skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think GPs point is that there is little here to deter other academics who behave the same way. From my time in academia, there are plenty of professors I knew who behaved this way (not direct falsification, but rewarding the winners).

This is a particularly egregious case of a high profile person. In most other cases, if misconduct is detected, the buck is passed on to the individual researcher/grad student. I personally know a fellow student who falsified data, published papers, and was caught. Only he, not the coauthors, got in trouble.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying we shouldn't be punishing individuals for a system problem. Is it time to reform the system then?
I'm starting to wonder if this is becoming spaces vs tabs. It seems silly to heavily critique a font because it supports ligatures and inversely seems silly to critique a font because it does not.

Most fonts with ligatures can be used without them anyway, making the whole thing moot
Our work was precisely in optimization over massive numbers of possible scenarios amid multi-dimensional uncertainties. Again, significantly outperforms LP. Not surprised that you are an advocate of math optimization. Most people working on optimization in industrial operations and supply chains have an OR background, and this sort of conservatism is common. But there are lots of situations that LP can't optimize while RL can.
This is lower tier D1 baseball in the Northeast, so revenue is going to be minimal.
Part 1 of an ongoing blog series describing performance investigations & improvements on the popular centered.app web app. This one implemented over-eager loading on a page that was loading 81 <iframe>s at once (!).
Why should a top high school baseball prospect take up a spot at a college instead of a spot on a local A league team?
The peer review system is not designed to catch fraud, it's designed to catch scientific or experimental errors.

Giving up on science is such a vast overgeneralization. You could take your statement and replace "manipulated research", "scientific institutions" and "established scientific truth" with just about any negative article in any domain. You could just as easily make this statement about startups (Theranos, Juicero), or government, or religion, or suburbs, or cities...
I am leaning more and more towards what you say, but on the other hand, I do really believe in doing my part and setting an example.

I really think that "after all I don't have much impact" is what's killing the planet. It's always somebody's else fault and no one takes responsibility or does anything.
Cue Mrs. Slokam's "...and I am unanimous in that!"

Aligned LLMs are just like altered brains... they don't function properly.
This is not going to have the effect people think. My experience is that legacy admissions are more or less a tie breaker. Legacy candidates that gain admission due to their legacy status are well qualified candidates (+ you often get the added benefit of a higher yield).

HOWEVER, where less than qualified candidates do gain admission is when there is a significant donor involved (there is often a meaningful overlap with alumni for obvious reasons, but not necessarily). Getting rid of legacy admissions will not change this dynamic. So really the only people that are going to lose out are legacies that are “on the bubble” from a resume standpoint whose parents aren’t rich…
Well, thanks. I was going for that first part (with the added detail that C is one of the languages being discussed on the context).

But I don't really agree with that second statement. People seem to not be aware of how much choice we have, and focus only on a few possibilities that are not even all of them good.
I’d like to see more numbers for context. How many students were favored by legacy status, and approximately how much favoritism?

They often mix legacy numbers with athletes for some reason… I guess to make the numbers more dramatic? Or maybe because insecure intellectuals look down on athletes in general?
Almost 75, if you start at Turing’s 1950 Mind paper.
> The original Quick Turn Reel Units operated on Palm Pilots.

I also found this that describes what those are:

https://www.sciencestation.org/projector.htm:

> Combine this with the theatre's "quick turn reel" that allows the film to be replayed without being rewound and you have the world's most sophisticated film projection system.

So the role it plays in the production process is to control some kind of film handling machine.
K9 is amazing. Kudos for all developers.

To be honest I do not miss a single bit of `kubectl` skills.
Connected account makes sense but that doesn't necessarily imply the launcher is required too.
The kibbutz concept was to set up egalitarian agricultural communes that provided a decent but not luxurious quality of life. This was achieved through hard work. This is not Universal Basic Income at all. It's closer to Amish life, although most kibbutz were secular.

One writeup says that TV killed this. Kibbutzim could now see that others elsewhere were doing much better.
TL;DR: References [1-3] further below are the direct answer to your question, "What are the actual papers?" (the "3 papers" referenced in the submission title; those that it is said that Tessier-Lavigne will retract). The PubMed links are as follows:

- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10399920/

- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11239160/

- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15510105/

To elaborate:

From [0], "...To date, all three of these papers (Cell ’99, Science ’01 Binding, Science ’01 Silencing) remain published....Dr. Tessier-Lavigne has stated to the Panel that he intends to retract all three papers."

Also from [0], "As to the five reviewed papers where Dr. Tessier-Lavigne was a
principal author...Specifically, a group of three papers contain images that are the result of manipulation of research data (Cell ’99, Science ’01 Binding, Science ’01 Silencing)...A fourth primary paper also contains images (which Dr. Tessier-Lavigne did not personally prepare) that indicate manipulation of research data (Nature ’04)....The Panel understands that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne now intends to retract at least three publications on which he is a principal author".

For the four papers named in the quotes above, citations and links appear below [1-4]. I'd suggest reading [0] (as linked from OP's article) for more details. There are other papers discussed in [0], too.

[0] https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2023/07/Scientific-Panel-Final-Report.pdf
[1] Cell ’99: Hong K, Hinck L, Nishiyama M, Poo MM, Tessier-Lavigne M, Stein E. A ligand-gated association between cytoplasmic domains of UNC5 and DCC family receptors converts netrin-induced growth cone attraction to repulsion. Cell. 1999;97(7):927-941. doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80804-1, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10399920/
[2] Science ’01 Binding: Stein E, Zou Y, Poo M, Tessier-Lavigne M. Binding of DCC by netrin-1 to mediate axon guidance independent of adenosine A2B receptor activation. Science. 2001;291(5510):1976-1982. doi:10.1126/science.1059391, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11239160/
[3] Science ’01 Silencing: Stein E, Tessier-Lavigne M. Hierarchical organization of guidance receptors: silencing of netrin attraction by slit through a Robo/DCC receptor complex. Science. 2001;291(5510):1928-1938. doi:10.1126/science.1058445, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11239147/
[4] Nature ’04: Lu X, Le Noble F, Yuan L, et al. The netrin receptor UNC5B mediates guidance events controlling morphogenesis of the vascular system. Nature. 2004;432(7014):179-186. doi:10.1038/nature03080, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15510105/```
I'm confused.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/19/stanford...

"A panel of experts concluded that Tessier-Lavigne, a neuroscientist who has been president of Stanford for nearly seven years, did not engage in any fraud or falsification of scientific data. It also did not find evidence that he was aware of problems before publication of data."
Surprised people don't know about this, as it has been common knowledge in the SD community [1] since october last year. Strictly speaking you don't even need cuda 11.8+ to get the speedup; it's sufficient to use cuDNN 8.6+, though you should use the newest versions for other reasons.

[1]: https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/issu...
Correct. Very well known artifact, you see it in all the GANs and diffusion models depending on the choice to do center vs random crop. Often changes results by several FID points (random crop adds a lot of variations and is much harder to model, confusing the NNs), which is why I suggested the cropping conditioning idea that SDXL uses with excellent results. (This is another example of how many of OP's observations are essentially minor, contingent aspects of the data or arch, and don't generalize beyond SD1.)
Care to elaborate on why you think it's optimal to have a non-zero amount of fake data supporting scientific claims?
> This speaks volumes about his character.

I suppose it reveals that he resigned under pressure that forced him to after allegedly writing numerous falsified papers that led to his current credentials.

Not sure that’s an ethics gold star or anything. I guess it’s better than “they’ll take me out of my office in a casket” and digging in, but still shows massive ethical failures and since ethics are usually not compartmentalized means that there’s probably other bad news that’s not revealed yet.

I think the right way would have not to falsified research. Or to come clean on your own and resign before it’s a stink.

As it is now, it’s bad for Stanford. And means the hiring committee didn’t do sufficient due diligence to even ask people on his field if his work was valid.
I'm not a fan of ligatures personally, they obscure the raw source code that I want to see rather than a layer on top of the code.
Theo Baker also became the youngest person to win a Polk Award because of this story, at 18. Very cool!
Yeah, we actually get feedback about this pretty often. At this point (because Infisical is used by many thousands of developers), it might hurt more in terms of recognition, SEO, etc. Some companies do it when they are much more advanced (Fb -> Meta, Square -> Block) but I think it requires a large marketing investment.

To make it easier to find us, we have purchased a number of other domains like http://inphysical.com/ and made them redirect to our main website.
Every single paid service my SaaS uses
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

Andrew Kelley is the greatest, most productive Yak shaver of all time.
For students, sure, but when being hired (or funded) they all have similar “elite” tier intelligence/potential, nothing about ruling class
I’ve come to believe that science is mostly about popularity and not about truth-finding. As long as peers like what you write, then you will get through the reviews and get cited. Feynman called this Cargo Cult Science. I think much of science is like this, see also Why Most Published Scientific Findings are False. Not much has changed since the publication of that paper. A few Open Science checks are not gonna solve the fundamental misalignment of incentives.
can't edit: obvious $1T*

Another note on valuation. Even Musk said many times, it's absurd. But the valuation in his view, and some analysts, is on Tesla as a autonomous Uber-taxi network. If you take a car that is parked, etc, and offer mobility services, that revenue is apparently enough to make it worth $1T. We won't just get rid of millions of cars we have on the road today. So, that if anything will take 20 or 30 years to become a reality if anything.

And it's hope that it will create robots, etc...even though there is no evidence that it has any capability in the robotic space.

So, this boils down to a continuation of crazy market froth that we have seen for several years, and excess liquidity in capital markets. I guess valuations will come down when recession fears come back into the frame which is the reality.
But really crazy amount of money that people have put into the market over the last decade. All that has made it into a huge casino supported by the Fed, to mostly make the rich richer, where assets can add or remove $700B value in swings in 6 months.
A vast amount of "science" is being done at all times. You can likely count the scandals cognitively available to you on one hand; even if it took dozens of hands, you'd still be talking about an infinitesimal sliver of science on the whole. What's actually happening here is an availability bias: you remember scandals, because they're scandalous and thus memorable. You don't know anything about the overwhelming majority of scientific work that is being done, so you have no way of weighting it against the impression those scandals create in your mind.
I would like to point out that "scientific truth" does not really exist, or at least is far from straightforward to define and establish. Basically, you should see each piece of research as evidence for a certain hypothesis, and the more evidence is available, the more that hypothesis is believable.

But the larger issue here is that all public institutions are, by that definition, broken. For example, businesses also won't hesitate to spread falsehoods to sell their stuff, governments will try to convince their people that they are needed through propaganda and policing, and so on.

How do we solve these problems? We have laws to regulate what businesses can't do (nevermind lobbying), and we split governments' responsibility so that no single branch becomes too powerful. In general, we have several independent institutions that keep an eye on each other.

In case of science, we trust other scientists to replicate and confirm previous findings. It is a self-correcting mechanism, whereby sloppy or fraudulent research is eventually singled-out, as it happened in this and many other cases.

So I guess the gist of what I want to say is that you're right in not trusting a piece of research just because it was made by a reputable institute, but look for solid results that were replicated by independent researchers (and the gold standard here is replication, not peer review)
> If folks were banned for calling each other slurs one would hope the same people who had something to say could just say it without including the slurs.

You'd hope that, but it doesn't work that way.

In a place where you can be banned for the gross slurs, you might be banned for relating some personal anecdote in which you speak of some other person making a gross slur. Why, when you didn't type in the gross slur yourself?

Who knows. Maybe they think you're secretly a klansman, trying to pollute people's brains with the slur without actually saying the slur. Maybe they think you're not sufficiently progressive enough because you actually have a personal history where you were proximate enough to a bigot that you could hear what they were saying. Maybe it really is Orwellian, and you thought the word though you didn't put it in the comment.

But considering the extra effort it would take to post in such a place, always wondering if the next comment will get you banned, why would you bother?

People with interesting things to say will find it difficult to exist, belong, or remain in such a forum.

I don't think you get any of the good, without accepting that some of the bad has to be present too.

These people who do that sort of banning, somewhere in their shriveled little brains actually believe they're making the world a better place.
Beware. On the next iteration, education will simply lose it's importance in providing any sort of edge in life. Just because well, elites are hereditary, it's only about particular methods of maintaining their hereditary status. Education seems to about to cease to be that method. Which means, we will see all the same people on the same commanding positions in the society - except they will be uneducated/much less educated. Because why bother.

A step like this increases the necessary level of violence applied to the society to keep the elites in their places and the masses in check. Because maintaining elites through educational attainment was the nicest avenue i can think of, all other methods will be uglier.

A good society should know how to let the elites stay in power without getting everyone else too angry.
You can set up an ssh tunnel on localhost to any port on bar or github via foo.
fwiw most (all?) JetBrains IDEs have a setting to enable/disable the ligatures.

Doesn't apply to everyone but I'm assuming some familiar with the JetBrains font will also be using some other things JetBrains makes.
I don't think there is one way to implement these correctly. It's a people/organization problem. It's a hard to get alignment and buy in from enough people in your organization.

OKRs should at least be for a period of time of one quarter. They shouldn't be changing constantly quarter over quarter. When they do change a lot, it indicates that the company is shifting strategy. Companies need to do this from time to time, but it's not a good sign if the company is doing this every quarter.

Engineering priorities shouldn't change week to week based on OKRs, because OKRs shouldn't change that frequently.
Coming from a math background and using latex a lot, ligatures were really godsend for me. Without ligatures code looks unnatural but it's just an aesthetic thing in the end and I don't mind either way
Some people also say that the earth is flat. Will you believe them?
Halal-9000 would be more apropos of the goals of alignment and morality.
If you want to play sports, go join a league and practice excellence or whatever..
Yup. Three seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b1axnNK-wI

A second guy distracting the clerk helps, too.
SAP invests $1B in 3 AI companies
Let me clear up the confusion,

> Stanford president resigns over manipulated research, will retract at least three papers
Yes I also try to use as little heating as possible.

I don't think that comparing the two is fair though. It's very hard to not get sick in a house at 10 degrees Celsius. 40 degrees Celsius is an immense discomfort but won't get me sick.
Is it possible for you to deploy rooftop solar? I produce 100% of the energy my home uses. I don’t feel bad about using AC in the least. There are also opportunities for me to step it up in the future: electronic car, more in home efficiency, eliminating gas appliances
I am also protected from rising energy prices. My energy costs cannot go up for the next 25 years. (And after 25 years I can replace the panels with higher efficiency ones and generate even more energy)

Also if you deploy a mini-split (heat pump) it’s extremely efficient and it can both cool in the summer and offset heating needs in the winter. Heat pumps are 400% efficient compared to gas heat because they move heat energy.

If you augment gas heat in the winter with a heat pump it can be 4x the efficiency. That’s a huge win for your climate impact.

Your life and comfort are important. Look to those first. Then say, “of the things available to me what can I do to help?” Counterintuitive as it may sound this can lead to both taking good care of yourself AND optimal practices that fight climate change.

For example one of the biggest things I can do to help is use my words. If I convince ten neighbors to deploy solar I 10x my positive impact. If I call my representative and say “make rooftop solar more cost-effective with net metering rules and installation credits” I potentially influence the rules that make tens of thousands of people more likely to go sustainable.
It would be interesting to see if there is a reason to go to Harvard without legacy admissions. There certainly is a reason to go to MIT for example where they don't have it.
It’s most certainly not a new trend, but is perhaps a quintessentially American disease. But one need only look at the so-called “luminaries” in many fields during the mid-20th century to see that this is not in anyway a novel phenomenon. Once you get slightly afield from the hard sciences, it’s charlatans all the way down, especially in fields like psychology and economics.
What difference do the numbers make if the policy is better? If it changes 1 or 100 outcomes, in my mind this is absolutely the correct call.

Numbers would be great and they should definitely produce them, but I don’t think they would change my thinking they legacy admissions is negative.
I love it when people that didn't look at how accurate the numbers behind the death toll speak to how big they were. The numbers are crap and they can never be anything other than crap by design.

Did you know that not one healthy individual under 30 died from Covid?

Yet, we locked them down, took away their education and ruined their social development at a young age. Shame on you.
There is definitely room for reform in the "business" of academia. IE: in how research is published, checked, verified and funded. And how Universities interact with it. There is a clear problem in how things are incentivized and it is encouraging misconduct.
US Military Leans into Megaconstellations
Because the only way to get zero misconduct is to drastically reduce the amount of science that is done, probably by orders of magnitude. This is an old saw when talking about government waste: the optimal amount of waste isn't zero, because there are diminishing returns to pursuing waste, and at some point the losses you avoid by eliminating waste are swamped by the costs of eliminating it.

It doesn't follow that waste and misconduct are good, only that when we talk about policy responses to scandals, we should consider the costs involved in avoiding those scandals, and whether it's rational to pay those costs. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
The Windows that doesn't run on anyone's phone.
Still a member of the national academy of sciences.

https://www.nasonline.org/member-directory/members/20010006....
This is the most unreadable code I may have ever seen. Congrats on successfully writing it and getting it to work.
The investigation into these allegations was terminated after finding no wrongdoing.
Really hoping for something that can output static ELFs for amd64, 32- and 64-bit RISC-V, as well as AArch64. WASM is not always an ideal architecture.

Python is notoriously "impossible" to build static programs for. There's always a shared object somewhere ruining everything.
That's a lot of straw men you put up there to knock down.

Maybe have a whistleblower hotline for academic fraud. I'll bet some of the grad students knew what was going on.

That one guy's selfishness tarnished the schools reputation for probably a generation.
The entire field of Alzheimer's Disease research has been a mess for years. None of it has led to really effective clinical treatments. I get the sense that many researchers are feeling pressure to show positive results in order to justify continued funding, and at the margins some make unethical choices.
The problem is that we don't know what the baseline really is. We know that between a third and a half of results from peer reviewed papers in many domains cannot be replicated. Looking closer, we see what look like irregularities in some of them, but it's harder to say which of them are fraud, which are honest mistakes, and which of them just can't be replicated due to some other factors. But because so many of these studies just don't pay off for one reason or another, I would agree that it is getting really hard to rely on a process which is, if nothing else, supposed to result in reliable and trustworthy information.
That makes sense for mature businesses, but for a startup getting its first customers, or its first customers in a particular sector, you have no idea what your price should be. Should it be $10k per year, or $10k per month? Unless you're pricing on a cost-plus basis, you have no idea what the right order of magnitude is.