The automated ones don't care, but it absolutely matters for the informal credit assignment process that actually runs academia.
I really wish we had a better way to "name" papers. Big clinical trials often have an acronym (often hilariously forced: "CXCessoR4"). That takes the emphasis off (one) lead author but it's implausibly hard to make up one for every research paper.
the one where i think of a particular piece of work, and i know who did it, then tell a student "oh, see if $author's group published anything else about this."
i'm not using software for this if this is off the top of my head, and it's the sort of thing that, at scale, hurts the forgotten author and their students
There’s a cute study demonstrating this effect by comparing career success in economics and psychology.
The author lists for economics papers are traditionally alphabetized, so more of your output will be known by your name if it occurs early in the alphabet. Abbie Ableson gets lots of mentions as "Ableson et al." while Zhang Zhu will almost always be relegated to the "et al". If name recognition matters, you’d expect successful academic economists to be clustered at the beginning of the alphabet—-and this appears to be true.
I don’t know that everyone would label it like that, but it’s inarguably true that success in academia comes from your reputation/name recognition.
Metrics are often attempts to formalize this but they’re not how most people actually make decisions: nobody is inviting seminar speakers or choosing collaborators because they have a high h-index. If anything, it goes the other way: name recognition gets you invited to speak or collaborate, which makes more people aware of your work, which boosts metrics.
That is false. The first thing everyone (at least everyone in CS---IDK about other fields) looks at are h-indexes, impact factors, number of papers per year, university rankings, and similar metrics. Researchers are most definitely selecting collaborators with a high h-index.
Cmon…We’re saying that a certain style of reference gives her less credit than might be due. Not none at all.
One paper doesn’t make a career (she wrote many dozens), it’s not always cited weirdly, and even if it is, some people may remember the coauthors (as they should).
But since you mention lived experience, I’ll add that I’ve certainly been asked if I’m "even aware" of results from co-authored papers where my name was listed second—-and I don’t think this is very uncommon experience.
When I did that on Pi3 when it first came out you could crash the system because the thermal throttling wasn't fast enough (the temp sensor was on the GPU not CPU). When I reported the issue on the pi forums the answer was essentially "why would anyone ever want to do that"
I don't know how many of you have seen a 1541 floppy drive in person either but it is massive, it's heavier and possibly bigger that an actual Commodore 64 and pretty expensive at the time too.
it's fun seeing c64 people on the defensive about it, a nice change from getting lectures from them about how their graphics were the pinnacle of 8-bit computing
Part of the size was the internal power supply. And that thing got hot, too. I used them at school, but at home only had the smaller 1541-II with an external power brick.
The Apple II disk drives, on the other hand, were not only cheap (Apple was different then!) and fast, but were powered by the ribbon cable connecting them to the computer.
way back in the day our college LUG (linux user group) had a rep from VA Linux come to speak, but the person running things was unfamiliar with the company and kept calling them "Virginia Linux"
Its confusing because the company is from Fairfax. I gave up half way through looking around. I still don't know what the VA is for and I guess I never will
at the time, just out of undergrad, I ended up working for the remnants of the #9 Video Card company that had been bought by S3 and was masking a last effort at making a Linux-based Transmeta-powered "web-pad" (tablet): the "Frontpath ProGear" (new management wouldn't let them give it a Beatles related name that #9 equipment used to get)
in any case due to the unfortunate timing of the dot-com implosion it never really went anywhere (I wish I had managed to keep one, they used to appear on ebay occasionally)
the one thing I remember is that it was memory limited, it had 64MB but I think the code-morphing software really wanted 16MB of it which really cut into the available system memory
saying "windows 98 was bad too" is just an example that Microsoft has always had poor code quality. Back in the day Linux, for all its flaws, was generaly a lot more stable on the same hardware.
microsoft has a lot to answer for after 50 years of normalizing poor quality software
Not sure about this. All OSes were janky and buggy, Linux desktop up until at least late 2000s (I've been using it since ~2000), early Mac OS X, I don't even want to talk about classic Mac OS which was an abomination. Software quality and user experience was notoriously worse than it is today. This applies to everything - I've lost a ton of work to bugs in ZBrush, Maya, Word, FL Studio, backup software, and more.
as someone who has written my own OS from scratch (vmwOS) and teach a class on it, I have to agree with a lot of the other comments that x86-based OS projects do end up being exercises in 40-year old PC/x86 retrocomputing.
A few years ago I would have recommended the path I took (writing an OS for the Raspberry Pi) but the Pis have gone off the rails recently. So writing a simple OS for a Pi-1B+ is relatively doable (simple enough, sort of OK documentation, biggest downside is needing USB for the keyboard).
Things led to disaster once everyone wanted to use Pi4 (which was all we could manage to source during the CPU shortage of '23) as the documentation is poor, getting interrupts going became nearly impossible, and the virtual memory/cache/etc setup on the 64-bit cores (at least a few years ago) was not documented well at all.
Jobs was "inspired" by a visit at Xerox labs, they showed him a GUI built using Smalltalk (which they'd also invented). So naturally, he ran back to his office and invented GUI ;)
Or for third I guess lol Jobs demoed a mac gui to Gates, and apparently Gates ran strait to his Microsoft office, where he too invented gui. Jobs was very upset for years.
I think it actually was an Apple innovation, at least for {hobbyist, home, personal} computers. I did some digging and wasn't able to find anything before the Apple II+ in 1979. Please do prove me wrong, though!
as someone who has built various raspberry pi clusters over the years (I even got an academic paper out of one) the big shame is that as far as I know it's still virtually impossible to use the fairly powerful GPUs they have for GPGPU work
