It does indeed sound like a typical misleading PR statement, made intentionally vague by not specifying who “we” is even supposed to refer to exactly in this context. But to be fair, although it is kind of applied, it doesn’t explicitly claim that those scientists are actively working on Proton as software developers (or anything really).
I know this originally came from CERN, but I find it hard to believe those same folks are working on this now.
As far as I can tell only two of the three founders that “met at CERN” (the about page doesn’t say they worked there as scientists) still work at the company: the CEO Andy Yen and Jason Stockman who does apparently work on the UI and websites, although I’m not sure if the latter is actually a “scientist”. The last co-founder Wei Sun worked at CERN as a student, but left the company already back in 2014.
While I don’t particularly agree with the sentiment, those in the field of Computer Science could be argued to be “scientists”, though often not in the classical sense. As a Computer Science major myself, I would never consider myself a “scientist” in the classical definition of the term. Those involved in actual research, yes, though that does not describe me despite the title of my Bachelor’s. I would consider those involved in the theoretical side of Computer Science to be more akin to mathematicians, as most of the theory is based in mathematical proofs and models (take for instance the field describing formal computational models as a means to defining how computers operate, and how effective specific algorithms are in that context). Though I could understand the argument that those involved heavily in the theoretical side of Computer Science may be considered scientists, given their similarity to theoretical physicists. In that sense, there is also active experimentation to test hypotheses about algorithmic runtime. It’s a fascinating niche of Computer Science that I studied briefly in university, but likely will not be pursuing in the future.
Generally those involved with active development of commercial software don’t fit into that category, though. It’s very much a question of semantics.
What? App developers are scientists now?
I know this originally came from CERN, but I find it hard to believe those same folks are working on this now.
It does indeed sound like a typical misleading PR statement, made intentionally vague by not specifying who “we” is even supposed to refer to exactly in this context. But to be fair, although it is kind of applied, it doesn’t explicitly claim that those scientists are actively working on Proton as software developers (or anything really).
As far as I can tell only two of the three founders that “met at CERN” (the about page doesn’t say they worked there as scientists) still work at the company: the CEO Andy Yen and Jason Stockman who does apparently work on the UI and websites, although I’m not sure if the latter is actually a “scientist”. The last co-founder Wei Sun worked at CERN as a student, but left the company already back in 2014.
While I don’t particularly agree with the sentiment, those in the field of Computer Science could be argued to be “scientists”, though often not in the classical sense. As a Computer Science major myself, I would never consider myself a “scientist” in the classical definition of the term. Those involved in actual research, yes, though that does not describe me despite the title of my Bachelor’s. I would consider those involved in the theoretical side of Computer Science to be more akin to mathematicians, as most of the theory is based in mathematical proofs and models (take for instance the field describing formal computational models as a means to defining how computers operate, and how effective specific algorithms are in that context). Though I could understand the argument that those involved heavily in the theoretical side of Computer Science may be considered scientists, given their similarity to theoretical physicists. In that sense, there is also active experimentation to test hypotheses about algorithmic runtime. It’s a fascinating niche of Computer Science that I studied briefly in university, but likely will not be pursuing in the future.
Generally those involved with active development of commercial software don’t fit into that category, though. It’s very much a question of semantics.
I’d never admit it irl or to anyone I know because it’s petty. But it bothers me when cs people refer to themselves as engineers.
Referring to themselves as scientists would seriously be a step past that.