5 ms·

One thing I have to note and keep wondering about is whether these "Berkeley Lab scientist", "Google researcher", "Institution X" add anything of value to the a

One thing I have to note and keep wondering about is whether these "Berkeley Lab scientist", "Google researcher", "Institution X" add anything of value to the actual content of the research? A publications uses to the name to add credibility, the institution itself wants its name there even if it is not associated to the research (as was the case for the "google researcher solves math problem" one), but do we really need that on HN?

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
It does sound like a weird appeal to authority, now you mention it. Here's the actual paper with names: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade1696 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade1696
stonogo 4y ago
Berkeley Lab employs both authors of this paper. Berkeley Lab, and this research, gets its funding from the US Department of Energy. One of the authors is a pretty high-level manager, of the sort who drives strategic planning there. It's safe to say the institution is associated with this research. I do personally regard national lab affiliation to be a meaningful quality signal -- at least strong enough that if I'm interested in the topic I'll read the actual paper, which isn't something I can say for a lot of stuff coming out of certain universities lately. Another good reason to note the institution is that this is a demonstration that DOE Office of Science research funding is generating results.
- dotgov 4y ago
  The DOE Office of Science funding is generating papers as results. If my interpretation is correct, the technology discussed is _potentially_ useful. To me the downside of marketing results aggressively to justify one’s funding is that the quality signal can become inversely correlated. Is this valuable research or is someone who knows to play the DOE game inflating a metric to secure their next round of funding and/or expand their turf? Does this negatively impact researchers who do not have access to a comparable marketing apparatus?
  - stonogo 4y ago
    They clearly describe having built an experimental device and outline expectations for improvement of the process. All technology is "potentially useful," until someone uses it. As far as "marketing," the labs are contractually required by the government to do this. Average 'impact rating' and so forth are part of the performance evaluations. As far as "playing the DOE game," there are a lot of voices in the critical path of getting significant funding from the Office of Science, many of them generally healthily skeptical. I'm not aware of very many charlatans achieving high-level management positions or controlling significant funding.
hiddencost 4y ago
Your employer basically owns everything you do. Working at a big tech company, you can't contribute to open source without permission of your employer. In the "Google researcher solves math problem" article, the researcher would have had to get permission to publish the work. If Google had wanted, they could have kept the result secret and used it internally.
- rjzzleep 4y ago
  No, that's actually incorrect. They can request that sure, and the guy might comply, but it's against the law and easily contestable. These clauses are invalid. But it's even more absurd to bring this up as a reason why WE should comply with it.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

It does sound like a weird appeal to authority, now you mention it. Here's the actual paper with names: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade1696 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade1696

stonogo 4y ago

Berkeley Lab employs both authors of this paper. Berkeley Lab, and this research, gets its funding from the US Department of Energy. One of the authors is a pretty high-level manager, of the sort who drives strategic planning there. It's safe to say the institution is associated with this research. I do personally regard national lab affiliation to be a meaningful quality signal -- at least strong enough that if I'm interested in the topic I'll read the actual paper, which isn't something I can say for a lot of stuff coming out of certain universities lately. Another good reason to note the institution is that this is a demonstration that DOE Office of Science research funding is generating results.

dotgov 4y ago
The DOE Office of Science funding is generating papers as results. If my interpretation is correct, the technology discussed is _potentially_ useful. To me the downside of marketing results aggressively to justify one’s funding is that the quality signal can become inversely correlated. Is this valuable research or is someone who knows to play the DOE game inflating a metric to secure their next round of funding and/or expand their turf? Does this negatively impact researchers who do not have access to a comparable marketing apparatus?
- stonogo 4y ago
  They clearly describe having built an experimental device and outline expectations for improvement of the process. All technology is "potentially useful," until someone uses it. As far as "marketing," the labs are contractually required by the government to do this. Average 'impact rating' and so forth are part of the performance evaluations. As far as "playing the DOE game," there are a lot of voices in the critical path of getting significant funding from the Office of Science, many of them generally healthily skeptical. I'm not aware of very many charlatans achieving high-level management positions or controlling significant funding.

hiddencost 4y ago

Your employer basically owns everything you do. Working at a big tech company, you can't contribute to open source without permission of your employer. In the "Google researcher solves math problem" article, the researcher would have had to get permission to publish the work. If Google had wanted, they could have kept the result secret and used it internally.

rjzzleep 4y ago
No, that's actually incorrect. They can request that sure, and the guy might comply, but it's against the law and easily contestable. These clauses are invalid. But it's even more absurd to bring this up as a reason why WE should comply with it.