Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login


I'm reluctant to even dignify this kind of low-effort drivel with a response.

There's a bunch of other commits linked from that very same user profile, related to -- and this will blow your mind -- image reconstruction:


Even if that were not true, scientific code often does not end up public, let alone on github. Not to mention that Dr. Bouman is the first author of a closely-related paper at CVPR, which is one of the most prestigious meetings in a field of study called "computer vision": https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01413

Obviously this was a massive team effort, but PR frenzies happen to good people all the time and I don't see anyone scrutinizing public commit counts when it's a man in a similar context.

I mocked the Basho CTO does that count?

You're right that we "don't see anyone scrutinizing public commit counts when it's a man in a similar context". Well of course! The media never promotes an inflated story of a man's accomplishments due to him being a man, so it would be silly to suspect it.

Nobody is doubting that it is possible for a woman to do impressive science.

It's just the ordinary problem of trying to promote/advance/assist a particular group of people. Any time that happens, it casts suspicion on the whole group. Both the deserving and the undeserving are suspected of having what isn't earned. Everybody in the group is thus hurt.

> The media never promotes an inflated story of a man's accomplishments due to him being a man, so it would be silly to suspect it.

Stories about men aren't thought of as being inflated "due to him being a man" because the default perspective is that men make history. Now that more awareness is being given to the contributions of overlooked women and members of other disenfranchised groups, people seem more eager to think that someone is being celebrated because of their identity.

> Nobody is doubting that it is possible for a woman to do impressive science.

Women's contributions to science and engineering have long been overlooked, if not outright doubted. Fran Allen's (the first woman to win the Turing Award) chapter in "Coders at Work" [0] is a good example.

> Seibel: So when you won the Turing, did you think to yourself, "Gee, there's another woman who should have won this a long time ago?"

> Allen: Well, the very first thing I thought about was how wonderful it was. And then I started to think about all the many other women who were never recognized at all for their work. In many cases, their work was stolen. I thought about the women who had done some very amazing things that have not been recognized, even by their peers. When I approach them and say, "You need to join some professional organizations-I'll write some recommendations for you," they kind of shy away from that.

> Seibel: So you think that part of the problem is they don't get recognized because they're not putting themselves in a place to be recognized as easily.

> Allen: Right.

> Seibel: Are there any particular folks that you would like to name-to give a little recognition now?

> Allen: Well, there's Edith Schonberg, who is a great computer scientist. In terms of technical work, it's just one first after another on some of her papers. She's had work stolen-absolutely brutally stolen. She wrote a paper on debugging of parallel code, which is a very hard problem. It was not accepted at a conference and somebody who had been on the program committee made three papers out of it. That kind of thing. It happens in our field and we don't have good ways of dealing with it.

> Seibel: And it happens more to women?

> Allen: Yes, I think it does. They were often viewed as not going to put up a fight-that they were more isolated and don't have the advocates who will deal with a famous thief. He was a famous thief, known but nobody dared touch it. And there are plenty of others way back from the Stretch days. There was a woman who essentially was the inventor of multiprogramming and credit was taken by somebody who eventually became a Turing Award winner.*

Peter Seibel. Coders at Work: Reflections of the Craft of Programming (Kindle Locations 6413-6419). Kindle Edition.

[0] http://www.codersatwork.com/fran-allen.html

cough James Watson cough

It's really short-sighted to say something like this. Committing code is actually the smallest impact you can make in a big project like this. There are way harder, more meaningful ways you can contribute to the project's success.

To call her a project manager is telling. The number of lines of code submitted is not the sole measure of contributing. She led the effort of creating the CHIRP (Continuous High-resolution Image Reconstruction) algorithm used to achieve this historic event.

Lines of code is not, and will never be a metric for gauging project contribution.

Most of that 850,000 lines of code is likely boilerplate setup code.

850,000 loc vs what looks to be an initial commit and a merge: https://github.com/klbouman/hopstools/commits?author=klbouma...

if I'm wrong here please point it out

Okay, how about tweets from Andrew Chael himself? https://twitter.com/thisgreyspirit/status/111651854732747571...

Incredible, that a purported programmer/software engineer in 2019 thinks that someone's Github commit history is the sum total of all their work. Not only that, you seem to be completely ignorant of how to find someone's Github commits to repos that aren't owned by their account.


You're right, I had assumed that the project that she was the owner of on her github portfolio was her primary contribution - I jumped to conclusions without digging any deeper and I'd delete the comment if Hacker News would let me.

I fear people are down voting you for having been wrong originally rather than for this comment.

Which is a shame, because we all do things this stupid sometimes and your frank admission of having done so is laudable.

Nil desperandum carborundum illegitimi.

"Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight." —Bill Gates

I created an account to let you know you should probably apologize and delete this comment. Unless you like this sort of low-effort assholery to be linked to your real name, which took me way too little time to establish.

You can't delete comments from hacker news after a certain period of time has passed and that's ok, I was wrong about the amount of work she committed and in all honesty, I didn't doubt her in any way. I looked up what she had contributed because I was curious and initially I didn't find much. I do apologize for not digger a bit deeper.

I still stand by the fact that all people's work of this magnitude should be reviewed and analyzed - it doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman.

There are probably a dozen papers of this magnitude published each month across the sciences with multiple authors and github repos.

Which of them have you dug into before? Any of them?

Considering how few I was aware of the answer is zero. Let me ask you something though, why was I made aware of this discovery and not the others?

Was it because a woman participated?

No it was because of your inherent bias that motivated you into pulling out a weak data point trying to backup your false narrative to belittle her achievements. You couldn't even count her public code contributions correctly (an irrelevant stat that should've never been presented in isolation) and likely spent 0 effort in assessing the 850k LOC quoted, of only ~8% actually represented software [1].

She's done ground-breaking research, TED talks, published papers, given interviews, why didn't you try researching any of that instead? If you spent anytime watching her TED talks and interviews you would've always heard herself say it was an international team of scientists and her enthusiasm behind the historic achievement was always "we" as a collective [1], I've not heard her once take credit for the historic achievement herself, it was always "we" as a team [2].

There's so few % of women in STEM precisely because of toxic behavior like yours, instead of actively trying to downplay her achievements with misinformation, her infectious enthusiasm was an opportunity that should've been celebrated and serve as a role model for others to get into STEM. Instead your comments have been used to tarnish the entire HN community and industry overall. I hope you think of that next time you try to jump in and quickly tarnish the achievements of others, esp. when you have no comprehension of their efforts, achievements and ground breaking research [3].

[1] https://twitter.com/thisgreyspirit/status/111651854496183091...

[2] https://twitter.com/NatureNews/status/1116370136800296965

[3] https://people.csail.mit.edu/klbouman/

Maybe because it's the first ever photo of a black hole, was widely anticipated, and was published by pretty much every news organisation and was on the cover of many of them, before any interviews with her came out?

I look forward to people digging into the publication record of every Nobel Laureate next year on this site, arguing about which of them were real.

papers from Science and Nature appear hear all the time.

Regardless of all the other problems with this comment, your statement of "she doesn't have any commits" is wrong. Simply not all of her commits are linked to her GitHub account. https://github.com/klbouman/hopstools/commits/master?after=2...

I think you're looking in the wrong place. I don't see anywhere in the eat github repository where there is code similar to the CHIRP algorithm (correct me if I'm wrong). I'd be interested in seeing the actual code used to generate the image (certainly the eat repo was used, but it doesn't look to be the main algorithm?) It looks more plausible that the algorithm is in eht-imaging (https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging), but I haven't looked deeply enough yet. She contributed a lot more to that repo. And having said all that, # lines/commits isn't as important as the algorithm

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact