tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post602285992105903763..comments2024-03-28T18:17:00.135-05:00Comments on Computational Complexity: A Theorist Goes to SOSPLance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-56176439088484117242013-11-08T17:27:10.686-06:002013-11-08T17:27:10.686-06:00there is more trust that ACM will preserve the pap...there is more trust that ACM will preserve the papers in the very long run?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-59406784210807847272013-11-07T15:14:26.029-06:002013-11-07T15:14:26.029-06:00Sigh. As someone who has gone to systems-y confer...Sigh. As someone who has gone to systems-y conferences (though I've never been to SOSP, I've been to SIGCOMM and some others) I find your enjoying yourself unsurprising. They generally have very good papers and talks. There's generally lots of good theory work at systems conferences -- though it wouldn't get the attention of most of the theory community. Their conferences get high attendance so there's plenty of people to talk to. They're also fun people. <br /><br />The "practical proof-based verifiable computing" paper you missed is excellent work by a group that's been working in parallel (and, more recently, in conjunction) with (my now-graduated student) Justin Thaler, which naturally has a lot of theory behind it, and the challenges (both theoretical and practical) are how to push the theory to a desirable system. <br /><br />I'd expect there to be more collaborations of that type between systems and theory -- and certainly there are some going on all the time -- but for the most part the two communities don't communicate and pay attention to each other. (Actually, I think the systems people are better at paying attention to us than the other way around; I think they know a good theoretical attack for a real problem will mean a good publication, while on the theory side, coming up with an algorithm for a real problem is not necessarily helpful and sometimes outright harmful to your publication chances at a theory conference.) <br /><br />Constructively, perhaps the NSF should set up a grant specifically to fund theorists going to systems conferences for the first time and systems people going to theory conferences for the first time. That seems like a possibly effective and relatively cheap way to get the communities to communicate more. (Yes, at most universities, ostensibly a theorist could walk down the hall to talk to a systems person, or vice versa, but generally that doesn't actually happen.)Michael Mitzenmacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06738274256402616703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-77377094876444512442013-11-07T10:00:50.112-06:002013-11-07T10:00:50.112-06:00Interesting post -- thank you. I'm sorry, but...Interesting post -- thank you. I'm sorry, but I can't resist the troll bait: what exactly is the service that ACM offered in exchange for $1100/paper? Could this service not have been offered much more cheaply by arxiv.org or some other competitor?Gus Gutoskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03628831803367865213noreply@blogger.com