If you haven't already, I recommend reading the opinion of Bostock v. Clayton County released today by the Supreme Court:
supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…

It is an absolutely fascinating insight into law in the USA.

It is 172 pages long (~60 excluding refs), but here is a guide (1/N): Pages 1-4: Overall summary of the ruling.
Pages 8-9: Definitions from when the Title VII was originally introduced in 1964
Pages 9-11: How discrimination based on sexual orientation must be _in part_ derived from sex.

If I write a paper one day that is 1/10th as creative and interesting as this one, I will be very happy:
arxiv.org/pdf/1904.11111…

Idea - build a dataset for Monocular Depth Estimation by collecting a set of videos from the "Mannequin Challenge" 1/n Then use motion parallax to infer the depth of all static points (which is possible because everyone/thing in the video is being helpfully very still). This is already cool, but in addition, they use a 2D segmentation model to mask out the people. 2/n

I have a lot of respect for Quoc - his research is extremely influential, creative and far reaching. However, both papers referenced here are cited in the ELMo paper. So this cannot be a complaint of academic attribution.(1/7)

https://twitter.com/quocleix/status/1098417363064508416

So what caused this difference in credit assignment? Why are the ELMo/BERT/OpenAI GPT more credited in current research?

The difference is, code, pre-trained models and open source software. (2/7)