577 karma · joined January 17, 2011
There's this Godard quote which sums this one up for me: "All great fiction films tend towards documentary, just as all great documentaries tend towards fiction." (I think the director mentioned it in an interview too?)
We're building a computational research platform tailored to researcher needs and workflows, with reproducibility at its core.
For more information, please visit https://hire.withgoogle.com/public/jobs/codeoceancom/view/P_...
Code Ocean is a cloud-based computational reproducibility platform that enables researchers to run, publish, and share the code + data for their analyses, pipelines, and algorithms.
We're looking for a researcher (PhD preferred but not required) with a computational science background to join the product team. The role is research-focused: you will spend the bulk of your time keeping abreast with developments in the space, studying computational research tools, technologies, and workflows, and talking to scientists across different disciplines to learn how they work. The role is also cross-functional: you will be expected to disseminate knowledge internally, communicate findings and make recommendations, and support the other teams where appropriate. You should be an adaptable, self-motivated, organized individual who wants to advance the state of art in computational research.
Applicants from groups underrepresented in science and technology are strongly encouraged to apply. If you'd like to join our small yet rapidly growing team, please reach out directly to shahar at codeocean.com.
- distribute software (execute with a single click)
- reproduce results (published code & data - yours and others' - is archived with its environment)
- collaborate with colleagues (built-in to the system)
(Disclaimer: I work at Code Ocean. We're in beta.)
That said, the article appears to have been published by Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, which does have a less than stellar reputation for rigorous peer-review and, as a result, article quality[0].
[0] https://neuroconscience.com/2016/01/15/is-frontiers-in-troub...
Code Ocean is a Cornell-Tech startup company on a mission to make scientific code more accessible and reproducible. We're building a cloud-based executable research platform that provides researchers and developers with an easy way to share, discover and run code published in academic journals and conferences.
We are recruiting a Junior Developer Advocate to join our team.
Your main responsibility would be to help users get their code running on our platform in a way that best showcases their research and results. You should be able and eager to quickly familiarize yourself with and dive into any of the following as needed: Python, R, MATLAB/Octave, C/C++, Julia, Lua, Java, shell scripting - whatever we throw at you, really. Don’t worry, we’ve got your back if you get stuck!
Good communication skills are important - you'll be spending a lot of your time interacting with users, holding their hand and encouraging them as they encounter the platform for the first time. Most of them would be academic researchers, so personal familiarity/experience with scientific research and academia in general is a major plus.
To apply please email contact@codeocean.com with the subject "Junior Developer Advocate" and any relevant information.
How do you build a powerful tool and avoid that side effect? D3 is one example I can think of for a very powerful, yet constrained and focused tool (I would say opinionated but that word has lost all meaning).
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-17/so-long-t...
Where it gets interesting is when someone like this guy tries to circumvent this arrangement by having the user willingly supply them with their credentials.
FB would never blame the user, even though that's arguably the correct way to respond, because that's a PR disaster. Whether the guy in this particular story seems shady or not, it seems inevitable that FB would take the path of litigation to destroy anyone who exposes the dissonance in the way they run their business.
Like I said, it's a cultural/social issue disproportionally tilting the cost effectiveness scale.
How is it that fear of false positives keeps coming up again and again in discussions of hiring practices?
Considering at-will employment (is that the correct term?) is the default here, you'd think it wouldn't be that big of a problem to get rid of an underperforming employee. I guess it's more of a cultural/social issue but I can't pretend to fully understand it.
I'm curious to hear your opinion about a combination of digital signing with e.g. keybase/blockchain + reputation system, a sandboxed development environment (mitigates the "short con" risk) and a sandboxed production environment, with the minimum set of permissions required to operate (as well as auditing of course).
Call me pessimistic but I don't see developers taking on the extra friction given the status quo. Though a major data breach or two might change things, as I'm sure we'll find out sooner or later.
A signed package doesn't really tell you that much. In the best case scenario it tells you the package you're installing in fact came from developer X and contains code Y (which you kinda already know since you have the source code). This works as long as you know and trust developer X, or did your due diligence reading through the code (which you can already do today).
I can't think of an end solution that wouldn't have to rely on network effects and social proof, which strikes me as rather fragile. Maybe formal verification and AI can help, but that's a long way off (?)
It's pretty mind blowing how big of a blindspot package installers are. I guess running everything inside a e.g. Docker container/VM would be a partial interim solution for the paranoid?
As a side note, I feel like this has happened to some degree to the React ecosystem. I can no longer count on packages to be of decent quality.
Then again, maybe it's time to stop looking for a one size fits all solution and acknowledge that (in an ideal world) we might want to have different processes for different candidates, depending on their life situation and/or individual priorities?
To be clear, my occasional dabbling in Elixir has yet to reveal any major shortcomings so this isn't an elephant in the room kind of situation, just a genuine request from people whose thoughtful opinions I generally appreciate.