Late Stage Academia

This paper is truly unique. They only start mentioning statistical analysis of their random samples at the END of the paper in a separate section (probably the one reviewer that currently owns the shared brain cell asked them for that). But they then state that their calculated results (how did they calculate them?) are not statistically significant (what alpha?) and then just say there is a 'high probability' their results are not noise (what p-value did you even calculate? What is a 'high probability'?).

We're inching each day closer to the defamation lawsuit from Scientology that claims that computer science gives the word "Science" a bad rep.

This fuzzing paper uses N=1 when collecting random samples. A fun fact to get over this sad reality: The (missing) p-value of this paper matches the number of brain cells of the people that blindly accepted this.

DARPA announced that from now on they'll just directly burn their research funding in the first furnace they can find.

Bonus points: The director's paper list shows exactly how disqualified they are to run this program. Related joke: "What's the difference between a normal person and an academic? The former knows nothing, and the latter doesn't even know that."

Let's kick this off: This paper is literally just a bug report.

It's always a good idea to start by admitting a mistake: I was wrong to think that endpoint security software is useless. In fact, it probably did more over the last weeks to stop climate change than all the bogus sustainability companies.