Comment by j16sdiz
12 hours ago
I am very confused by calling this kind of work "researches".
They are not pushing the boundary of human knowledge - they are playing game (reverse engineering) with other human.. maybe that is me having a very narrow definition of "research"
What you are talking about is sometimes called "basic research":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_research
I actually do a phd in a closely related area. Creating better tools to do research with is definitely part of the research process. While there is a lot of work in general operating systems, those aimed to specifically do a lot of microarchitectural experiments is still undiscovered ground.
Security researcher is a common term, there's also market research which doesn't look like it falls under your definition
I think I see your point: how can you "research" something that was carefully constructed by highly skilled engineers and scientists who have access to every design document, artifact, and test used to build the CPU.
I don't have an answer to your question but I think you're being unfairly downvoted.
Feel free to suggest a more suitable word. Research is usually defined against the the body of knowledge of the entity performing it and not all of humanity that ever lived.
Yet a published peer-reviewed research should be against humanity. I am also curious whether such research can bring knowledge that apple don't know, otherwise even it is impressive, there is a level of sadness in it from my view.
No it's against what's published by all of humanity. So if somebody knows something and hasn't published it, someone else can still scoop them.
Yes your definition of research is incorrect.