The blog post "Please Commit More Blatant Academic Fraud" argues that the current academic system, particularly in humanities, incentivizes meaningless, formulaic writing that adheres to rigid stylistic and theoretical frameworks rather than genuine intellectual exploration. The author encourages students to subvert this system by embracing "blatant academic fraud"—not plagiarism or fabrication, but rather strategically utilizing sophisticated language and fashionable theories to create impressive-sounding yet ultimately hollow work. This act of performative scholarship is presented as a form of protest, exposing the absurdity of a system that values appearance over substance and rewards conformity over original thought. The author believes this "fraud" will force the academy to confront its own superficiality and hopefully lead to meaningful reform.
The blog post "The Ideal Candidate Will Be Punched In the Stomach" argues against unrealistic job requirements and the pursuit of the "perfect" candidate. It uses the metaphor of a stomach punch to illustrate how life, and by extension a career, throws unexpected challenges. Companies should look for resilient candidates who can adapt and learn, rather than those who appear flawless on paper. The post emphasizes the importance of valuing growth potential and problem-solving skills over a pristine resume, suggesting companies prioritize candidates who demonstrate grit, adaptability, and a willingness to learn from mistakes. Ultimately, it encourages a more pragmatic and humane approach to hiring.
Hacker News users generally found the "punch in the stomach" analogy in the linked article to be overly aggressive and not reflective of real-world hiring practices. Several commenters pointed out that good candidates often have multiple offers, giving them leverage to decline unreasonable requests or hostile interview environments. The idea of deliberately creating stressful interview situations was criticized as ineffective and potentially discriminatory. Some argued that such tactics reveal more about the interviewer and company culture than the candidate's abilities. A few commenters suggested the article was satirical or clickbait, while others offered alternative, more practical advice for evaluating candidates, such as focusing on skills and experience rather than manufactured stress tests.
After their startup failed, the founder launched VcSubsidized.com to sell off the remaining inventory. The website's tongue-in-cheek name acknowledges the venture capital funding that allowed for the initial product creation, now being recouped through discounted sales. The products themselves, primarily blankets and pillows made with natural materials like alpaca and cashmere, are presented with straightforward descriptions and high-quality photos. The site's simple design and the founder's transparent explanation of the startup's demise contribute to a sense of authenticity.
HN commenters largely found the VCSubsidized.com site humorous and appreciated the creator's entrepreneurial spirit and marketing savvy. Some questioned the longevity of the domain name's availability given its potentially controversial nature. Others discussed the prevalence of subsidized goods and services in the startup ecosystem, with some pointing out that the practice isn't inherently negative and can benefit consumers. A few commenters shared personal anecdotes of acquiring and reselling goods from failed startups. The overall sentiment was positive, with the project viewed as a clever commentary on startup culture.
The author recounts their four-month journey building a simplified, in-memory, relational database in Rust. Motivated by a desire to deepen their understanding of database internals, they leveraged 647 open-source crates, highlighting Rust's rich ecosystem. The project, named "Oso," implements core database features like SQL parsing, query planning, and execution, though it omits persistence and advanced functionalities. While acknowledging the extensive use of external libraries, the author emphasizes the value of the learning experience and the practical insights gained into database architecture and Rust development. The project served as a personal exploration, focusing on educational value over production readiness.
Hacker News commenters discuss the irony of the blog post title, pointing out the potential hypocrisy of criticizing open-source reliance while simultaneously utilizing it extensively. Some argued that using numerous dependencies is not inherently bad, highlighting the benefits of leveraging existing, well-maintained code. Others questioned the author's apparent surprise at the dependency count, suggesting a naive understanding of modern software development practices. The feasibility of building a complex project like a database in four months was also debated, with some expressing skepticism and others suggesting it depends on the scope and pre-existing knowledge. Several comments delve into the nuances of Rust's compile times and dependency management. A few commenters also brought up the licensing implications of using numerous open-source libraries.
Summary of Comments ( 1 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43123837
Hacker News users generally agree with the author's premise that the current academic publishing system is broken and incentivizes bad research practices. Many commenters share anecdotes of questionable research practices they've witnessed, including pressure to produce positive results, manipulating data, and salami slicing publications. Some highlight the perverse incentives created by the "publish or perish" environment, arguing that it pushes researchers towards quantity over quality. Several commenters discuss the potential benefits of open science practices and pre-registration as ways to improve transparency and rigor. There is also a thread discussing the role of reviewers and editors in perpetuating these problems, suggesting they often lack the time or expertise to thoroughly evaluate submissions. A few dissenting voices argue that while problems exist, blatant fraud is rare and the author's tone is overly cynical.
The Hacker News post titled "Please Commit More Blatant Academic Fraud" (linking to jacobbuckman.com/2021-05-29-please-commit-more-blatant-academic-fraud/) generated several comments discussing the article's premise and related issues.
Several commenters debated the ethics and practicality of the suggestions in the original article. One commenter argued that while exaggerating the significance of research might be common, outright fabrication is rare and easily detectable. They emphasized the collaborative nature of science, suggesting that fraudulent data would quickly be exposed when others tried to build upon it. Another commenter pushed back against this, claiming that fabricated research often goes unnoticed, citing personal anecdotes and examples of retractions happening years after publication. This sparked a side discussion on the efficacy of peer review and the pressures that can lead researchers to fabricate data.
The topic of "p-hacking" and questionable research practices arose in several comments. One commenter described the pressure to publish, especially in fields with limited funding, leading researchers to manipulate data or interpretations to achieve statistically significant results. Another commenter highlighted the issue of publication bias, where studies with positive results are more likely to be published, creating a skewed perception of the research landscape. This commenter suggested pre-registration of studies as a potential solution.
Another thread of discussion centered around the "publish or perish" culture in academia. Commenters discussed how this pressure can incentivize unethical behavior and discourage risky or novel research. One commenter argued that the focus on metrics like publication count and impact factor has created a system that rewards quantity over quality. Another commenter suggested alternative evaluation metrics, such as focusing on the reproducibility and practical impact of research.
A few commenters also discussed the role of funding sources and their potential influence on research outcomes. One commenter raised concerns about industry-funded research and the potential for bias towards results that benefit the funder. Another commenter argued that the current funding system is overly competitive and favors established researchers, making it difficult for younger scientists to pursue unconventional ideas.
Finally, some commenters offered more nuanced perspectives on the original article's suggestions. One commenter suggested that while blatant fraud is unacceptable, there's a gray area between outright fabrication and overselling research findings. They argued that some level of "marketing" is necessary to secure funding and attract attention to important work. Another commenter highlighted the importance of open science practices, such as sharing data and code, as a way to promote transparency and deter fraud.