If the conclusion is "be transparent", I'm strongly supportive.
And moreover, I would be even more supportive if we found a way to change the incentives for tenure and promotion such that reproducibility was an important factor in how we make decisions about grants, tenure, and promotion.
I agree, but with one amendment: most tenure-track roles in the US will have 50 to 200 applicants for a single position. Over the last few decades, tenure lines have decreased while PhD admissions have not. Adjuncts do so much of the teaching at all kinds of institutions these days.
It is true, but I was referring to suitable candidates. I had what I believe was a very good CV (prestigious fellowships, a meaty publication list in some top 10% disciplinary journals), and I had exactly zero invitations to interview over more than 5 years of applying to tt jobs.
I strongly agree with this sentiment. And I realize that we might not be the representative of the typical user, but nonetheless, I think these things definitely matter for some subset of users.
I agree; this is incredibly short-sighted. And it has the potential to be catastrophic for scientific progress in the United States.
Scientific innovation happens because countries invest in basic and applied research. This research largely happens at research universities, hospitals, and national labs. If research universities can't afford to conduct research, the scientific innovation—along with the training of the next generation of scientists—all grinds to a halt.
It is difficult for most Americans to see immediate and direct benefits of basic R&D since it is typically a long term investment. As transparency of federal government activities improves, it might make sense for most Americans to oppose using their tax dollars to fund activities that they may not immediately benefit from or understand.
Perhaps this is something that could be outsourced to other countries much like manufacturing?
> And by the way, and I've already fallen into this trap here, do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison. Because if you--you need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawn mower. Lawnmower just does, like, mows the lawn. Like, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think like, oh the lawnmower hates me, lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Lawnmower--you don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower, don't fall into that trap about Oracle.
> So, and in particular with open source, oh they wanted to kill OpenSolaris, like no, the lawnmower doesn't care about OpenSolaris. The lawnmower doesn't think about OpenSolaris, the lawnmower can't care about OpenSolaris. The lawnmower can't have empathy.
(I listened to the speech and manually cleaned up YouTube's automatic transcription.)
This is one kind of macro in Rust: declarative macros [1]. The other kind of macros in Rust are procedural macros [2]. Both are widely used in idiomatic Rust. And even within the procedural type of macros, there are different categories of macros (i.e., function-, or attribute-like macros).
reply