based on your color or where you're from?
- qzx_pierri 4y ago
  > But at what rate? And how long will they stay in the game without recognition before giving up? And do those numbers differ based on your color or where you're from? If you provide that data, we can continue the conversation. However, the truths in my original post stand firm. STEM is an objective field. Sure, there may be issues with equality of opportunity, but that's outside the scope of my argument. Equality of outcome will always be attainable through personal effort, intelligence, and innovation - But as I said in my original post, you'll need to be really good. Not everyone will be like Hal Abelson, Margaret Hamilton, Dennis Ritchie, or Richard Stallman. Those people are built different. Those are the people I'm referring to. It is literally impossible for them to have ever not been noticed due to their next level talent and relentlessness.
  - parasubvert 4y ago
    I think this is naive and a classic example of a poor argument, as your statements are unfalsifiable. They’re expressions of faith in the system and in individuals outside of time and circumstance. From my perspective, we have seen a lot of evidence that STEM is far from an objective field, and has culturally excluded a lot of talent. I see little evidence that this sort of talent magically, consistently, will fight through the cultural barriers.
    - qzx_pierri 4y ago
      I'm a black man who grew up in the projects in a single parent household. Through willpower and dedication, I made a way. I made a way because skin color doesn't matter when you have your CCNA at 14, or when you maintain a Gentoo install at 16, and have a OpenBSD router in your home built from old computer parts found in thrift stores. Mind you, these aren't even impressive achievements, but they were above average for my age group at the time. > STEM is far from an objective field I had every excuse to believe that, but I didn't. I'm definitely biased because I trusted the system and it worked. Most industries can be exclusive, but STEM is not one of them. Raw talent seems to be rare, so any talent is accepted. > and has culturally excluded a lot of talent You use 'culture' as a point of argument, which is extremely vague, yet you accuse me of presenting a poor argument due to unfalsifiable statements? I respect your point of view, but you have to be fair.
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
The cream isn't rising to the top. I doubt many people on HN - never mind in the STEM community a a whole - can name anyone born after 1960 doing research at the level of Dijkstra, Knuth, Hoare, and maybe Wirth. This either means there's no one that smart or original in the last few generations - possible, but something of a stretch - or the system isn't successfully selecting, motivating, and rewarding people with that level of talent. My suspicion is that the top people are working in the private sector, and many of them are doing very highly paid but questionably useful work as quants and system engineers. Building things is fine, but of course it's not academic research - which is defined by the creation of game-changing concepts and philosophical structures, some of which happen to be mathematical.
- impossiblefork 4y ago
  Cook's theorem was 1971, and I think that's a foundational result. Then there's Håstad's work from the 1980s-2010s on lower bounds and optimal non-approximability results. There's Sanjeev Arora, who was one of the guys who worked on the PCP theorem and who has now been writing interesting things about ML. There's Razborov and Rudich, with natural proofs, which was in 1994. There's Khot, who would be up with these guys provided that the UGC is true.
xhkkffbf 4y ago
While I do think that some cream makes it to the top, this is the kind of selection bias that's common in academia. The professors with tenure love to think that the system is fair. But even if the filters ensure that the tenured are good, it doesn't mean that the filtering process isn't excluding a number of other people who are just as good (or even better). There aren't many slots at each level of the pyramid. Many people are excluded at each stage of the culling.
deanCommie 4y ago
Your comment may have been narrowly focused on academia, but I see the same perspectives being shared about Diversity and Inclusion in our whole industry. But it's a problem. Literally the exact same phrasing has been used to resist removing Jim Crow laws and civil rights legislation. There was always someone could point to a black man in America that was doing just fine without any new laws. Let's start with where you're right: You're absolutely right that if you're in the top 0.1%, hell even the top 1% of any field, you will do fine. No door will remain shut. Your comparison point is one of the most esteemed humans in the history of Computing Science. A person who was awarded one of the first 6 Turing Awards (The equivalent of the Nobel Prize in our field). At that level of intellect, you could make the claim there is no discrimination. And you'd be wrong (Let's just talk about what happened to Alan Turing HIMSELF, and the discrimination he faced, in spite of the ideas that were so revolutionary they named the award after him). But let's pretend that you're right. What about the rest of the field? What about the p90 of the industry - folks who want to succeed, who want to thrive, but encounter hidden and non-hidden biases. Spend 10 minutes with any woman in STEM and you'll be filled with stories of subtle and non-subtle discrimination they encounter. Is it necessary? I think not.
BeetleB 4y ago
> The cream will rise to the top. What makes you think so? Having been in academia, my experience doesn't match this sentiment.
Ar-Curunir 4y ago
Edward Lee (the author of this piece) is the cream that has risen to the top. He’s a top level respected scientist. This piece is clearly not coming from a place of jealousy or softness.

mikkergp 4y ago

> If you create something like what Dijkstra created back in 56' (undeniable innovation), then no door will remain shut. That's the beauty of Math, CompSci, or STEM as a whole. Don’t get me wrong, this seems like a nice idea, I’d love to live in this world, but hasn’t it been disproven time and again throughout history? This board itself is flooded with engineers with great ideas being dismissed because of “realities of the business” or “changing priorities”, much less “political realities” etc et Al. In fact I’d say the reality is probably opposite,(as a matter of principal, obviously great ideas do eventually make it but) truly great innovative ideas are ignored, it is only the incremental ideas that don’t make anyone uncomfortable that are accepted.

qzx_pierri 4y ago
> This board itself is flooded with engineers with great ideas being dismissed because of “realities of the business” or “changing priorities”, much less “political realities” etc Your argument would be rock solid if those great ideas were only applicable/useful in huge bureaucratic organizations (which is the type of environment where bullshit ideas are given more attention than truly innovative and impactful ideas). We've all probably been there before, and I get your point 100%. However, the next step would be to go where your ideas can be heard. And if the idea is good enough, people will listen. Shouting into an org chart 10 miles deep to narcissistic C level executives has always seemed like a waste of time. So I don't disagree with you, but if you aren't being heard, speak to someone who will listen.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  > However, the next step would be to go where your ideas can be heard. And if the idea is good enough, people will listen I don't see how your point is in conflict with my point. You originally said that "no door will remain shut". Your response seems to be similar to my point is that this is not in fact true, ideas have to be marketed to the people who need them or "the right doors". It is not in fact "the best ideas that will float to the top" by some objective measure but the most relevant/politically applicable/subjectively best to the audience" ideas that will float to the top.

karpierz 4y ago

The cream generally rises, sure. But at what rate? And how long will they stay in the game without recognition before giving up? And do those numbers differ based on your color or where you're from?

qzx_pierri 4y ago
> But at what rate? And how long will they stay in the game without recognition before giving up? And do those numbers differ based on your color or where you're from? If you provide that data, we can continue the conversation. However, the truths in my original post stand firm. STEM is an objective field. Sure, there may be issues with equality of opportunity, but that's outside the scope of my argument. Equality of outcome will always be attainable through personal effort, intelligence, and innovation - But as I said in my original post, you'll need to be really good. Not everyone will be like Hal Abelson, Margaret Hamilton, Dennis Ritchie, or Richard Stallman. Those people are built different. Those are the people I'm referring to. It is literally impossible for them to have ever not been noticed due to their next level talent and relentlessness.
- parasubvert 4y ago
  I think this is naive and a classic example of a poor argument, as your statements are unfalsifiable. They’re expressions of faith in the system and in individuals outside of time and circumstance. From my perspective, we have seen a lot of evidence that STEM is far from an objective field, and has culturally excluded a lot of talent. I see little evidence that this sort of talent magically, consistently, will fight through the cultural barriers.
  - qzx_pierri 4y ago
    I'm a black man who grew up in the projects in a single parent household. Through willpower and dedication, I made a way. I made a way because skin color doesn't matter when you have your CCNA at 14, or when you maintain a Gentoo install at 16, and have a OpenBSD router in your home built from old computer parts found in thrift stores. Mind you, these aren't even impressive achievements, but they were above average for my age group at the time. > STEM is far from an objective field I had every excuse to believe that, but I didn't. I'm definitely biased because I trusted the system and it worked. Most industries can be exclusive, but STEM is not one of them. Raw talent seems to be rare, so any talent is accepted. > and has culturally excluded a lot of talent You use 'culture' as a point of argument, which is extremely vague, yet you accuse me of presenting a poor argument due to unfalsifiable statements? I respect your point of view, but you have to be fair.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

The cream isn't rising to the top. I doubt many people on HN - never mind in the STEM community a a whole - can name anyone born after 1960 doing research at the level of Dijkstra, Knuth, Hoare, and maybe Wirth. This either means there's no one that smart or original in the last few generations - possible, but something of a stretch - or the system isn't successfully selecting, motivating, and rewarding people with that level of talent. My suspicion is that the top people are working in the private sector, and many of them are doing very highly paid but questionably useful work as quants and system engineers. Building things is fine, but of course it's not academic research - which is defined by the creation of game-changing concepts and philosophical structures, some of which happen to be mathematical.

impossiblefork 4y ago
Cook's theorem was 1971, and I think that's a foundational result. Then there's Håstad's work from the 1980s-2010s on lower bounds and optimal non-approximability results. There's Sanjeev Arora, who was one of the guys who worked on the PCP theorem and who has now been writing interesting things about ML. There's Razborov and Rudich, with natural proofs, which was in 1994. There's Khot, who would be up with these guys provided that the UGC is true.

xhkkffbf 4y ago

While I do think that some cream makes it to the top, this is the kind of selection bias that's common in academia. The professors with tenure love to think that the system is fair. But even if the filters ensure that the tenured are good, it doesn't mean that the filtering process isn't excluding a number of other people who are just as good (or even better). There aren't many slots at each level of the pyramid. Many people are excluded at each stage of the culling.

deanCommie 4y ago

Your comment may have been narrowly focused on academia, but I see the same perspectives being shared about Diversity and Inclusion in our whole industry. But it's a problem. Literally the exact same phrasing has been used to resist removing Jim Crow laws and civil rights legislation. There was always someone could point to a black man in America that was doing just fine without any new laws. Let's start with where you're right: You're absolutely right that if you're in the top 0.1%, hell even the top 1% of any field, you will do fine. No door will remain shut. Your comparison point is one of the most esteemed humans in the history of Computing Science. A person who was awarded one of the first 6 Turing Awards (The equivalent of the Nobel Prize in our field). At that level of intellect, you could make the claim there is no discrimination. And you'd be wrong (Let's just talk about what happened to Alan Turing HIMSELF, and the discrimination he faced, in spite of the ideas that were so revolutionary they named the award after him). But let's pretend that you're right. What about the rest of the field? What about the p90 of the industry - folks who want to succeed, who want to thrive, but encounter hidden and non-hidden biases. Spend 10 minutes with any woman in STEM and you'll be filled with stories of subtle and non-subtle discrimination they encounter. Is it necessary? I think not.

BeetleB 4y ago

> The cream will rise to the top. What makes you think so? Having been in academia, my experience doesn't match this sentiment.

Ar-Curunir 4y ago

Edward Lee (the author of this piece) is the cream that has risen to the top. He’s a top level respected scientist. This piece is clearly not coming from a place of jealousy or softness.