hayesbh

There's already a bot for that, if you're into that kind of thing - http://www.deepdrumpf2016.com/about.html

Jim Aspnes also teaches a Randomized Algorithms course, with similarly detailed and well organized notes available: http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/classes/469/notes.pdf

He's a fantastic and engaging lecturer as well. I highly recommend taking a course with him if you have the opportunity.

In general I would normally agree with this sentiment, but they're only looking at top tier conference venues. It's very difficult to pass lackluster work through these places, so it really isn't that terrible of a metric. I would be more interested to see what would happen if they only included double-blind conferences, as name recognition in peer review can help make the rich richer.

As another commenter said, there are few reliable signals that one could really use for this in general, let alone to get a current ranking. Citations are a fine metric but typically it will take a few years for those to really build up on a paper. I would be very interested to see them expand these rankings beyond theoretical CS and into the other disciplines... particularly robotics, where US News doesn't offer a ranking.

It's likely this was classified top secret and SCI (sensitive compartmentalized information). SCI compartments are classified, which is probably what was blacked out. Otherwise, it may indicate a classified partner knowledge sharing program that is classified.

They shipped something to some people, and nothing to others. They shipped me an initially defective pair of cases, said they'd happily replace them, took them back and shut down the company without ever replacing them. These guys took a lot of people's money and left them with nothing to show for it. I've been extremely hesitant to Kickstarter anything since.