In 1825, scientific inquiry spanned diverse fields. Researchers explored the luminous properties of rotting wood, the use of chlorine in bleaching, and the composition of various minerals and chemicals like iodine and uric acid. Advances in practical applications included improvements to printing, gas lighting, and the construction of canal locks. Scientific understanding also progressed in areas like electromagnetism, with Ampère refining his theories, and astronomy, with studies on planetary orbits. This snapshot of 1825 reveals a period of active exploration and development across both theoretical and practical sciences.
ArXiv, the preprint server that revolutionized scientific communication, faces challenges in maintaining its relevance and functionality amidst exponential growth. While its open-access model democratized knowledge sharing, it now grapples with scaling its infrastructure, managing the deluge of submissions, and ensuring quality control without stifling innovation. The article explores ArXiv's history, highlighting its humble beginnings and its current struggles with limited resources and a volunteer-driven moderation system. Ultimately, ArXiv must navigate the complexities of evolving scientific practices and adapt its systems to ensure it continues to serve as a vital tool for scientific progress.
Hacker News users discuss ArXiv's impact and challenges. Several commenters praise its role in democratizing scientific communication and accelerating research dissemination. Some express concern over the lack of peer review, leading to the spread of unverified or low-quality work, while acknowledging the tradeoff with speed and accessibility. The increasing volume of submissions is mentioned as a growing problem, making it harder to find relevant papers. A few users suggest potential improvements, such as enhanced search functionality and community-driven filtering or rating systems. Others highlight the importance of ArXiv's role as a preprint server, emphasizing that proper peer review still happens at the journal level. The lack of funding and the difficulty of maintaining such a crucial service are also discussed.
arXiv is migrating its infrastructure from Cornell University servers to Google Cloud. This move aims to enhance arXiv's long-term sustainability, improve performance and scalability, and leverage Google's expertise in areas like security, storage, and machine learning. The transition will happen in phases, starting with a pilot program. arXiv emphasizes its commitment to remaining open and community-driven, with its operational control staying independent. They are also actively hiring for several roles, including software engineers and system administrators, to support this significant change.
Hacker News users discuss arXiv's move to Google Cloud, expressing concerns about potential vendor lock-in and the implications for long-term data preservation. Some question the cost-effectiveness of the transition, suggesting Cornell's existing infrastructure might have been sufficient with modernization. Others highlight the potential benefits of Google's expertise in scaling and reliability, but emphasize the importance of maintaining open access and avoiding proprietary formats. The need for transparency regarding the terms of the agreement with Google is also a recurring theme, alongside worries about potential censorship or influence from Google on arXiv's content. Several commenters note the irony of a pre-print server initially designed to bypass traditional publishing now relying on a large tech company.
University students are using Anthropic's Claude AI assistant for a variety of academic tasks. These include summarizing research papers, brainstorming and outlining essays, generating creative content like poems and scripts, practicing different languages, and getting help with coding assignments. The report highlights Claude's strengths in following instructions, maintaining context in longer conversations, and generating creative text, making it a useful tool for students across various disciplines. Students also appreciate its ability to provide helpful explanations and different perspectives on their work. While still under development, Claude shows promise as a valuable learning aid for higher education.
Hacker News users discussed Anthropic's report on student Claude usage, expressing skepticism about the self-reported data's accuracy. Some commenters questioned the methodology and representativeness of the small, opt-in sample. Others highlighted the potential for bias, with students likely to overreport "productive" uses and underreport cheating. Several users pointed out the irony of relying on a chatbot to understand how students use chatbots, while others questioned the actual utility of Claude beyond readily available tools. The overall sentiment suggested a cautious interpretation of the report's findings due to methodological limitations and potential biases.
An undergraduate student, Noah Stephens-Davidowitz, has disproven a longstanding conjecture in computer science related to hash tables. He demonstrated that "linear probing," a simple hash table collision resolution method, can achieve optimal performance even with high load factors, contradicting a 40-year-old assumption. His work not only closes a theoretical gap in our understanding of hash tables but also introduces a new, potentially faster type of hash table based on "robin hood hashing" that could improve performance in databases and other applications.
Hacker News commenters discuss the surprising nature of the discovery, given the problem's long history and apparent simplicity. Some express skepticism about the "disproved" claim, suggesting the Kadane algorithm is a more efficient solution for the original problem than the article implies, and therefore the new hash table isn't a direct refutation. Others question the practicality of the new hash table, citing potential performance bottlenecks and the limited scenarios where it offers a significant advantage. Several commenters highlight the student's ingenuity and the importance of revisiting seemingly solved problems. A few point out the cyclical nature of computer science, with older, sometimes forgotten techniques occasionally finding renewed relevance. There's also discussion about the nature of "proof" in computer science and the role of empirical testing versus formal verification in validating such claims.
The blog post "The Differences Between Deep Research, Deep Research, and Deep Research" explores three distinct interpretations of "deep research." The first, "deep research" as breadth, involves exploring a wide range of related topics to build a comprehensive understanding. The second, "deep research" as depth, focuses on intensely investigating a single, narrow area to become a leading expert. Finally, "deep research" as time emphasizes sustained, long-term investigation, allowing for profound insights and breakthroughs to emerge over an extended period. The author argues that all three approaches have value and the ideal "depth" depends on the specific research goals and context.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the author's distinctions between different types of "deep research." Several praised the clarity and conciseness of the piece, finding it a helpful framework for thinking about research depth. Some commenters added their own nuances, like the importance of "adjacent possible" research and the role of luck/serendipity in breakthroughs. Others pointed out the potential downsides of extremely deep research, such as getting lost in the weeds or becoming too specialized. The cyclical nature of research, where deep dives are followed by periods of broadening, was also highlighted. A few commenters mentioned the article's relevance to their own fields, from software engineering to investing.
Researchers engaging in human subjects research generally need IRB approval. This includes studies involving interaction with individuals, or the use of their identifiable private information. While some activities like quality improvement projects, oral histories, or certain types of program evaluations might be exempt, it's crucial to consult with your institution's IRB to determine whether your project requires review. Ultimately, the IRB is responsible for ensuring ethical research practices and protecting the rights and welfare of human participants, so seeking their guidance is paramount.
HN commenters largely discuss the overreach and bureaucracy of IRBs, particularly for low-risk research. Many share anecdotes of seemingly unnecessary IRB hurdles for projects involving publicly available data or simple surveys. Some question the efficacy of IRBs in actually protecting participants, suggesting they're more focused on liability protection for institutions. A few commenters point out the chilling effect excessive IRB requirements can have on valuable research, especially for independent researchers and smaller institutions lacking dedicated IRB staff. Others offer advice on navigating the IRB process, including pre-registering studies and seeking out institutions with more streamlined procedures. The general sentiment is that IRB review is important for ethically sensitive research but the current system is often overly burdensome and needs reform.
Anthropic has launched a new Citations API for its Claude language model. This API allows developers to retrieve the sources Claude used when generating a response, providing greater transparency and verifiability. The citations include URLs and, where available, spans of text within those URLs. This feature aims to help users assess the reliability of Claude's output and trace back the information to its original context. While the API strives for accuracy, Anthropic acknowledges that limitations exist and ongoing improvements are being made. They encourage users to provide feedback to further enhance the citation process.
Hacker News users generally expressed interest in Anthropic's new citation feature, viewing it as a positive step towards addressing hallucinations and increasing trustworthiness in LLMs. Some praised the transparency it offers, allowing users to verify information and potentially correct errors. Several commenters discussed the potential impact on academic research and the possibilities for integrating it with other tools and platforms. Concerns were raised about the potential for manipulation of citations and the need for clearer evaluation metrics. A few users questioned the extent to which the citations truly reflected the model's reasoning process versus simply matching phrases. Overall, the sentiment leaned towards cautious optimism, with many acknowledging the limitations while still appreciating the progress.
A Nature survey of over 7,600 postdoctoral researchers across the globe reveals that over 40% intend to leave academia. While dissatisfaction with career prospects and work-life balance are primary drivers, many postdocs cited a lack of mentorship and mental-health support as contributing factors. The findings highlight a potential loss of highly trained researchers from academia and raise concerns about the sustainability of the current academic system.
Hacker News commenters discuss the unsurprising nature of the 40% postdoc attrition rate, citing poor pay, job insecurity, and the challenging academic job market as primary drivers. Several commenters highlight the exploitative nature of academia, suggesting postdocs are treated as cheap labor, with universities incentivized to produce more PhDs than necessary, leading to a glut of postdocs competing for scarce faculty positions. Some suggest alternative career paths, including industry and government, offer better compensation and work-life balance. Others argue that the academic system needs reform, with suggestions including better funding, more transparency in hiring, and a shift in focus towards valuing research output over traditional metrics like publications and grant funding. The "two-body problem" is also mentioned as a significant hurdle, with partners struggling to find suitable employment in the same geographic area. Overall, the sentiment leans towards the need for systemic change to address the structural issues driving postdocs away from academia.
Summary of Comments ( 1 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43763778
HN commenters were impressed by the volume and breadth of research from 1825, highlighting how much scientific progress was being made even then. Several noted the irony of calling the list "incomplete," given its already extensive nature. Some pointed out specific entries of interest, such as work on electromagnetism and the speed of sound. A few users discussed the context of the time, including the limited communication infrastructure and the relative youth of many researchers. The rudimentary nature of some experiments, compared to modern standards, was also observed, emphasizing the ingenuity required to achieve results with limited tools.
The Hacker News post "An Utterly Incomplete Look at Research from 1825" (linking to http://bcmullins.github.io/research-from-1825/) generated a modest number of comments, exploring various aspects of the linked article and its broader context.
Several commenters focused on the surprising volume and diversity of research even in 1825. One commenter expressed astonishment at the sheer quantity of scientific work being done, contrasting it with a modern perception of a slower pace of discovery in the past. Another highlighted the wide range of fields already under investigation, including chemistry, astronomy, and electromagnetism, emphasizing the deep roots of these disciplines.
The challenges of accessing and interpreting historical research also formed a significant thread. One commenter discussed the difficulty of understanding older scientific papers, citing the archaic language and different conceptual frameworks used. Another lamented the lack of easy access to historical research materials, noting that many are still locked away in physical archives, hindering broader engagement with the history of science. This sparked a brief discussion about digitization efforts and the role of institutions in making these resources available.
A few comments delved into specific research areas mentioned in the linked article. One commenter, seemingly with expertise in the area, elaborated on the early work on electromagnetism mentioned in the article, providing further context and details. Another pointed out the significance of certain discoveries made in 1825, linking them to later advancements in their respective fields.
One commenter offered a slightly critical perspective, suggesting that the linked article's selection of research might be biased or incomplete, potentially giving a skewed picture of scientific activity in 1825. However, this critique wasn't elaborated upon in detail.
Finally, there were a few shorter comments expressing general appreciation for the article, finding it interesting or thought-provoking. One commenter simply stated they enjoyed the "blast from the past".
While the discussion wasn't particularly extensive or in-depth, it did touch upon several interesting points related to the history of science, challenges of accessing historical research, and the surprising breadth of scientific activity even in the early 19th century.