5 ms·

just want to point out to people to not be discouraged by things having been done before. Always worth saying ...

vardump 4y ago
Couldn't agree more!
klyrs 4y ago
I'd like to discourage people from naming things after themselves, when those things have already been done before. https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-researcher-discovers-integration-gets-75-citations/ https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-research...
- kristopolous 4y ago
  I don't have domain expertise here at all but I'd like to hear the other side. Trapezoid estimation I believe I learned when I was 15 or so as part of standard coursework. I would find it remarkable if all these accomplished scientific experimenters and scholars first encountered it here Not impossible but I think Occam's razor would suggest there might be domain specific nuances to the implementation that makes it special. On the other hand I've certainly encountered a ton of stupidly obvious techniques in my 30 years of programming which I thought were unremarkable only to discover people have developed a special language and narrative history of attribution to it. You swim through the jargon presuming it's profound and enlightening but then ultimately get disappointed. It's an emotionally impactful experience so I tend to remember it.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    That example is just one that sticks out in my mind particularly brightly. I'm a mathematician, and I have a particular distrust of people who name things after themselves, in large part because of the culture -- people who cite your work might choose to name it after you in recognition of your/its significance. And I still dislike that, because for example, Noether's Theorem isn't a unique identifier. The Trapezoid Rule, on the other hand, is named perfectly. There's some interesting discussion on stackexchange at [1], the comment I link to reports on some investigation they did. Apparently, the Tai of Tai's Model misinterpreted other people's use of the trapezoid rule, found that misinterpreted version to be faulty, re-invented it, and named it after herself. One assumes that it was an honest mistake, but it's a damned shame that it didn't get caught in review. [1] https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/103197 https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/103197
  - Arch-TK 4y ago
    There are no domain specific nuances. Please feel free to read it, it's very short: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/17/2/152/17985/A-Mathematical-Model-for-the-Determination-of https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/17/2/152/17985/A-M... (PDF link at the bottom)
- thayne 4y ago
  As someone who TAed for a physics class with a lot of premed students, that whole piece really resonates with me.

Couldn't agree more!

I'd like to discourage people from naming things after themselves, when those things have already been done before. https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-researcher-discovers-integration-gets-75-citations/ https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-research...

kristopolous 4y ago
I don't have domain expertise here at all but I'd like to hear the other side. Trapezoid estimation I believe I learned when I was 15 or so as part of standard coursework. I would find it remarkable if all these accomplished scientific experimenters and scholars first encountered it here Not impossible but I think Occam's razor would suggest there might be domain specific nuances to the implementation that makes it special. On the other hand I've certainly encountered a ton of stupidly obvious techniques in my 30 years of programming which I thought were unremarkable only to discover people have developed a special language and narrative history of attribution to it. You swim through the jargon presuming it's profound and enlightening but then ultimately get disappointed. It's an emotionally impactful experience so I tend to remember it.
- klyrs 4y ago
  That example is just one that sticks out in my mind particularly brightly. I'm a mathematician, and I have a particular distrust of people who name things after themselves, in large part because of the culture -- people who cite your work might choose to name it after you in recognition of your/its significance. And I still dislike that, because for example, Noether's Theorem isn't a unique identifier. The Trapezoid Rule, on the other hand, is named perfectly. There's some interesting discussion on stackexchange at [1], the comment I link to reports on some investigation they did. Apparently, the Tai of Tai's Model misinterpreted other people's use of the trapezoid rule, found that misinterpreted version to be faulty, re-invented it, and named it after herself. One assumes that it was an honest mistake, but it's a damned shame that it didn't get caught in review. [1] https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/103197 https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/103197
- Arch-TK 4y ago
  There are no domain specific nuances. Please feel free to read it, it's very short: https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/17/2/152/17985/A-Mathematical-Model-for-the-Determination-of https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/17/2/152/17985/A-M... (PDF link at the bottom)
thayne 4y ago
As someone who TAed for a physics class with a lot of premed students, that whole piece really resonates with me.