I think the parent was complaining that things which definitely have nothing to do with STEM fields (sci-fi and star wars) were interspersed with things that are germanely related (computer parts and tech magazines).
You wouldn't fault an anatomy course for having skeletons in the room or a Physics classroom for having copies of Science laying around, so the parent argues that it's also weird to tell technology educators not to display computer hardware (for instance).
FWIW I ultimately agree with you. Computer hardware and pop sci/tech trade rags have nothing at all to do with most of the Computer Science field.
> things which definitely have nothing to do with STEM fields (sci-fi and star wars)
I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly. Many enter these industries because of their love for sci-fi. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Space X or NASA employee who wouldn't attribute at least some of their aspiration to the creations of Carl Sagan or Gene Rodenberry.
True but incomplete. Some of us got interested in scientific fields because we were interested in science (not science fiction). For me, it was a good teacher at a critical time in HS. Not a role model, as I did not and really do not wish to be a teacher. But somebody who opened a door into something that excited me.
Could you square that circle for me where you are interested in science, but not science fiction? I'm not talking about science fantasy, but fiction rooted in science and the ramifications of scientific development.
This isn't strange at all. I interact with scientists fairly regularly and very few are fans of science fiction in any sense of the phrase.
Most scientists are normal people with an aptitude for a certain discipline, enjoy working on interesting problems, and had the luck of having encountered a mentor or two who steered them toward research. None of the ideas that drive the creation of sci fi are necessary to be a scientist. It really is just another career.
In fact, I can't think of a single scientist I (personally) know who became a scientist because of sci fi. (Which isn't to say that they don't exist.)
I'm a scientist who doesn't like sci fi much. I don't hate it, I enjoy some of it, but not the genre as a whole. I like Star Wars for the big pew pew spaceships as much as anybody but I don't like Star Trek at all.
To me, a lot of it just comes across as unimaginative. Oh sure, we've travelled half way across the galaxy to meet an alien race and it turns out they're Space Russians, or Space Jews. Maybe Space Ancient Romans for a change.
While I have read science fiction, it's not high on my list. I prefer various forms of history to SF and I have read one fantasy series (Katherine Kurtz). Perhaps I just prefer to look backwards to understand today (and the near future) rather than far off to anticipate the future? I think I'm more of a problem solver than a visionary.
I also have a problem with anything where the science (or engineering, I guess) isn't right or consistent in my eyes. I find such things TERRIBLY distracting, slaughtering what might otherwise be a good story. Anal, yeah, but then you probably suspected this as this is HN, after all.
No one's being called out. I'm curious about how it works, so I asked. Thankfully not everyone here is as reactionary as you, and I actually learned something.
I don't think any of the things mentioned need to be in a compscie class. At least on my university neither architecture nor math departments were littered with popculture references, yet compsci was. And math and architects dressed better ;)
You wouldn't fault an anatomy course for having skeletons in the room or a Physics classroom for having copies of Science laying around, so the parent argues that it's also weird to tell technology educators not to display computer hardware (for instance).
FWIW I ultimately agree with you. Computer hardware and pop sci/tech trade rags have nothing at all to do with most of the Computer Science field.