I am writing a paper explaining that carbon-aware computing (moving data centre load to when/where emissions are low) is a distraction. I had the draft reviewed by a colleague, and it is clear that the paper will be rejected for lack of rigour.
I am a senior academic and I know about originality, significance and rigour. I know the paper is rigorous, but that is beside the points: the reviewers can easily criticise it for not being so, and that is what matters.
#FrugalComputing
(1/n)
I am a senior academic and I know about originality, significance and rigour. I know the paper is rigorous, but that is beside the points: the reviewers can easily criticise it for not being so, and that is what matters.
(2/n)
This gets me thinking: this is how we lose. The tech industry can push "solutions" like this carbon-aware computing without having to justify anything. But as an academic, if I want to contest them through a scientific publication, the standards have to be very high. So high that I can't meet them in practice.
(3/n)
#FrugalComputing
If I want to optimise for academic performance I should not write such a paper. I should stick to safe topics that are much harder to reject. That way I can get a good publication track record. But I will achieve nothing.
(4/n)
This is why I write blog posts, as they reach a wider audience and therefore have more potential to change anything.
But I know that a blog post does not carry the same weight as a scientific paper, even if it has exactly the same content (I have done the experiment).
So that is how we lose.
(5/n=5)
#FrugalComputing
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
