Jeff Huang

I did research in this area with the amazing Jeff Huang [1]. (Here's the findings: https://medium.com/@karan/how-do-spammers-harvest-your-e-mail-address-… Answer to your question: https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/2000/0*q9f3570SPFftR9cx.png > Notably, spammy mailing lists send the most spam. These mailing lists include sites that promise you free credit scores, or insurance quotes, or free ipads etc. These sites stink of spam, but people still continue to give them their email addresses. [1] http://jeffhuang.com/

If you're looking for a "menu" of papers from various subfields, I've been collecting a list of all best paper awards from a set of 30 computer science conferences for the past 25 years. This is just a personal interest of mine, and is a long page with no ads or upsell. https://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards/ These are papers that were deemed "best papers" in that year, though obviously may not have turned out to be as influential in retrospect, i.e. they're likely not the papers we consider "best" when looking back today.

Not exactly what you need, but this page lists best papers awards (with links) from all major conferences https://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards/ And here's PapersWeLove Repo with similar sauce https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love

This looks great, plain-text is underrated. Do you use this yourself, and for how long? Your format looks like a slightly more strict version of this one here: https://jeffhuang.com/productivity_text_file/

I don't have any recommendations, but in case you didn't spot this HN post, Jeff Huang has compiled the CS "best paper" awards for the last quarter century. https://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25610531

This solution is on the user side, which is great because each person can get and manage saved pages for themselves. But if we're looking for a developer side solution, then making pages that last an order of magnitude longer may be better for everyone in the long run, e.g. https://jeffhuang.com/designed_to_last/

The by-instituion ranking is particularly interesting: https://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#institutions Some of those are obvious if you've been in the field a while, but I think it's notable that big names like Intel, Harvard and NASA are so lowly ranked when compared to others on the list. Also Notable, none of the big names in the field won any of these: Jeff Dean, Geoff Hinton, Yann Lecun, Andrew Ng, Yoshua Bengio, Jurgen Schmidhuber etc...

Great list, with a lot of work put in there! In particular, the breakdown by institutions is very interesting -- https://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#institutions Related, the most cited CS papers (although very dated at this point ...): http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/stats/articles

Best Paper Awards in Computer Science (since 1996) http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html Papers I Read https://shagunsodhani.in/papers-I-read/

Nice list, but as many other said, seems to only be for 2006. For more papers, there is a nice list here: http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html not limited to 2006 There is a bunch more places to get papers listed here too: https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love#other-good-places-to-…

Um, Microsoft has also been a steady producer of academic research papers. Just as an example: http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html (Scroll to the bottom, and see that MS is #1, ahead of e.g. MIT, which is #3 on the list, and far ahead of Google which is #17 on the list)

Indeed. Look at the institution best paper awards: http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#institutions There are several companies (and not just universities) in the top 20. Microsoft leading.

For other CS collections, there's: Matt Might's archive of books grad students should read http://matt.might.net/articles/books-papers-materials-for-graduate-stu… Jeff Huang's best paper award winners from the last 20 years http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html

Not sure why you seem to think researchers are flowing to Google. Microsoft Research is still the biggest name in distributed systems, if not CS in general. They have been consistently producing high-quality papers [1]. [1] http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html

Here is a collection of great computer science papers to get you started: http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html It includes some intermediate and pretty advanced topics.

While this is true, I think Microsoft Research is much more akin to Bell Labs than Google (though I'm biased). See e.g. this list of top CS papers [1]. [1] http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html

For the lazy person who wants to cut down on the "crawling", try this listing of Best Paper Awards across pretty much every CS discipline: http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html

Please check your facts. Example of the output: http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#institutions Also look at any proceeding from conferences in areas where MSR works. Their output is pretty high (and high quality).

I don't know if this is from 2012, but I just found out about this page -- it's the best papers from computer science from 1996 to 2012 http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html (based on awards given by committees at the top conferences)

As far as I can tell, this contribution from Blekko doesn't have any user data/queries in it. As far as I can tell, this is the best resource for publicly available search engine query logs. http://jeffhuang.com/search_query_logs.html I don't intend to downplay the contribution, having a large collection of spam/porn classified web docs is still a very nice thing to have for researchers.

Doesn't US news have per-degree rankings? If not, taking a more "objective" ranking in computer science of the number of paper awards received at CS conferences [http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#institutions], UW easily places in #3, among Stanford, CMU, and MIT. Maybe the roommate could show his dad that...

On the other hand, infrastructure can only be as useful as the applications they support. Technologists love solving hard technical problems [1], but ultimately, isn't the main goal to improve peoples' lives? Almost all the engineers I know would prefer to work on sophisticated interesting problems than "another web-app," but there isn't much point if it is just for our own edification. I can understand your disdain for Instagram's frivolity, but people said the same about Twitter and it ended up playing a major role in the Arab Spring, whereas almost no one outside the techworld knows or really cares who runs their infrastructure. Of course without this infrastructure it all wouldn't work. Like you say, comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges, you can't really argue one is fundamentally more important than the other. [1] http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html

might also want to check out the best papers in KDD (the top data mining conference) http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#kdd

> But a postdoc at a university is an underpaid training position for the most part. That's not really true or fair. You're talking about a person who's done likely 4 years of undergraduate and between 4 and 8 (median 5?) years of graduate studies and gained a Ph.D. This person is without a doubt "an expert" in their field. Does that person still need training? Sure. But who doesn't? You're also talking about someone who is probably in their early to mid 30's. Eventually people want to start having a life. And you're expecting them to make pennies? I'm not joking. Here's a list of CS Post Doc stipends[0]. Go to Berkeley or Stanford and make $66k-$80k? I've gotten more money as a PhD Intern! You're going to get more than double that in industry before we talk about RSUs. I think this is something we need to take quite seriously here. There aren't really good reasons for people to choose this path, especially considering how disruptive it is to your life (have fun moving again in a few years :). Maybe we can hope that those who go are just really dedicated to research and following their passions. So dedicated that they are willing to put off normal human things like starting a family, maintaining relationships[1], or even just building one's net worth (or paying off student debt). Some people want to become a professor[2] so will do that. But the big thing I see is that there's nothing to attract the best people. (We can extend this to even just professorships[3]). So…

> This is the grey area I am talking about. You licensed the rights exclusively to ACM, in perpetuity. In fact, your own publication of the pdf may also be non-compliant, but nobody has sued you as that would be political suicide The "Post" section of the page linked by lazyjeff says: >Otherwise known as "Self-Archiving" or "Posting Rights", all ACM published authors of magazine articles, journal articles, and conference papers retain the right to post the pre-submitted (also known as "pre-prints"), submitted, accepted, and peer-reviewed versions of their work in any and all of the following sites: > Author's Homepage > ... So posting a PDF of the "accepted version" to a personal website is not a "grey area" - it is explicitly permitted by the ACM. This is the usual situation: authors retain the rights to put the "accepted" version on their homepage. This includes all the changes made in response to reviewer comments, but is formatted by the author rather than the publisher. Unless they have selected an open-access option (which usually requires paying a fee), they typically do not have the rights to post the "publisher formatted" version. However, in fields like CS the submitted version is usually produced using a LaTeX template for the journal so looks very similar to the publisher-formatted version; the main differences are often things like the journal name and page numbers written in the headers and footers. For lazyjeff's example, you can compare the version…

Looks like Brown University: https://jeffhuang.com/

I can see how that would be useful, but I fear it is outside of the context of the site and I'm not sure how it would fit. Comments on Science is supposed to be about comments, not about papers themselves, but I guess the jury's still out on that one. The best I can do, that still fits in the context of the site as it is now, is to have a link where you can list papers tagged with e.g. "antimatter", and order them by score. I'll think about your idea and get back to you on that. I would love to have some help as I am a solo-coder-designer-administrator on the site and it's already proved to be a handful. Thanks for the feedback! Much appreciated. Edit: I forgot to add a link for a similar site to that you described, but for computer science: http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html Admittedly, the voting is missing, and it's quite narrow in scope, but my guess is sites like that exist for most fields. Have you not found any for theoretical physics?

While not exactly software per-se, I created a system of multiple text files to manage todos, long term goals, and various reminders (eg, IOUs, deadlines, etc). This was inspired initially by Jeff Huang’s blog post [1] but then grew to a complex collection of different files. A problem I ran into was building an interface for displaying and editing these text files (each file has a different width and for some files I want to have different heights when editing them). Ultimately I settled on multiple vim tabs in a terminal window. Been using this for close to five years now and I couldn’t be happier with it. However, at this point the system of files (and the terminal “user interface”) is completely customized to my life and would likely never fit someone else’s requirements. [1] https://jeffhuang.com/productivity_text_file/

Here's the article: https://jeffhuang.com/productivity_text_file/ It's been submitted a few times for robust discussion, most recently a few days ago.

I commiserate, since I too started my PhD later in life, but luckily I don't have any kids and my wife can work remotely. I'm moving for a postdoc right after the Spring semester ends. I understand why the bias against not moving exists, but interestingly, despite the supposed taboo, lots of programs self-hire for faculty (at least in CS) [1]: > 7.4% of professors have a Ph.D. from the same university that they are teaching at. MIT in particular has a high rate of self-hires, with 36% of their professors having MIT Ph.D.s themselves. It makes me wonder if this is a case where prior wisdom has not caught up with modern practices. [1]: https://jeffhuang.com/computer-science-open-data/#cs-faculty-compositi…