4 ms·
> It is clear that WW has no relevance just as Zuckerberg to science. > Also, comparing one of the most respected human minds of all time to a simply grotesque
by csdvrx 5y ago
> It is clear that WW has no relevance just as Zuckerberg to science.
> Also, comparing one of the most respected human minds of all time to a simply grotesquely powerful active living person this way is something that is very distasteful from a news publication.
A more generous interpretation could be that on social networks, emergent properties are hard to predict beforehand with theory, and require observation of the actual phenomenon. That's actually behind a large body of scientific work, the best known being agent-based models.
Also I think it's biased to simpy discard the scientific contribution of FANGs with emotionally loaded words like "grotesquely": from algorithms to new methods, there's much good to be found in what large companies (that you may like or dislike) have done.
- igorkraw 5y agoBut Zuckerberg hasn't done any of them. It's like ascribing Newton's accomplishments to the royal in power when he was alive
- gilleain 5y agoTotally agree with your point, but just because I was curious... Isaac Newton lived from 1642 – 1726 so technically: * 1642-1649 : Charles I (until he got the chop) * 1649-1660 : Interregnum, Cromwell and Son * 1660-1685 : Charles II (Restored, partied a lot) * 1685-1688 : James II (Too Catholic, overthrown) * 1689-1702 : William and Mary ('Leveraged buyout' by the Dutch as Matt Christman puts it) * 1702-1707 : Anne (Last English monarch... see Acts of Union) * 1707-1714 : Anne (As monarch of GB) * 1714-1727 : George I So quite a few monarchs!
- echopurity 5y ago
- Copenjin 5y agoNo, there is something objectively ridiculous in that association, also, please don't compare the scientific contribution of individuals at FAANGs to the scientific contributions of Newton.
- xg15 5y ago> A more generous interpretation could be that on social networks, emergent properties are hard to predict beforehand with theory Butbas far as we know, not a lot of people were actually interested in working on a theory (because why spend the time if you can just slap a neural network on it?) Even if some people are, they are likely working inside Facebook and we might not know about it.
- raverbashing 5y agoI agree. The analogy there is more in comparing time periods than persons relevant to the development.