>>13616432I think it's pretty funny how /sci/ flip flops between "CS has no rigor and no math," but if you show them work from any decent computer scientist (ie PhD level), they'll say it isn't CS because only codemonkeying is CS.
Take any selection from the accepted papers from a conference like STOC, FOCS, SODA, etc., and you'll hear "oh these algos don't have application anywhere, CS bad" even though most of these papers solve some specific subproblem used everywhere.
If you take any CS paper about optics, computational imaging, or photonics, they'll immediately say it's really an EE paper and any EE on payroll did all the work. This is especially weird when some top researchers in EE departments have CS PhD's (
https://stanford.edu/~gordonwz/)
It's fun to shit on software kiddies but I legitimately feel like /sci/ harbors ill will towards computer science, the greater academic discipline and body of researchers, for little reason other than "durr code"
