> There will be false positives and negatives. Lots.
And as usual, the people who appear to be targetted with the laws (the four digital horsemen) will figure out simple workarounds, so the laws really only harm honest people.
I think the original article makes a plausible case that the plastic bag ban was a contributing factor to this outbreak. That's irrelevant to the point I was making in the comment however.
I'd be careful reading it: Kuhn is excellent at building narratives, and what is more narrative friendly than revolution? In reality science is far more messy than he acknowledges.
Unfortunately while I think many of Kuhn's observations are interesting, I'm confused what you think scientists might learn from them. After all, the work in question is science, not philosophy of science, and frankly it seems a lot of time like the latter gets in the way of work (see: Popper's radical empiricism). Poetic? Sure. Useful? Difficult to see how.... Mostly his work seems useful for bolstering the credibility of speculative Popular Science articles (or Axios in this case).
Oh well I didn't think I'd applied any subjective notion to my recognition that it sounds like the paradigmatic event that Kohn describes. And having recently gone through the book it was the first thing I noticed.
My admiration for Hinton there lay separate from my remark about Kuhn.
I'm not quite sure where you got that I think scientists must learn from Kuhn's observations. But I will say, that while it's kept me away from my other studies (for the obvious displacement of reading one thing and not the other), I don't see the harm in indulging in such reflection. But my background isn't engineering, mathematics, or physical sciences before my more recent work. It's in humanities and the arts where multidisciplinary studies are encouraged. I suppose I'll probably always carry that with me. If nothing else, perspective is a good thing to have -- and not all thoughts, reflections, or ideas entertained need be engaged.
At any rate, the book was recommended and I try to remain open minded.
> In reality science is far more messy than he acknowledges.
Funny you should say that. I take Kuhn's whole point to be that science is far messier than the empiricists acknowledge. What is the complication that you think Kuhn overlooks?
> And even if you can, then you need to rent a car just to get around, or spend several hundred dollars on Uber/Lyft.
> Are you joking or describing LA?
Los Angeles and Orange County is spread out over about 60 miles.
Perhaps the average distance between 2 interesting neighborhoods, is about 20 miles, give or take. So you live in one neighborhood, but you have activities in another area.
The cost of taking Uber for 20 miles, is about $30. So the roundtrip will cost $60. Add a few of these trips together, and you'll quickly hit a few hundred dollars. At that point, you might as well just rent a car.
> Gibbs said in the TLS article that he did his research for an unnamed "television network." Given that Gibbs' main claim to fame before this article was a series of books about how to write and sell television screenplays, it seems that his goal in this research was probably to sell a television screenplay of his own. In 2015, Gibbs did an interview where he said that in five years, "I would like to think I could have a returnable series up and running." Considering the dubious accuracy of many History Channel "documentaries," he might just get his wish.
Welp, this just killed any interest I had even if his idea was intriguing.
> Sure, dlopen does tons of more stuff behind the scenes, but ultimately it is about loading bunch of bytes into memory and executing those as functions.
That's pretty much mprotect, though. dlopen mostly does the other things, and it does a lot.
And as usual, the people who appear to be targetted with the laws (the four digital horsemen) will figure out simple workarounds, so the laws really only harm honest people.