>>11338537Dude, while RF and the like are still classic EE, a lot of information, protocol, and communication research happens in the CS departments of the world. I mean, you really wouldn’t have seen any proof or protocol like PAXOS come from somewhere else, and the information theory EE departments teach is usually insanely watered down.
On the topic of mechanisms - it’s almost entirely what
>>11336843 said. Mechanisms and hardware knowledge are important, but due to the rapid maturation of the field and ease in manufacturing process, that role is diminishing in many places that aren’t intel or any other competitive, limited markets. The magic is two sided - bury the physical components and the actual mathematically precise system / theorems that actually take use of the resources, and those come from two departments typically, not one. The whole push is in fact away from hardware specific application since scalability, generality, and large scale problems are what companies are interested in solving for their ventures, and that line of engineering / research lies in applying CS as well as specialized knowledge you would learn as an intern or hire.
So when it really comes down it, yes noise stability in our systems is a good thing and appreciated, but
1) there are way more problems to solve that are fundamentally hard in different ways
2) the accomplishments and careers of old EE’s are not usually comparable to the average - you’re bragging about what is now boiler plate knowledge
3) noise stability research has been part of CS departments in communication complexity as well as actually understanding complexity and theory of learning and information
