HAHA. As a PhD student, I agree with most of your sentiments. The PhD application process is nothing, try applying for fellowships. Go to a prestigious institution, pull allnighters, to get a subpar gpa, and have no time for volunteering activities. These are the criteria you need to satisfy to get something like NSF GRP (Broader Impact is 50% of the application). You might have a better shot at a lesser prestigious university with a not-so-great engineering program and being a super smart person, killing it. Then, apply for fellowship --> you will get it. It is all a rubric.
Now on to the game of academia. It is one that is based on reputation, papers, and not money. No one cares for efficiency either and no one is building crap. All they are doing is trying out different "solutions," which may or may not make any sense. For instance, "hey guys, let's apply game theory to problem X, it will be a good/novel experiment and we can get a paper out of it." Waste of tax dollars. The logical answer that solves problem X might have already been solved and can be solved using ordinary methods, but academia doesn't want that. Research labs have business models, keep proposing new complexity on complexities, very unnecessary. Overcrowded fields like computer vision reek of this.
They talk about your attitude when you were talking to them. Are they convinced by your eye contact and shoes? If you don't take care of your appearance, you won't meticulously consider the niceties required to face customers and leading on gently around your products.
Choosing 2 of 3 is true for early-stage startups. But once things take off, then you can get 3 out of 3 as you are able to delegate some of the work out to your employees. Then, you can achieve startup, health, significant other/family.
Yes! I hate it when startups think they are so cool by using Facebook/Social logins. Sane users have one good email account for work/important stuff and one useless email account for experimental services such as this. Why would anyone want to give out all their Fb info to random companies.
It also makes you one dimensional because everyone is like you. This can be bad for your own personal development and coming across ideas in different areas of industry/economy. No wonder you see "herd" startups in SF a lot of times. There is too much noise in SF.
This is a case of coherence vs coupling, which is lost by OO developers. Everything is so tightly coupled that more spaghetti code is written up to not break the coupling, making the code more incoherent overall.
I agree with you. It seems like Java programmers at enterprise ignore Cohesion vs Coupling tradeoffs. Every class and abstraction they write is so tightly coupled which causes issues when debugging or just trying to figure out how to add a feature enhancement without writing more classes. Working as a software engineer, it sucks looking at a 1000 lines of code to do something simple that can be done in 10 lines elsewhere --> means that OO is not the right way to go about things sometimes.
What if the Journal asks for a transfer of copyright? Does that violate some kind of law/thing for all the previous (including the final) version of the manuscript stored on Authorea? Would the author have to take down their final-manuscript from Authorea so they can transfer the copyright to the publisher/Journal.
I just want templates for different journals/conferences for the same topic. All their formats are annoying, but at the end of the day, every PI/researchers wants to publish in something that is peer-reviewed. In a university setting, paying to read/download a publication is an after-thought. The entire transparency/reproducibility of scientific results is a good goal but is very long-term goal.
Some entities like ScholarOne/Cambridge Journals wants you to individually upload your images and your text separately. Since a user is just writing their paper on Authorea, maybe, you can keep track of what journals they are aiming for and reformat the publication for multiple journals in ONE SHOT. That'd be the biggest time saver ever.
At the end, doing research is fun but publishing is a painful process, and you are judged based on publications. Reduce the pain.
Landing page comment: "Write research papers, right inside your browser"
As a researcher, I immediately ask "Why?"
What is wrong with my Latek utils and fabulous MS Word that my research lab gave me for free.
Then, where are some templates for the journals/conferences I could possible use with Authorea. You can reach far more people if you included templates from most journals/conferences. Then I can see this taking off.. Otherwise it is nothing but a fancy text-editor to me with Latek support and is trying to be like arXiv. As it is, arXiv has a lot of noisy publications.
Google Glass has a processor. Processors give out heat. Google Glass will lead to sweaty eyebrows -- eww. How do you solve the heat issue when Google Glass is transmitting/querying images? Transistor sizing dissipates more and more heat.
I agree with you, the results (not theory) are similar to Horprasert's background subtraction paper. Both techniques have same limitations. It is pixel-by-pixel and does not take the entire scene into account.
I couldn't get myself to click on the article. It just sounds like a bad idea. Industry experience is so valuable even as an entrepreneur. You learn about the efficiencies and inefficiencies of industry and it can only help you run your operation better.
In CS/ECE, if there is no application for your research i.e. cannot be commercialized or patented, you will not have funding. There is very little room for theoretical-based research where you play around with math (like counting angels on the head of a pin) to see if it works out with unknown applications. Everything begins with an application in mind --> funding.
does this person have publications in undergrad? If so, then they can still get into the top-schools because of track record of doing research. If not, then try and get into a program with known advisors/researchers that can be on your publications. Its all about funding. Look at NIH's Project Reporter.
"its always done this way" is the ultimate motivation of any startup. We wouldn't have any competing startups if everyone just accepted that, probably, not have any entrepreneurs or have a better world for that matter. The fitness function of the world will flatline.
I disagree with you. If there was excess manpower, graduate students wouldn't be stressed out with overwhelming work. Obviously, there is a lot more work to go around and less bodies to give it to.
Most of the research man-hours is gone trying to implement other people's research-methods so you have a 'baseline.' A complete waste of time just to have one graph in the Results section of your publication. The height of research inefficiency is to replicate someone else's results and hope (finger's crossed) that you followed their 8-page paper (that took them 10 months to develop) meticulously.
Academic researchers only care about results, it is the graduate students that need to be efficient. The efficiency software should be bought by the PIs for their graduate students.
Why wouldn't anyone buy your product? If it is easy to use, and SPEEDS UP RESEARCH TIME, your researcher/PI who is spending thousands on computing clusters will buy your software for their graduate students. Hell, my PI keeps asking me if I need a faster computer so I can run Matlab better/quicker. Really, if I had a software that helped me perform research faster/better/quicker and compare my results to ground truth or gold-standards, that is a much more useful tool than a bunch of hardware for my research. You push out papers fast.
So I disagree with you on your very last sentence (agree with the rest)
This is not Pedro Felzenszwalb's discriminative part-model algorithm. This is simple AdaBoost. The authors have labeled a bunch of datasets (1000s of them) and are able to detect whatever object.
AdaBoost (Viola/Jones) is the most popular Yes/No detector, there is an OpenCV api for it. It used for detecting faces and license plates in commercial applications.
Full person detector is nothing but a SVM+HOG descriptor.
As a computer vision researcher, I am not impressed by this. It is primarily an api for smartphone app makers who want a binary result for detection. It does not help with scene context analysis. For instance, if I have a big picture of a airplane on a wall, it will detect the airplane.. Does it know that this airplane is in the sky? or on a wall?
There are a 1000 failure cases.
A lot of research time is spent on finding that "aha!" moment, where you everything you have thought of coalesces into a force that makes pursuing your educated guess worthwhile.
This person hasn't experienced the hopelessness and defeat that comes with a failed idea. Getting a summer associate position that brings about a 160k job is "winning" the protocol for law school success. There is no such protocol path for startups. Also, Amicus Labs, which maps Legal Genome, better have a good plan for attacking the high barrier of entry into these BigLaw firms.
To a computer scientist, programming is merely a tool to help bring their computer science ideas to life. Writing a bunch of APIs and calling them will only take you so far. After a certain point, theory will prevail because math (computer science is applied math) is the truth. Also the "computer programming" major is called Infoscience majors at the top engineering schools, those students are laughed at, you don't have to be smart to grind through those classes ie you don't build mental toughness towards theories.