Did not expected this kind of discrimination after the acquisition by google.
\nI was expecting that google would help in making kaggle technically strong. But what is this?
Did not expected this kind of discrimination after the acquisition by google.
\nI was expecting that google would help in making kaggle technically strong. But what is this?
I first heard about this competition in this tweet and when I read about the discrimination I didn't believe first, but when I came here I was chocked with the competition rules, you made a good question, what's happening with kaggle? This king of things aren't healthy for the progress of science.
", "rawMarkdown": "I first heard about this competition in [this tweet][1] and when I read about the discrimination I didn't believe first, but when I came here I was chocked with the competition rules, you made a good question, what's happening with kaggle? This king of things aren't healthy for the progress of science. \n\n\n [1]: https://twitter.com/drfeifei/status/877943948991279104", "votes": null }, { "id": "195589", "postDate": "06/24/2017 05:33:13", "content": "Let's take this back a step. The U.S. Government approaches Kaggle, asks them to host a competition, and ponies up prize money with the stipulation that only those who are eligible to receive federal award monies can win the prize.\nKaggle then has the choice of rejecting the request on the grounds that prize money should be available to all participants, or accepts the U.S.'s terms.
\n\nLet's say Kaggle rejects this. The competition continues on the Federal S.A.M. website (System for Award Management). The competition doesn't attract the attention that it otherwise would, and a fairly advanced image processing ML project mainly stays in the realm of the usual government contractors (Bain, Deloitte, Booz Hamilton) and the handful of graduate CS and ML departments that have strong enough ties to learn about it. The state of science isn't helped by this, students aren't helped by this, and probably the desired results aren't achieved. And still, no one who isn't a U.S. resident benefits from the competition.
\n\nHas Kaggle gained a moral high ground? I'd argue not, because the discrimination in this instance is not based on power structures, nor on prejudice, but on the approved use of funds. Discrimination - the differential treatment of entrants on some basis other than performance - is already allowed in competitions such as Zillow's (which refuses entry by workers in real estate), and currently no one who lives in the 13 countries that are embargoed by the U.S. can receive prize money.
\n\nWhat if a small nation such as Ireland or Estonia wanted to encourage the growth of ML in their own country by hosting on Kaggle with prize money only for their own citizens - would this be discrimination or a smart use of limited resources? What if the Urban League wanted a competition with prize money for minorities who are under-represented in ML, to encourage greater participation without fear of being crowded-out? Or if Launch Code sponsored one aimed at female participants? Clearly these are treating participants differently on the basis of gender or ethnicity, but would you say 'discrimination' in the same tone as you do now?
", "rawMarkdown": "Let's take this back a step. The U.S. Government approaches Kaggle, asks them to host a competition, and ponies up prize money with the stipulation that only those who are eligible to receive federal award monies can win the prize.\nKaggle then has the choice of rejecting the request on the grounds that prize money should be available to all participants, or accepts the U.S.'s terms. \n\nLet's say Kaggle rejects this. The competition continues on the Federal S.A.M. website (System for Award Management). The competition doesn't attract the attention that it otherwise would, and a fairly advanced image processing ML project mainly stays in the realm of the usual government contractors (Bain, Deloitte, Booz Hamilton) and the handful of graduate CS and ML departments that have strong enough ties to learn about it. The state of science isn't helped by this, students aren't helped by this, and probably the desired results aren't achieved. And still, no one who isn't a U.S. resident benefits from the competition.\n\nHas Kaggle gained a moral high ground? I'd argue not, because the discrimination in this instance is not based on power structures, nor on prejudice, but on the approved use of funds. Discrimination - the differential treatment of entrants on some basis other than performance - is already allowed in competitions such as Zillow's (which refuses entry by workers in real estate), and currently no one who lives in the 13 countries that are embargoed by the U.S. can receive prize money.\n\nWhat if a small nation such as Ireland or Estonia wanted to encourage the growth of ML in their own country by hosting on Kaggle with prize money only for their own citizens - would this be discrimination or a smart use of limited resources? What if the Urban League wanted a competition with prize money for minorities who are under-represented in ML, to encourage greater participation without fear of being crowded-out? Or if Launch Code sponsored one aimed at female participants? Clearly these are treating participants differently on the basis of gender or ethnicity, but would you say 'discrimination' in the same tone as you do now?", "votes": null } ], "comments": [ { "id": 195519, "author_name": "davidfumo", "author_url": "", "post_date": "06/23/2017 19:51:38", "content": "I first heard about this competition in this tweet and when I read about the discrimination I didn't believe first, but when I came here I was chocked with the competition rules, you made a good question, what's happening with kaggle? This king of things aren't healthy for the progress of science.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 195589, "author_name": "jeremyloscheider", "author_url": "", "post_date": "06/24/2017 05:33:13", "content": "Let's take this back a step. The U.S. Government approaches Kaggle, asks them to host a competition, and ponies up prize money with the stipulation that only those who are eligible to receive federal award monies can win the prize.\nKaggle then has the choice of rejecting the request on the grounds that prize money should be available to all participants, or accepts the U.S.'s terms.
\n\nLet's say Kaggle rejects this. The competition continues on the Federal S.A.M. website (System for Award Management). The competition doesn't attract the attention that it otherwise would, and a fairly advanced image processing ML project mainly stays in the realm of the usual government contractors (Bain, Deloitte, Booz Hamilton) and the handful of graduate CS and ML departments that have strong enough ties to learn about it. The state of science isn't helped by this, students aren't helped by this, and probably the desired results aren't achieved. And still, no one who isn't a U.S. resident benefits from the competition.
\n\nHas Kaggle gained a moral high ground? I'd argue not, because the discrimination in this instance is not based on power structures, nor on prejudice, but on the approved use of funds. Discrimination - the differential treatment of entrants on some basis other than performance - is already allowed in competitions such as Zillow's (which refuses entry by workers in real estate), and currently no one who lives in the 13 countries that are embargoed by the U.S. can receive prize money.
\n\nWhat if a small nation such as Ireland or Estonia wanted to encourage the growth of ML in their own country by hosting on Kaggle with prize money only for their own citizens - would this be discrimination or a smart use of limited resources? What if the Urban League wanted a competition with prize money for minorities who are under-represented in ML, to encourage greater participation without fear of being crowded-out? Or if Launch Code sponsored one aimed at female participants? Clearly these are treating participants differently on the basis of gender or ethnicity, but would you say 'discrimination' in the same tone as you do now?
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "195496": "Did not expected this kind of discrimination after the acquisition by google. \nI was expecting that google would help in making kaggle technically strong. But what is this?", "195519": "I first heard about this competition in [this tweet][1] and when I read about the discrimination I didn't believe first, but when I came here I was chocked with the competition rules, you made a good question, what's happening with kaggle? This king of things aren't healthy for the progress of science. \n\n\n [1]: https://twitter.com/drfeifei/status/877943948991279104", "195589": "Let's take this back a step. The U.S. Government approaches Kaggle, asks them to host a competition, and ponies up prize money with the stipulation that only those who are eligible to receive federal award monies can win the prize.\nKaggle then has the choice of rejecting the request on the grounds that prize money should be available to all participants, or accepts the U.S.'s terms. \n\nLet's say Kaggle rejects this. The competition continues on the Federal S.A.M. website (System for Award Management). The competition doesn't attract the attention that it otherwise would, and a fairly advanced image processing ML project mainly stays in the realm of the usual government contractors (Bain, Deloitte, Booz Hamilton) and the handful of graduate CS and ML departments that have strong enough ties to learn about it. The state of science isn't helped by this, students aren't helped by this, and probably the desired results aren't achieved. And still, no one who isn't a U.S. resident benefits from the competition.\n\nHas Kaggle gained a moral high ground? I'd argue not, because the discrimination in this instance is not based on power structures, nor on prejudice, but on the approved use of funds. Discrimination - the differential treatment of entrants on some basis other than performance - is already allowed in competitions such as Zillow's (which refuses entry by workers in real estate), and currently no one who lives in the 13 countries that are embargoed by the U.S. can receive prize money.\n\nWhat if a small nation such as Ireland or Estonia wanted to encourage the growth of ML in their own country by hosting on Kaggle with prize money only for their own citizens - would this be discrimination or a smart use of limited resources? What if the Urban League wanted a competition with prize money for minorities who are under-represented in ML, to encourage greater participation without fear of being crowded-out? Or if Launch Code sponsored one aimed at female participants? Clearly these are treating participants differently on the basis of gender or ethnicity, but would you say 'discrimination' in the same tone as you do now?" }, "source": "meta" }