Did we read the same paragraph? The problem with his first thesis was that, though he presented a brilliant and original result, he didn’t show that he’d studied enough prior research.
Nothing to do with schmoozing, everything to do with scholarly integrity.
The actual complaint was that the thesis failed to "exhibit a heavy technical apparatus of learning." I'm not sure exactly how you get from there to "didn’t show that he’d studied enough prior research".
That extrapolation notwithstanding, what exactly do you think "shmoozing" means? In academia it does not mean going to your committee's cocktail parties and letting them win at golf. It means citing their work (i.e. "demonstrating that you have studied prior research") so that they can then use the fact that they are highly referenced to advance their own careers.
When I was preparing for my oral exam, I was given something like 1,200 pages of material to read by my committee. I read it.
During the exam, in addition to the expected technical questions, I was asked things like, "What lab did this work come out of? Who runs that lab?"
In other words, "Do you understand the political and funding environment in which you're going to be operating if you continue working in this field?" Fortunately, I had been to a few conferences and met some of these people (also not an accident on the part of my professors), so I knew the answers to these questions. But the lesson stuck.
We’re looking for someone to help us integrate SAML authentication into a Python/Flask web app (as a Service Provider, wanting to authenticate against IdPs). There is already a full authentication system in-place — all that needs doing is integration with SAML-based SSO.
Knowledge of Python or Flask is not needed but extensive experience of SAML — and, ideally, the UK Access Management Federation and/or comparable schemes around the world — will be needed.
> Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.
“Sorry, you wrote this and we don’t like it, therefore you’re not invited to this conference on an irrelevant topic” or “… therefore we’re not going to a conference to which you were invited” is not valid criticism of an idea.
Who decides which conferences I will be forced to attend in order to avoid hurting the feelings of white supremacists?
Conferences are private entities that choose their speakers using a variety of metrics. No one is entitled to a speaking spot at a tech conference; the organizers look for speakers that will attract attendees, generate (positive?) buzz, provide good talks, etc. If the people attending the conference and helping with the conference don't want to hear someone who has written in favor of white supremacy speak at length on some topic unrelated to his white supremacist beliefs, why should conference organizers offer him a speaking spot? Who decides who gets to speak, if not the conference organizers?
And, in this case, the conference has decided to ignore the history of the speaker, and the opinions of some conference attendees, and have him speak. That is, again, their choice. I think it's gross, but I'd never suggest they should be prevented from allowing this person to speak. I would not attend a conference with this person as a speaker; not because I'm afraid he'll infect my mind with his peculiar and anachronistic brand of racism (I've read a number of his essays, it would not be exposure to some novel idea), but because I think white supremacists should be shunned. Literally. They should be ignored so hard in our communities that they opt out of them, seeking spaces more friendly to their positions.
Lambda Conf has every right to have someone who thinks slavery is a rather nice idea speak at their conference. Other people have every right to criticize that decision and opt not to participate in that conference.
12 years experience, 5 professional, in Python and Ruby web development, with popular frameworks (Rails, Sinatra, Flask). Additional experience in PHP, JavaScript, etc. Open-source work is at https://github.com/dpk and https://gist.github.com/dpk
Perl 6 uses rationals by default. They have the advantages of being base-agnostic, able to accurately represent any recurring digit expansion accurately regardless of eventual base, and also faster (since, especially if you normalize (convert to lowest terms) lazily, most operations are just a few integer instructions with no branching, looping, or bit-twiddling involved).
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biograp...) follows a similar model to the SEP to deliver on the comprehensive/authoritative/up-to-date trifecta. Unfortunately it’s paywalled, unlike SEP, but it’s certainly the best biographical encyclopedia I know of because of this.
If it is, it’s big news. But bear in mind that ‘John le Fucker’, recorded 1278, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_le_Fucker) would be a further antedating from a personal name if it were somehow to be confirmed as a use of the word.
