Makes me think of the power dynamic between smart glass wearers and bystanders as a social problem and not a technical one: https://spectrum.ieee.org/ar-glasses
I've played about 12 hours of Diablo Immortal. I haven't spent any money, but also haven't really looked into why I would want to do it. The game is already pretty easy, and I feel like spending for better gear would make it almost non-sense, where I can just stand around while my minions kill the enemies. If they wanted to encourage micro-transactions, they should have made it a lot more challenging, so that you'd actually you know, die sometimes.
Doesn't h-index prevent exactly the scenario of having 10 forgettable papers? Having a couple of great papers yields a high h-index, but 10 forgettable papers would hold the number at a low count because you need N papers with at least N citations each. So a seminar paper would +1 to that h-index indefinitely, whereas low value papers would upper bound the h-index to their citation count.
It kind of regresses to a median. 1 big paper, and 100 papers with zero citations aren't that useful.
However, most top phd students/ assistant professors hover around the nebulous 5-30 hindex where getting 30 citations is a lot easier than publishing 30 papers. So, in most cases, you will prefer to figure out quantity, because the quality bar is so low. Additionally, they and lab mates always cite each other which leads to a free 10-ish citations overtime anyway. Lastly, authorship priority is not taken into account in hindex. So, a bunch of secondary-authors can easily get those numbers up at massively industrialized labs. So a small set of productive 1st authorships are given lower weightage than a large list of low-contribution 2nd authorships. Almost all super-high hindex professors are more like CEOs of a research company than primary researchers.
H-index, like all metrics is useful. It sort of shows the median quality of papers by an author assuming that equal time is spent on all papers. It is informative, but making it too important in academia has led to it getting gamed with counter-productive incentive structures.
H-index ignores away a lot qualities that are incredibly important to being a productive researcher, and has led to researchers with such qualities being progressively pushed out of academia ever since it has become THE target.
> assuming that equal time is spent on all papers.
And that's exactly what makes the h-index useless, every paper has a different effort put into it. I've had papers that required 5y of work, some others only 1 month... And yet they are counted the same.
Also the number of citations depends on the field, for people working across multiple fields you get papers that are highly important for a smaller community get less citations than low quality papers in a large community... Most papers are cited "by chance". Researcher type two keywords, cite paper that seem to go somewhat toward the wanted direction, rinse repeat.
> Lastly, authorship priority is not taken into account in hindex.
Given that there is no standardised way to determine authorship priority - given that this doesn't even make sense in plenty of cases - I really don't see that as a problem.
Apparently, some folks divine some nebulous properties from author order. Others just put authors in alphabetical order.
If you want to know who contributed what, ask the authors. You may get different answers from different authors, which is emphatically not a flaw.
(In contrast to the aforementioned divination procedure.)
That's part of it. The other part is for private universities, they are admitting more and more lower income students. Each low income student receives tuition waiver, and often a living stipend. So it's a double whammy on the budget.
Economists work with data about people's behaviors. Their results don't remain constant, and vary depending on social or cultural trends. So they do social sciences (which is not actually science). It used to be called "social studies" in your grade school.
Their website states, "Beware: apps.evozi.com hosts a version of this extension which contains spyware. Although they do attribute my fixes for 1.4, there is no link to the GitHub repository. Originally only the GitHub repository was set up, but due to this infected extension, I decided to package my own extension. When linking, please use the Github repository or this page."
The results can be open source, but do not have to be, even if funded by public money.
For example, d3.js is open source, but the code for PageRank and its related search engine is not. When I was a grad students, I worked on projects funded by NSF and DARPA where the code and data were not released. So it totally depends.
Some professors and grad students care more about releasing software into the public, while others don't care or don't bother writing reliable code.
Mike Bostock just finished his Ph.D. in Computer Science (in the School of Engineering) at Stanford, so I would argue he is the definition of an engineer by training.
Also note the article says that the NYTimes didn't hire enough "engineers and data scientists", which apparently got cut off in the title here.
I recently read this study of Halo players from Microsoft, and the authors found that spacing out your play made your gain rating faster per game played, BUT if you space it out too much, then you'll simply be outmatched by players who play a lot more. In other words, if you want to improve at Halo efficiently, space out your play more, but if you want to improve in sheer absolute skill, you will want to simply play more games.
