[HN Gopher] Papers We Love
___________________________________________________________________
Papers We Love
Author : wallflower
Score : 196 points
Date : 2021-12-26 06:48 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (paperswelove.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (paperswelove.org)
| resters wrote:
| Chicago, anyone?
| [deleted]
| hieronymusN wrote:
| There used to be a Chicago chapter
| https://paperswelove.org/chapter/chicago/ - would be great to
| get it restarted
| evacchi wrote:
| I have organized PWL in Milan at the end of 2019 / start of 2020,
| then we-know-what happened and put the entire thing on stand-by,
| because of Zoom fatigue. If anyone is interested, just ping me,
| though.
| hieronymusN wrote:
| Milano: https://github.com/papers-we-love/milano
| magikaram wrote:
| I attended some pwl Kansas City chapter meetings, but the
| pandemic put the meetings on hold as we started out end of 2019.
| zeeshanlakhani wrote:
| Also wanted to link to the copious amount of PWL videos around
| (incl. diff chapters, the conference):
| https://www.youtube.com/c/PapersWeLove/videos. Having run a few
| internal reading groups at various jobs myself, I know so many
| who watch the related videos while reading a specific paper (or
| use the morning paper as cliff notes).
| lincpa wrote:
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| In 2017 I went to StrangeLoop and Papers We Love was collocated.
| Such a great experience. I saw a talk about how type inference in
| OCAML worked (Hindley-Milner type inference) and I basically
| didn't understand any of it, but talked briefly to the presenter
| after.
|
| I left so excited by both conferences and started on pulling on
| threads around type systems and eventually started a podcast as a
| result.
|
| The podcast changed over the years, but originally it was just a
| way for me to investigate things I had heard of at Paper We Love
| and Strange Loop. As a community, PWL is a nice on-ramp into CS
| Theory. Thank you Zeeshan Lakhani.
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| PWLconf vidoes are up here: https://pwlconf.org/#videos
| serverlessmom wrote:
| Thank you so much for the work you put into your podcast! I
| frequently recommend CoRecursive to new and old tech folks so
| they can have an insider eye on how the industry and especially
| company culture works. Educational, entertaining, and
| interesting!
| muggermuch wrote:
| Your podcast is very useful - I have been a subscriber for a
| couple of years now!
|
| Thank you for doing what you do.
| sgeisenh wrote:
| Really enjoy Corecursive. Thanks for all the work you've put
| into it. A really great resource for learning all about
| fascinating ideas and personalities in computing.
| parentheses wrote:
| this!!!
| jeanlucas wrote:
| I'm shocked there's no chapter in my city!
|
| Sao Paulo has so many universities and computer science groups.
| hieronymusN wrote:
| There was initial attempt in 2017: https://github.com/papers-
| we-love/sao-paulo
|
| Maybe you could get some people together and start one
| https://github.com/papers-we-love/organizers
| atarian wrote:
| Any have any tips for getting started on reading a paper? It's
| like reading something in a different language.
| HenryR wrote:
| This might be useful:
| https://web.stanford.edu/class/ee384m/Handouts/HowtoReadPape...
|
| If you find there is just too much unfamiliar technical
| language, it's a good idea to pause and look up a definition.
| You might need to follow that chain several steps, but that
| will help you get to an understanding of new terms.
| mellavora wrote:
| Plan on reading it 4-5 times. The first time it is going to be
| a whole bunch of new words/concepts -- "a different language"
| as you put it.
|
| Only read the introduction.
|
| The first reading is to inventory the words, where they are
| used, and how important they are. Don't try to understand
| except in the most vague of ways.
|
| The second time you can start to make some sense out of it
| because hopefully you think you might understand 1/3- 1/2 of
| the words.
|
| Now look up some definitions. Google might help, otherwise the
| difficult word(s) might be cited, in which case you need to
| read the abstract of the relevant paper (only enough to get a
| definition of what the word might mean).
|
| The third time you read it, you should know 1/2 to 2/3rds of
| the words and be able to make good connections between them,
| you start to see the ideas take shape.
|
| The fourth read you fill in the gaps from the outline you made
| in the third read.
|
| If the paper is well written, the introduction lays out the
| relevant current thought on the topic, and suggests a way by
| which some conflict in this thought can be resolved.
|
| The discussion presents that resolution.
| zeeshanlakhani wrote:
| This Sean Cribbs talk, The Refreshingly Rewarding Realm of
| Research Papers, also has a ton of good thoughts on the process
| of getting started:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eRx5Wo3xYA.
| pramodbiligiri wrote:
| The 3-pass approach mentioned in the Stanford page linked in a
| sibling comment is a good way to start. It's also worth knowing
| _why_ you want to read a particular paper. They 're usually
| written for communicating tersely with people "already-in-the-
| know" so you shouldn't expect to get much out of _most_ papers
| you come across.
|
| Murat Demirbas a prof at SUNY Buffalo has described his method
| - http://muratbuffalo.blogspot.com/2013/07/how-i-read-
| research...
| jimmyed wrote:
| Is there any active pwl group that has regular zoom meetings to
| discuss papers? Would love to join in.
| hieronymusN wrote:
| Seattle does https://paperswelove.org/chapter/seattle/
| jiangplus wrote:
| I have been organizing the Papers We Love Beijing Chapter with a
| group of engineers. It is a good place to share wonderful ideas
| that are not necessary useful.
| chirau wrote:
| The NYC PWL chapter is pretty awesome. The organizers do a great
| job in finding speakers and venues. I've made many friends from
| the group. Darren, Andrew, Sean and David are amazing. So was
| Zeeshan before he left for his PhD.
| zeeshanlakhani wrote:
| A truly amazing team indeed :).
| throway453sde wrote:
| Somethings I don't understand. How do they cover the cost for the
| event?
|
| Does the attendees pay for this and is it enough to cover the
| cost or is it profitable?
|
| How is meeting people who are not authors of the paper more
| useful than organizing online?
| HenryR wrote:
| Companies usually provide the space and will sponsor pizza and
| drinks, at least in SF. That's about all the costs beyond the
| time of the organizers which is offered for free.
| hypertexthero wrote:
| I went to some Papers We Love meetups here in NYC a few years
| ago and learned a lot not only from the presenters but from
| other attendees ranging from database experts to sound
| engineers. Some very nice, kind people!
|
| Plenty of pizza and beer, too :)
|
| Warmly recommended.
| zeeshanlakhani wrote:
| Yep. For many other chapters as well.
| zeeshanlakhani wrote:
| To the last question, just having people put in the work to
| present and understand a paper, or a theme around a set of
| papers, can make a huge difference for others to understand the
| ideas put forth. We've even had events where presenters
| demonstrated an implementation of the paper or called out
| interesting references or historical associations that may not
| have been apparent initially.
| hieronymusN wrote:
| Companies love to sponsor the local meetups because they see
| them as recruiting pools. They will usually provide the space
| and some $$ for food (pizza)
| hieronymusN wrote:
| The pandemic has been tough on Papers We Love as many of the
| local chapter meetups had to shutdown. This had an adverse impact
| on the Papers We Love Conf (https://pwlconf.org/) as well.
|
| Some chapters (Seattle, Chattanooga, Bangalore) have managed to
| keep up a semi-regular cadence of Zoom meetups. NYC tried but has
| a hard time getting speakers (which is a bit surprising tbh.)
|
| If you're interested in running a meetup, being a speaker or
| volunteering your time hit up @papers_we_love on Twitter.
| melkael wrote:
| Anyone from Paris ? I'd be glad to take part to sessions
| bschne wrote:
| If you want to get into reading some CS papers, I can also
| recommend these sources:
|
| 1. The unfortunately defunct blog "The Morning Paper" that
| provides a short write-up/explainer of each paper.
| https://blog.acolyer.org
|
| 2. Will Larson's favorite CS papers. https://lethain.com/some-of-
| my-favorite-technical-papers/
| lghh wrote:
| Are there any good "baby's first CS papers"? I read maybe 1 paper
| in college and have not thought about anything more than the very
| practical, day-to-day applications of my degree since then. If I
| wanted to dip my toes into reading some CS papers are there any
| good places anyone would recommend to start?
| lifefeed wrote:
| There's this nice mix of technical and opinion papers: 10
| Papers Every Developer Should Read
| https://michaelfeathers.silvrback.com/10-papers-every-develo...
| hieronymusN wrote:
| I have heard good things about
| https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/ideas-created-future
| nesarkvechnep wrote:
| "Why Functional Programming Matters" by John Hughes.
| hgh wrote:
| I think the original DynamoDB paper is a good choice - some
| interesting CS/systems engineering content but relatively
| accessible.
|
| https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/files/amazon-dynamo-sos...
| ryanworl wrote:
| Notably, the Dynamo paper is _not_ a description of how
| DynamoDB (the product available from AWS today) works. They
| are fundamentally different, and it is not possible to
| implement notable features like conditional updates using the
| algorithms described in the Dynamo paper.
| lghh wrote:
| That's interesting. I was going to take a stab at reading
| that first since I frequently use DynamoDB (Amazon product)
| at work.
| robotresearcher wrote:
| 'Time, clocks and the ordering of events in a distributed
| system' by Leslie Lamport 1973. This is my favorite intro to
| distributed systems paper. Gives you a new tool to think with,
| and it's a straightforward read.
|
| https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/time-clocks.pdf
| bluedays wrote:
| https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~crary/819-f09/Strachey67.pdf
|
| Fundamental Concepts In Programming by Christopher Strachey is
| awesome. It's a lot less technical because it was based on a
| series of lecture notes. Christopher Strachey is also an
| inspiring figure in CS to me as someone who was a perpetual
| fuck up and a late bloomer.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Strachey
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Concepts_in_Progra...
| loeg wrote:
| If you've worked in the systems space, the Flash HTTPD paper is
| a classic:
| https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/usenix99/full_papers/pa...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-30 23:01 UTC)