/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.53678216]

In academia there is a system of ranking someone's lifetime achievements called the h-index.
Your h-index score is simply expressed as "Number of papers you have published (x) that have each received x number of citations".
So a person with an h-index of 9 has published, in their lifetimes, 9 papers that have each been cited 9 times. A person with an h-index of 10 has published 10 papers, each of which has been cited 10 times.
So you can see that this doesn't scale linearly. If you have an h-index of 9 as described above, and you release a 10th paper that is cited 10 times, your h-index stays at 9. All 10 of your papers have to have been cited 10 times, just to move your h-index figure up 1 rank.
So what is a good score?
From wikipedia:
>Hirsch estimated that after 20 years a "successful scientist" would have an h-index of 20, an "outstanding scientist" would have an h-index of 40, and a "truly unique" individual would have an h-index of 60.
Dahlia Malkhi, the Chief Research Officer at Chainlink, has an h-index of 61.

Here she is talking about DECO:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJqZQ2_VBzo

[Anonymous No.53678251]

>>53678216
>216

How does Sergey do it?

[Anonymous No.53678269]

>>53678216
Token not needed

[sage No.53678276]

>>53678216
Ok, but when $100?

[Anonymous No.53678298]

>>53678276
2026

[Anonymous No.53678299]

>>53678216
Wowzers, 61? That's really high heckin numberino.

[Anonymous No.53678312]

>>53678269
Using the LINK token to directly pay for access to Chainlink network services is cheaper than using any other asset.

[Anonymous No.53678708]

why do you think we've been so bullish this entire time?

[Anonymous No.53678747]

>>53678708
wtf. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.53678755]

>>53678708
I just feel like I need to say this and be heard and validated: Ari Juels is a fucking faggot. Whenever he writes anything and uses she/her as his automatic pronouns when talking about users I lose a little respect for him, I’m a fucking midwit and I know how to respect the reader enough not to assume *their* gender (see, easy isn’t it?). What the fuck is this faggots problem?

[Anonymous No.53678758]

>>53678755
Alice is a man

[Anonymous No.53678766]

>>53678251

[Anonymous No.53678771]

>>53678216
>>53678708
Thats nothing


She also won the Scientist of the Year award in 2022

[Anonymous No.53678772]

>>53678216
This is probably one of the most unique, maybe the best pitch I've ever heard for a cryptocurrency on /biz/. I've been on this board 6-7 hours a day since 2016.

[Anonymous No.53678793]

>>53678758
We don’t know who satoshi was but it’s clear she was an exceptional individual *achieves spontaneous anal orgasm*

[Anonymous No.53678794]

>>53678216
>>53678708
btfo

[Anonymous No.53678800]

>>53678772
If you've been on this board upwards upwards of 14,000 hours, I don't know if I should trust a single thing you say.

[Anonymous No.53678803]

>>53678216
This is an outright lie. A 60 h-index isn't nearly as rare as op is implying. At the lab I graduated from at a mid-tier state uni pretty much every professor who had been around for 15 years or more had at least a 60 h-index and anyone who had been around for a shorter period were well on their way to 60. It's impressive as an individual achievement but not nearly enough to be a selling point for a project already as large as link.

[Anonymous No.53678811]

satoshi had an "h-index" of 0, just so you know you fucking npcs
>muh academic system!!!

[Anonymous No.53678815]

>>53678216
i went and read about chainlink on wiki and stuff like that bc of this post. now i dont understand the brutal chainlink fudding that takes place on this board.

[Anonymous No.53678823]

>>53678216
>boss music starts playing

[Anonymous No.53678829]

imagine not investing into the top IC3 OGs

just buy LINK & AVAX and you will make it. simple as.

[Anonymous No.53678836]

>>53678794
She isnt smart enough to run a proper startup, thats why she never made it into the IC3 top projects (LINK and AVAX).

[Anonymous No.53678856]

Took two classes (formal verification; probabilistic verification with markov chains) with 2nd guy on pic, sure he's smart but I'd reserve the term outstanding scientist to a nobel winner or some shit like that.

[Anonymous No.53678886]

>>53678216
It really depends on the field and how much everyone cites each other. Also the superstars in the field get on papers they barely do anything for, which is how you get some of these triple digit h index people

[Anonymous No.53678897]

>>53678794
>>53678771
She's a woman though so her score is artificially inflated

[Anonymous No.53678903]

>>53678886
But they're superstars for a reason, retard.

[Anonymous No.53678916]

>>53678312
cheaper while the price is kept low by the 60% premine being sold off.
if chainlink or link holders even so much as try to get a tiny profit out of it, the costs for users skyrocket. at that point you either use cryptographic caching of results (i.e. reducing fees paid to chainlink/holders by 100x+) or you simply use a cheaper system, and depending on the data you need cut out the middlemen entirely.

when every part of the system that people find valuable exists outside of it, your options are exceptionally limited for creating profit. oracles are not a captive market, they're the exact opposite.

[Anonymous No.53678963]

>>53678903
yeah it's called sycophancy and favoritism
works really well in democratic politics too, it's why all the big politicians kids also somehow get elected

I published papers in nature myself and it had nothing to do with the quality of my work, everything with my supervisors connections and what I was willing to do for him

academic peer review, like all modern systems, is sick

[Anonymous No.53678997]

>>53678916
You're retarded.
Link could be $1 trillion per token, and you could still pay someone 1 cent worth of Link.

[Anonymous No.53679004]

>>53678216
>Picrel: 3 years of high school.

What was Steve Wozniak D-Index?

>Those who publish... and Those who DO.

[Anonymous No.53679025]

>>53678815
On the contrary, anon. Now you DO understand it.

[Anonymous No.53679030]

>>53679004
She’s the head of research, anon.

[Anonymous No.53679051]

>>53678216
The irony is that the modern academic environment would have rejected many genuine pioneers because they were not NPCs kek

[Anonymous No.53679064]

> citations
lmao

[Anonymous No.53679069]

>>53679064
Think of it as the boomer equivalent of how many bitchute videos you’ve watched.

[Anonymous No.53679072]

>>53678216
This is just reddit karma for academics. Nothing but a circlejerk.

[Anonymous No.53679101]

>>53679030
Thrown out of CalTech for lack of credentials.

>Learned chemistry in garage.
>Established field of US military rocketry.
>Established JPL.
>Smashed top shelf ass nightly.
>Steals Satanism from Crowley
>Rips a hole in space-time.
>Has lunar crater named after him.

Degrees achieved: Zero.

[Anonymous No.53679162]

>>53679069
https://www.bitchute.com/video/R2hWbszSFXK8/

[Anonymous No.53679170]

>>53678216
h-index is a near useless metric that is primarily driven by the quantity of papers that an author publishes rather than their quality. It also varies heavily by field.
Einstein's h-index while alive was 54 (56 if you count citations up to 2019), if you were to make the claim she has been more impactful in her field than Einstein was in his you'd rightly be considered a retard
t. knower

[Anonymous No.53679181]

>>53679170
>einstein
LOL. I bet you believe in "electrons" too, you idiot.

[Anonymous No.53679182]

>>53678216
So long as professional academics remain a gigantic hebrew cashgrabbing circle jerk to gatekeep the goys and extract from the taxpayers... it deserves as much respect as literally toilet paper.

What have been your contributions to the human race in the last 100 years?

>mRNA and GMO
>Nuclear Weapons
>Marxism
>Mind control
>Relatively
>Transgender procedures
>Economic central planning and hyperinflation

We would have done better to have burned the money for heat.

[Anonymous No.53679193]

>>53679101
You're saying "doing is more valuable than research" but when your job is research, they are the same thing.

[Anonymous No.53679199]

>>53679170
>driven by quantity rather than quality
Getting cited is one of the factors, and is widely considered one of the best metrics of quality.

>Einstein's h-index while alive was 54
The field of science was a lot smaller at the time, so getting cited was not as prevalent as today.

[Anonymous No.53679212]

>>53679069
I worked in med research for a while and credential chasing had made the entire sphere a totally ruined unproductive husk. Just pajeet consultants getting their names on derivative study after derivative study for no reason other than they were a nearby consultant. All studies chosen because of past similar publication. No advancement, no reason just Dr. Gupta Singh CV credential building.

[Anonymous No.53679251]

>>53679193
No.

Besides hypertext, what practical benefits to humanity has this prime example of pure research returned for all the decades of funding funneled toward it?

>Electro-weak theory has absolutely no bearing on the plight of the taxpayers daily lives.

What are they studying at the IAS? <quick look : "Muslims and Jewish philosophy"

Do you honestly believe that any significant technical breakthrough in these institutions (should they actually occur) will actually be shared with the general public? Do you think it would be beneficial or are they generally researching mainly tools for oppression or mental masturbation?

[Anonymous No.53679273]

a jew with hundreds of citations in tranny dilatonics

woop di doo. kys linkers

[Anonymous No.53679281]

>>53679251
LHC is the pursuit of pure knowledge that would not be known were resources not deliberately expended. If there is a practical outcome then great. There are discoveries that have been known for centuries before their true application is found and it changes everything

[Anonymous No.53679334]

>>53679170
>cites Einstein as a metric of what is 'good'
>t. knower
More like t.ranny, fucking faggot, get the fuck off of my board you double nigger.

[Anonymous No.53679352]

>>53679281
I'm not anti research. There is absolutely value to be found, perhaps centuries later.

The question remains, considering the types of people being paid do conduct the research, and they types of research being conducted, do you honestly believe that breakthrough technology would be shared with the public? Or will it be used for the ruling class to maintain their technical advantages over what they consider a disgusting mass of worthless goyim.

If not, then what's the point of paying for it?

Be honest when answering, if only to yourself.