perhaps , but having some opinions shared is also a kind of guidance for people who don’t have access to the mathematics establishment. plus, if anyone can just shrug off that type of “told you so” nonsense it surely must be tao.
> Hinton and LeCun intentionally failed to cite prior work by others (including himself)
This is a well established and easy to verify fact.
A peer of mine from Hinton's lab once told a story of how one researcher (presumably from his lab or from one of his coworker's lab) intentionally mispelled citations so that the author's citation count does not go up on google-scholar, citeseer etc.
One of the underappreciated causes and effects of the industrial revolution is the precision that's around us all the time. To make that piece of paper required thousands of precision surfaces, rollers, etc.
And oh how we take it for granted. I recently spent a few minutes trying to make sense of a situation where I was using a corner of a paper for a square. It turned out the piece of paper was not at all square, at least a quarter of an inch out of square!
One important lesson I remember from high school woodworking class ~45 years ago - when using a set square, make your markings twice with the square flipped over in the opposite direction, so if the square isn't accurate you'll get two distinct markings - and for most wood working purposes just splitting the difference by eye will be accurate enough.
Sure, this would probably work with nice handmade paper. But you won't necessarily get a clean fold with thicker or uneven paper, and depending on fiber length and distribution you might get waviness or other issues
Read all the M series of competitions and the papers that come out of those exercises. Read Keogh. Also have a healthy respect and understanding of the traditional methods rather than getting distracted by all that happens to be shiny now.
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=weaving
For some more. Not all are related to fabrics.