The problem isn't who we praise, it's who we don't praise.
Maybe we live in a different world today but my sense is scientific innovation happens in a very different way from the genius model.
Sometime long ago I came across an article arguing that we've replaced the concept of a saint with a genius, as the worldview shifted from religion to science. It was very compelling.
Increasingly I feel like there's only collective recognition. If you're too far ahead of the curve or behind it's all the same. Being at the curve just means you're recognizing everything at the same time as everyone else.
I wonder if you just asked 1000 people to draw a spiral without any other context, would there be some handedness/chirality to the drawings? My guess is there would be.
Yeah the author seems to be approaching their overall argument by first establishing that there's no primary source evidence from the time of castle building that the defense theory is true. He seems to be trying to establish that the argument for it is modern and therefore just as good or bad as any other.
I wish he would delve into things more but it seems reasonable to me to first establish where the defense theory first came from.
That theory doesn't have any ground, but I am more interested what makes people believe that there is such theory. Nobody today claims, that everything that is written in a Bible is true, why would there such belief without any doubt to something that someone claimed just 100 years ago?
re: mutability you just have the standard be that the document being linked to is a sort of wrapper to the actual one. My guess is this is really what's going on with doi anyway.
But you're correct that the mutability issue is sort of a tricky one.
Journals, even prominent ones, change names for all sorts of reasons. It doesn't happen often but it does happen. The meaningfulness issue can cut both ways.
I think the real problem is the centralized vs federated vs distributed nature of it. IPFS is a good example of how that could have looked; not sure if it could be moved into that space somehow (I'm sure it could in theory, but in practice?)
tbh I'm not dyslexic and realized the spaces make it really difficult to know what the filename actually is. If you just take the second example, how would you know if the file was "this is my config.txt" versus "config.txt"?
Aside from parsing errors it just seems to lend itself to ambiguity.
This. People are saying spaces improve ergonomics. Unless everyone always quotes their paths in documentation, emails, etc -- which they won't -- I say it actually reduces readability.
Also programs automatically that turn paths into links don't work with spaces.
Tesla clearly deserves a lot of credit but I think the EV space is a lot more fluid than some Tesla proponents would have you believe.
As EV adoption increases into more markets, buyers are going to be more price conscious, and plenty of makers (most of the big companies?) already have a foot in this space. Add missteps with safety or reliability in the long term (see: defrauding the Dutch government and the public about safety) and I think things might change quickly. Tesla isn't going anywhere but the idea that Tesla is the future EV market seems dishonest, naive, or both.
