5 ms·
Of course everything you say about the software industry is true, right down to the "libertarianism and Austrian economics" (I take it you prefer critical race
by moldbug 15y ago
Of course everything you say about the software industry is true, right down to the "libertarianism and Austrian economics" (I take it you prefer critical race theory and postcolonial studies). Otherwise, your critics would have said something rather than just downvoting you.
Your problem seems to be that you haven't considered the possibility that academia is even worse. Academia is even worse. (I dropped out of the Berkeley PhD program in 1992 - specialty, OS and languages. From what I can tell, academia has only gotten worse since then.)
I could produce a parallel list of bullet points, but I'll just say three things. The only reason to go to grad school is because you want to be a professor. The only reason to be a professor is because you want to be a bureaucrat. Do you want to be a bureaucrat?
Even if you want to be a bureaucrat, there's no guarantee that you'll be good at it. Good bureaucrats don't write posts like the one you just wrote. They don't antagonize anyone, ever, in any way. They would rather lie - and they do. Are you good at that?
One of the things you'll discover in academia, for instance, is that the most appalling faux pas you can commit is to say anything bad about your colleagues' research. "Colleagues" meaning, of course, only whatever little log-rolling grant mafia you've wound up joining. You're perfectly free to criticize its enemies - though not the endeavor as a whole. Oh, you didn't want to join a mafia? You think someone is going to fund you just because you're smart and have cool ideas? Strange ideas you have there, kid.
I understand what you want CS research to be. CS research isn't what you want it to be. CS research is a gigantic government bureaucracy. Nor is it unique. Science itself is a gigantic government bureaucracy. Do you think it's not deceptive? Systematic deception is its very lifeblood.
Can science of the sort you're looking for exist? Of course it can exist. You can find it very easily. All you need is a time machine. Set the controls for at least 40 years ago.
Otherwise, the simplest way to do the kind of research you want to do is to decide quite consciously to give yourself over to the salt-mining industry in the most mercenary possible way, spend a decade making as much money as you possibly can (and spending as little as you can), and (if you succeed) found your own little university of one. It's not Victorian science, either, but I'll tell you it's a lot closer than Berkeley.
- moldbug 15y agoNot that it matters, but for "1992" read "1994." 1992 was when I started at UCB (and presumably around when eli_gottlieb was born).
- eli_gottlieb 15y agoActually, I was 3 years old at the time.
- moldbug 15y agoAt least this makes you ineligible for my most important piece of advice. But others may care so I'll say it anyway: never go to grad school, especially in Computer Science, before both (a) you're old enough to drink, (b) you have actually had a drink. (It's completely ok to be a virgin, however.)
- eli_gottlieb 15y agoI'm actually happily engaged and can control my drinking quite well, thanks.
- eli_gottlieb 15y ago>Of course everything you say about the software industry is true, right down to the "libertarianism and Austrian economics" (I take it you prefer critical race theory and postcolonial studies). Why would I prefer that bunch of idiot hippies? My preference is for Karl Marx and Henry George (with the former being better at seeing what capitalism really is, and the latter being the better economist). >Your problem seems to be that you haven't considered the possibility that academia is even worse. Academia is even worse. (I dropped out of the Berkeley PhD program in 1992 - specialty, OS and languages. From what I can tell, academia has only gotten worse since then.) This is precisely what I was considering at the end of undergrad. Hell, I'm in basically the same specialty as you were. >Even if you want to be a bureaucrat, there's no guarantee that you'll be good at it. Good bureaucrats don't write posts like the one you just wrote. They don't antagonize anyone, ever, in any way. They would rather lie - and they do. Are you good at that? Cool story, bro. Do you think I didn't consider the office-political implications of what I wrote? * Most academics don't read Hacker News. * Most academics would perceive this as on their side. * I openly admit that I wrote the post not even with mere bias but with an active bent towards an overly-negative portrayal of reality. * Most start-up folks here on Hacker News don't necessarily agree in whole, but agree in part. I've seen Steve Yegge's speech referenced a disturbing number of times on Reddit and HN. * Most of the votes have been upvotes, indicating a perception that the discussion is worth having rather than storming off in a huff and blacklisting the offending poster. >You think someone is going to fund you just because you're smart and have cool ideas? No, I thought someone was going to fund me because my adviser is well-known and prestigious within the field. There's no point breeding inferior academic DNA into myself, is there? >Otherwise, the simplest way to do the kind of research you want to do is to decide quite consciously to give yourself over to the salt-mining industry in the most mercenary possible way, spend a decade making as much money as you possibly can (and spending as little as you can), and (if you succeed) found your own little university of one. It's not Victorian science, either, but I'll tell you it's a lot closer than Berkeley. For my field I never even saw any point in applying to Berkeley, but how do you propose to go about this? Even the successful industrial programmers I know, unless they became millionaires off a start-up, did not actually make enough money to "settle down" out of working and "found your own little university of one." Provided you had the cash, it does sound like a fine idea.