- 0 Posts
- 88 Comments
6·3 months agoSlammed! Also cool metaphor.
Are you enjoying your Kep-mok blood ticks, Dr. Lazarus?
True, however… as you press into this planet, this planet presses into you.
I just came a little.
Lol I kind of like these hyper specific paper titles for the way they simplify my search, but if you say it out loud you end up a little winded
Sex Panther has no outliers.
Maybe getting clowned on will snap them out of it. Regardless, love the bit. Long live rabbi rabinowitz!
Lol rabinowicz is Slavic for son of the rabbi so “rabbi rabinowitz” sounds like a character from a Bourekas comedy
Probably, though the artist appeared to draw η (eta) rather than n which could mean they’re using learning rate to compute the bounds of some other value. I’m more curious what y-base log they’re taking and why.
It’s almost like it’s just supposed to look mathy or something.
Ah, the theory group. My people.
deleted by creator
Truly iconic!
I mean, we’re not talking about mutually exclusive properties.
Whether a paper is more or less dry and whether it’s more or less accessible to newcomers is separate from the quality of the contribution.
You can have both.
OMG the perfect reference!
For those interested, there’s an episode of Star Trek the plot of which revolves around an extreme example of this style of high context communication.
Edit: since we’re in the weeds below, let me rephrase. It’s OK for science to be fun. In fact it tends to encourage more and better science. This particular technique is quite old, and trends ebb and flow, but how you go about making science fun is up to you.
If you aren’t having fun in your work, or you aren’t having fun with other scientists, and especially if levity or personality detected in other scientists’ work really annoys you, maybe ask yourself where that feeling is coming from, because the only science being hindered is your own.
Old comment
I mean, I get that it’s easy to burn out on all the goofy titles.
For example, in machine learning there’s an architecture called BERT with hundreds of paper titles referencing a puppet character from the children’s TV show Sesame Street.
Similarly a bunch of neuromorphic (brain-like) computing models are named NEMO (NEuro-MOrphic) with paper titles referencing the Pixar movie Finding Nemo.
Of course, any joke can be tiring with repetition. But good papers are approachable to a variety of audiences, including visitors in the space, and the point of that technique is to offer a “hook” (to borrow a term from music) that makes the material more accessible and interesting to the uninitiated.
TLDR: I empathize but yeah dude’s wrong
I think they’re referring to the implicit exclusion, since it amounts to an “inside joke” which lends to cliquish social dynamics. Gatekeeping proper usually connotes more intentional and targeted action, but I think that’s what they mean. Personally I try to be more selective than I once was, when using references in groups, for that very reason.
The very last part may be the most difficult in the current iteration of the www, but numerous proposed solutions are viable (including one by sir berners-lee himself) and I’m all for it.
Can’t speak for op but it usually adds cheek. Sans’ use was revived a few decades ago. It tends to alter one’s tone to sound slightly stuffier, like putting on a top-hat and monocle. I’ve also seen it used more randomly by younger people who recently learned its meaning.
Edit: disclaimer and use case