[8e8m]

#15 is copied verbatim. #18, #23, #26, #27, #30 are paraphrased. Most of the other advice have been shared in talks for ages, and are not new advice.

It’s intellectually dishonest for the author to present collective advice as the their own (“I’ve distilled … My perspective”)

[archagon]

Any chance the author contributed to the wikis?

[8e8m]

Nope. It predates the author

[gajjanag]

Welcome to the brave new world these days:

1 - Very few people conduct "proper scholarship", and fail to trace ideas back to their original inception and cite them correctly. This happens time and again in deep learning, where 30+ year old ideas are claimed as "novel" over and over. Many times out of malice by the authors, sometimes out of ignorance.

2 - Peer review in many parts of the industry+research is a joke. Mostly shouldered by early graduate students who don't really know the field well and an incredibly noisy process.

3 - It is common practice now to dump out one's "kitchen sink" of ideas rather than properly refined stuff. Hence the increase in LinkedIn spam, blog spam, arXiv spam style of papers.