Here's our "Sora's Annotated Diffusion Transformer" writeup (code+paper side-by-side) Link: https://leetarxiv.substack.com/p/the-annotated-diffusion-tra...

The authors suggest:

> Identify your target audience to tailor your message! Use diverse communication channels beyond papers, and actively engage with practitioners to foster dialogue rather than broadcasting information!

What I would emphasize is that many researchers just don't know how to do it. It isn't as simple as just thinking up a target audience and churning out a blog post. If you are the median researcher, ~0 people will read that post!

I think people underestimate:

- How hard it is to find the right target audience - How hard it is to understand the target audience's language - How hard it is to persuade the target reader that this work you've done should matter even a little to their work, even when you designed it specifically for them - How few people in the audience will ever understand your work well - How narrow your target audience should be

I also think many researchers want to be able to, if not as a primary career goal then at least as a fulfilling, public service type activity. Currently testing this out a bit (more: https://griffens.net).

Till today I still share with my coworkers this 15yo article from Microsoft Research:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/exploding-soft...

We need more New Scientist type magazine like things that do decent round ups of scientific findings for various fields that do a good job of shuffling through the thousands of papers a month and finding the highest impact papers. The pipeline from research to use in professions can drastically be improved. At the moment you end up having a hosepipe of abstracts and its a lot of time to review that daily.

It would be great to see an updated edition.

Do you know a better source of information?

Based on this and other articles (and on experience), it's an especially underutilized resource. By reading it, you would gain an advantage over competition. Why aren't you using this advantage that is there for the taking?

And why don't we see papers posted to HN?

How to Have Real-World Impact: Five “Easy” Pieces - https://emeryberger.medium.com/how-to-have-real-world-impact...

The expectation that a practicing CS graduate, even with a master's degree, should be able to read, understand, and apply in their work research articles published in academic journals is not very meaningful.

Not because they are not capable people, but because research articles these days are highly specialized, building upon specialized fields, language, etc.

We don't expect mechanical engineers read latest research on fluid mechanics, say, making use of Navier-Stokes equations. I am a mechanical engineer with a graduate degree in another field and I would be immediately lost if I tried to read such an article. So why do we expect this from software engineers?

https://youtube.com/@twominutepapers?si=hyvCvW4UwS0QBbrZ

> Thanks to software research, we know that most code comprehensibility metrics do not, in practice, reflect what they are supposed to measure.

Linked research doesn't really agree. But if it did, so?

If comprehensibility is not a simple metric then who's got a magic wand to do the fancy feedback? Sounds like it'd take a human/AGI which is useless, that's why we have metrics.

Are any real programmers who produce things for the world using comprehensibility metrics or is it all the university fakers and their virtual world they have created?

If this is their 'one example' it sucks.