[HN Gopher] A collection of outlandish human-computer interactio...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       A collection of outlandish human-computer interaction papers
        
       Author : danso
       Score  : 92 points
       Date   : 2021-07-19 21:25 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (floe.butterbrot.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (floe.butterbrot.org)
        
       | nneonneo wrote:
       | Hey, nice to see DATANOSE on that list! It was co-written by my
       | PhD supervisor Scott Hudson, and it emphatically was a joke. He
       | likes to tell the story every so often at conferences. If I'm not
       | mistaken, the picture shows Scott with his trademark mustache
       | under the DATANOSE :)
        
       | Readywater wrote:
       | Shameless share of my toilet based art installation.
       | https://vimeo.com/75448871
        
       | jontonsoup wrote:
       | I will shamelessly plug my personal contribution to outlandish
       | toilet-related HCI papers!
       | 
       | https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2468356.2468738
        
       | jhgb wrote:
       | > You're in control: a urinary user interface
       | 
       | > The picture alone says a thousand words. Play a game by peeing
       | on the right spot in an urinal...
       | 
       | That's how you end up with a pee sea instead of a PC.
        
         | azinman2 wrote:
         | Hayes Raffle on that paper eventually ended up at Google
         | leading AR UX. So just because you start with silly ideas
         | exploring things as a student doesn't mean you aren't learning.
        
       | buitreVirtual wrote:
       | These papers would be funny if you didn't stop to think of all
       | the tax dollars being wasted on all of this.
        
         | vnorilo wrote:
         | Are you similarly annoyed by the stupid stuff private companies
         | you deal with spend their margins on?
         | 
         | Of course, the government has a tax monopoly. But wait, several
         | private companies look like they do too! From my perspective
         | there are more viable countries/governments to choose from than
         | mobile or desktop OSes or online retailers.
        
           | buitreVirtual wrote:
           | As a matter of fact, I am. It's not one or the other, it's
           | both. It's a moral obligation to point out wrong wherever it
           | is.
           | 
           | Criticism of government waste shouldn't be taken as an
           | argument against government, like some opportunists do, but
           | as necessary accountability. In this case, the funding for
           | this garbage research (and all paper mills, while we are at
           | it, which are a majority of academia these days) should be
           | reinvested in useful areas like climate change, fundamental
           | sciences (such as physics and chemistry) and technology
           | transfer from science to industry.
        
             | marcellus23 wrote:
             | Who decides what research is garbage or not? I notice your
             | list lacks any mention of anthropology, history, or other
             | humanities, for example.
        
               | buitreVirtual wrote:
               | It's not so much about the area, although some areas lend
               | themselves to more abuse. Obviously humanities are
               | important. The problem is the bad incentive system and
               | the irrelevance of the resulting research.
        
             | Wistar wrote:
             | How do you know a government funded these? And which
             | government? These seem to be from institutions all over the
             | world.
        
             | vnorilo wrote:
             | I respect that. But I would contend that these people made
             | something, learned something, and published their findings.
             | Even if it is all goofy and of no immediate practical
             | value, I wouldn't call it a waste.
        
               | buitreVirtual wrote:
               | Yes, they learn, and others might appreciate reading the
               | papers too. But I'd rather steer creative students to
               | solve real-world problems or build serious science, and
               | they will learn more about what matters.
        
               | throwawaygh wrote:
               | Go read the CVs of the authors. They are all working on
               | real problems. These are goofy 1030pm fucking around in
               | the lab projects, not the real Serious Work these
               | students are doing.
        
         | throwawaygh wrote:
         | On the contrary, stuff like this happens because of a business
         | model that SAVES the taxpayer hundreds of millions.
         | 
         | In CS at least, we pay grad student research assistants close
         | to nothing relative to their worth. And then we work them to
         | the bone. In exchange, students like these ones are allowed to
         | do whatever they want in their free time in betweeen working on
         | actually funded projects.
         | 
         | If you can find an alternative model that allows me to hire
         | kids who have 200k offers at 30k-40k and get 50+ hours of work
         | out of them, please let me know.
         | 
         | Even if these kids work on these projects during the 9-5 day --
         | and I kind of doubt it, these are all probably "fucking around
         | in the lab at 1030pm" projects -- we're still getting a killing
         | by calling them students instead of SWEs.
         | 
         | I've advised exactly zero students who didn't have multiple
         | offers in the 200s when they started their phd, and never paid
         | more than 45k. They could spend like most of their time on BS
         | and I'd still be getting an amazing deal.
         | 
         | Kids using their free time to do stupid/fun projects in between
         | working for the taxpayers at a REALLY FUCKING STEEP discount is
         | not an example of government waste. And if you start getting
         | greedy by treating phd students like civil servants, well,
         | better also be willing to pay six figures and a pension.
         | Spoiler: you're not going to save money.
        
           | buitreVirtual wrote:
           | Highlighting the cost of opportunity of hiring these students
           | doesn't make the irrelevance problem of a lot of modern
           | research any better. I'd rather teach students to work on
           | practical or fundamental problems and change the incentive
           | system to do real, long-term research projects rather than
           | pumping papers to boost up the advisor's resume and the
           | institutional numbers.
           | 
           | While you mention price tag, the student gets only a small
           | part of all the funding. Most of the money goes to the
           | institution, not to mention the advisor's summer salary.
        
             | throwawaygh wrote:
             | All of those students ARE working on real problems. These
             | papers are fun asides, not the core of the research
             | agendas.
             | 
             | Stop with the professional attacks against researchers
             | until you at least take the time to read their CVs. What
             | you we doing here is attacking peoples professional
             | reputation. And you're doing it without knowing anything
             | about them. Stop.
             | 
             | At least half the money goes to the student in stipend+core
             | benefits, and another third covers fringe benefits and
             | overhead - lights, bathrooms, offices, security, data
             | centers, travel, ... It's pretty common for the total cost
             | of an employee to be 1.5x+ their salary.
             | 
             | Sometimes grants fund faculty summer salaries, but I kind
             | of doubt those faculty spent any time on these specific
             | projects.
        
               | buitreVirtual wrote:
               | Actually, I've been there and done that. There is a huge
               | difference between the relevance of the problems people
               | are officially targeting and the actual substance and
               | relevance of the research being done. I've seen first-
               | hand that even at top institutions the priority is to
               | maximize PR, often based on number of papers published
               | (in prestigious-sounding venues if and when possible) and
               | to maximize rankings to attract more students and
               | funding.
               | 
               | The reality is that the incentive system is wrong.
               | Impactful, long-term research is super hard to achieve
               | like this.
        
               | throwawaygh wrote:
               | Sounds like you washed out of a toxic lab and are now
               | lashing out at some 20-something's' funny side projects.
        
               | buitreVirtual wrote:
               | Not at all. I'm just being realistic.
        
               | throwawaygh wrote:
               | You're latching onto a set of kinda transparently obvious
               | joke papers [1] written by clearly accomplished
               | individuals [2] and claiming that the whole institution
               | is rotten. You're not being realistic; you're being
               | absurd -- literally using a bunch of April Fools Day
               | jokes as evidence that all of academia is broken.
               | 
               | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27909164
               | 
               | [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27911634
        
               | buitreVirtual wrote:
               | Stop pretending this is about some kids. I'm talking
               | about the system and culture today. A lot of academic
               | research is broken and you can't pretend you don't see
               | it. The main goal is to maximize metrics.
               | 
               | Just look at many authors' publication lists that look
               | like paper mills. Quantity over quality. Irreproducible
               | results, bad study design, too many hidden variables,
               | unrepresentative subjects. Unrealistic and oversimplistic
               | assumptions. I've even served as subject of studies
               | published in top venues, and I can tell that the study
               | was a joke.
               | 
               | It varies by the area, but this is present everywhere.
               | Just one example: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/
               | article?id=10.1371/jo....
        
       | xor99 wrote:
       | Honestly would use the bathtub interface. Convert it to a hot tub
       | and that is an excellent outdoor office.
        
         | jcun4128 wrote:
         | Keep thinking I should put a waterproof tablet in my shower (no
         | camera of course ha)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-07-21 23:01 UTC)