/siberia/ - Off-topic

> Perelman is quoted in a 2006 article in The New Yorker saying that he was disappointed with the ethical standards of the field of mathematics. The article implies that Perelman refers particularly to alleged efforts of Fields medalist Shing-Tung Yau to downplay Perelman's role in the proof and play up the work of Cao and Zhu.
Sounds like he is just butthurt that the Chinese are smarter than him.

people are so desperate to feel that this super duper jeanious is just like them

Speaking of animals, he does look like an earlier step in evolutionary history.

>>528083
that's really disappointing, was hoping it would be someone sticking up for materialism. just an academic dick sucking contest

Prizes such as the Nobel, Fields medal and the Turing award for individuals not only would have never made sense for any time period in human history, but especially right now since all notable discoveries are made by multiple people.
For example, the 2017 Nobel prize in physics was awarded to 3 people (max number per prize) for the LIGO and Virgo detections of gravitational waves, even though the full list of contributors is in the triple digits and can be found here:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26918975/
>>528083
>>528141
Yau was indeed wrong, which is why the medal was offered to Perleman in the first place.
Academia in general is a pretty clique-ish place filled with prestige-seeking & careerist narcissists who are only looking for glory for themselves or their friends, and getting the prize for your respective field is considered the highest career goal.
Whether Perleman has the same reasons as you and me for opposing this practice, it doesn't really matter since he still decided to not play the game after seeing how petty and stupid it is.
Also just a reminder that "muh country" nationalism when it comes to this shit is too a part of the problem.

>>528150
Three pages of authors for a 16 page paper… That's bullshit too. They add everyone and their mothers to the authors to game the fucked up funding rules.

>>528159
…it's not based on who exactly wrote the paper but instead on who contributed to the LIGO and Virgo collaboration, you know? That is indeed a lot of people and it would've actually been even more if they included very minor contributors.
The paper itself is just reporting the detection and providing the data. No reason for it to be long.

>>528177
Then put them in acknowledgements not as authors.

>>528179
In scientific writing that section is usually only used for funding disclosures. Sometimes it is indeed used to put in the names of peripheral staff who contributed indirectly, but not always. How a paper is organised is not really formally standardised. Even IMRAD is just a meme and not necessary if the journal doesn't mind.

What is considered formal is that anyone who had directly contributed to a study/project should be put on the authors list. This usually isn't a problem for your average paper with ~4 authors, but it's indeed not made to deal with large projects like this. This is not something they could've tried to fix, but more of a critique of the way scientific literature is organised in general.
Speaking of which, shit like "lead author" who is used when citing the stuff is also pretty bad and not different from Nobel prizes and the like. More Great Man shit.