I let the drawing guide me without knowing what would happen before hand.
PS:
Never spell out the identify of a portrait subject for plausible deniability.
🙂
I let the drawing guide me without knowing what would happen before hand.
PS:
Never spell out the identify of a portrait subject for plausible deniability.
🙂
When I was a PhD student around the turn of the millennium, SIGGRAPH, despite being the top venue in visual computing, is considered as a conference and thus the published technical papers received a lower count/weight than journal papers in traditional academic rating.
To remedy this problem, starting from 2002 SIGGRAPH technical papers were published as special issues of ToG (ACM Transactions on Graphics), which is a journal.
Now, about 20 years later, people were concerned about the author workload and review speed for ToG, compared to some machine learning and computer vision conferences which tend to have lower requirement for evaluation and faster review/publication cycles.
To remedy this problem, starting from 2022 SIGGRAPH will start accepting a conference-track of papers.
This is one example of the general phenomena where people repeat cycles of identifying problems, devising solutions, causing other (sometimes previous) problems, ad infinitum.
Update: Aaron Hertzmann (the main architect for the conference track) has a recent post about expectation creep that is worth taking a look.
There are situations where one activity receives lower moral judgement than another, such as spending and saving, resting and working, consumption and production, which are actually two sides of the same coin and can only co-exist together.
I have seen people cutting corners and playing little tricks for the sake of advancing their careers, but none of them, even without getting caught, have become very successful.
Maybe they shift their energy away from what they should really focus on, or they are not very confident about their character, ability, or effort.
And once they start on the wrong path, they tend to get caught up in a downward spiral without being able to get back on the right track.
At the end of the day, how we do things matters more than what we have done, and I would prefer achieving a little less than doing something that I know is not right.
A few years back, someone asked me to nominate him/her for the SIGGRAPH significant new researcher award. At that time I found the conduct questionable, so I consulted with my PhD adviser, who told me that I should not incur any potential benefits or conflict-of-interests from the nomination. For example, an advisee receiving an award could potentially enhance the reputation of the adviser. A corollary is that the nomination should be anonymous, for which the nominee shouldn’t even be aware of being nominated (not to mention soliciting) as otherwise it is a form of doing favor.
In the end, I still did the nomination due to institutional pressure, but in retrospect I found the entire experience lame, and that person did not win the award anyway.
Today another individual asked me to nominate him/her for a research award, with whom I shared the above story.
I believe someone who deserves an award would not care about it.
I am not following baseball, but the most memorable event in MLB is when Ichiro Suzuki turned down a prestigious award, multiple times.
After a company training today a fellow employee from another division pinged me: Are you in the research group? That sounds fun!
Me: Research is a fun job as long as you are comfortable failing 90% of the time. 🙂
Time only moves forward.
We cannot change the past or predict the future.
So it is pointless to regret the past or fear the future.
With great power comes great responsibility, but the real trade-off lies in the hassles.
Theme: Rubric. Get a free blog at WordPress.com