Suvrit Sra

@kmborgwardt @ElsevierConnect FWIW exposing their behavior on twitter might be not 100% a bad idea....though it may likely have the opposite of the desired consequences.....

Dear @ElsevierConnect, if one experiences extremely unprofessional behavior from an editor-in-chief of one of your scientific journals, is there a central, independent unit or person one can report this to, to look into the matter?

@roydanroy That explains your twitter prolificity...!

How much coffee do people drink? Curious to hear from those on the high side because I’m wondering whether I drink way too much.

@JeffDean This is a textbook example from "How to lie with statistics", albeit a bit too blatant; imagine if they tried the trick of using 3D representations, Latvian women would appear to have 100 times the volume / weight of their Indian counterparts! 🥴

This graphic is appallingly bad. A height difference of 5" (~10%) translates into a visual appearance difference of, perhaps, 4X in height and 10-15X in area. Terrifying gang of international giant ladies, indeed.

The startup @macroeyeshealth, co-founded by Suvrit Sra of IDSS and LIDS, uses #artificialintelligence to improve #vaccine delivery and patient scheduling. #AI bit.ly/3j6E982

Presenting a recent work "Strength from Weakness: Fast Learning Using Weak Supervision" at ICML today at 11am ET, and again at midnight. Come along to my poster to find out more!

@sineadwilliamso @NeurIPSConf I mean, supply this explanation now (post-hoc), so that affected authors may log into CMT to read actual reasons, rather than boilerplate text. Also, ACs be mindful that if you are unable to fairly defend your decision, request reinstating the papers and not use anchoring bias!

@sineadwilliamso Can these "wrongs" be now righted by @NeurIPSConf , for instance, each AC who just clicked "desk reject" is required by the PC to supply a detailed explanation (and thus a constructive, non-junk review) for choosing desk reject? ACs: With great power comes great responsibility...

@NeurIPSConf I think this is the main thing I’d like to see resolved: area chairs should have been required to leave a response. If you’ve read enough to reject, you’ve read enough to write a short review - the time sink is the reading and deciding, not the writing 1/2

@sineadwilliamso @NeurIPSConf I feel this is another grotesque excess @NeurIPSConf is suffering. In fact, despite brilliant efforts on diversity and inclusion, this highly exclusionary measure has been adopted, marginalizing those authors who did not receive proper reasons for the reject, beyond boilerplate.

@sineadwilliamso This is a complete fail of the @NeurIPSConf desk-rejection business (which I felt was already unfair to begin with); I got an email from desperate students today asking what to do, given that the desk reject provides them with absolutely no information about what went wrong. 1/2

Oh, great. Neurips desk reject. If the results are “known results” (I’m pretty confident they aren’t), perhaps the area chair could have made the effort to leave a note telling what they are? 1/n

@roydanroy I was waiting / expecting to hear this news any day (drawing the expectation from twitter signals). Super congratulations to you, and please continue your fearless journey!!! 🎇

Got promoted with tenure at University of Toronto :-) Thankful to my brilliant students, collaborators, and mentors. I can't think of a better place to have landed than Toronto. I took risks without existential fear and struck gold over and over with students in Stats and CS.

@rrwilliams Congratulations Ryan!

Day 2 of being a full (of it) professor: gmail crashing over tenure letter requests

@aminkarbasi @kamalikac @roydanroy @bremen79 are you implying that you..... ;-)

@kamalikac @roydanroy @bremen79 Same applies to people :)

Dear PhD students with a submission to @NeurIPSConf, soon ~20% of you will receive a desk reject. Here some suggestions to deal with it in a healthy way. First, this is not personal: a paper written by you was rejected, not you. Keep your self-worth unlinked from your work. 1/5

@peter_richtarik Wow, that seems pretty high. You're tough!

As a #NeurIPS2020 Area Chair, I am handling 20 submissions. I was asked to suggest about 20% of that (i.e., 4 papers) for desk/rejection. We can suggest less (even nothing) or more. I have flagged 30% (i.e., 6 papers). This may or may not get approved by the Senior AC.

@cheraghchi Reminds me of train travel many years ago between Germany and Switzerland, somehow they always needed to check my "documents". Even worse used to be Stuttgart airport with the Immigration officer bringing out his magnifying glass etc to always "triple check" my documents 😡

@gpassosgomes Great to hear. I've also always had a positive experience traveling to Canada, with welcoming, friendly border officials (traveled mostly for these large ML conferences), impressed each time to be treated as a fellow human.

@roydanroy @mpd37 Indeed!

@mpd37 Indeed is often used to point out a special case. It’s not filler in that case.

@mraginsky @roydanroy @wellingmax Sorry, I don't like too many punctuated thoughts ;-) can't believe you'd go Chicago Manual style here...

So... now that we are giving online talks that are recorded, maybe we can invite junior scholars rather than listen to senior researchers give the same talk for the 20th time.

@JustinMSolomon @aminkarbasi It does happen, but only to those that you don't know about :-)

@aminkarbasi Strangely that never seems to happen!

Just got rejected from a grant I didn’t apply for. I guess that’s more efficient than the usual rejection where you write a proposal first?

@roydanroy @wellingmax Can't believe that you of all people wrote 'your' above!

@wellingmax Your senior when people have seen your talk 5 times already. ;)

Question: Does it make sense to rename the @WhiteHouse? (This might be naive thinking but it seems like it may send a strong symbolic message if implemented.) #BLM