3 ms·
This rant is not worthy of the front page of HN. Its all, "Make Science Great Again" "because believe you me, back in the day things were great"; now not so mu
by SubiculumCode 2y ago
This rant is not worthy of the front page of HN.
Its all, "Make Science Great Again" "because believe you me, back in the day things were great"; now not so much. Some are good, but its hard to know, cuz but most are lying stupid rats, coming over, looking to bilk you."
Nope. Not buying the outrage.
- notahacker 2y agoYeah, spam is a thing and there's obviously more spammy journals around now. But when someone starts ranting insisting that standards in papers were universally better across many fields in the middle of last century you wonder about whether he has the breadth and depth of knowledge to make that claim, and and then in the comments someone asks him who the greatest philosopher of this century is and he replies "Eliezer Yudkowsky"!
- pie_flavor 2y ago'Most influential', TFA's actual words, is not 'greatest'. Everyone ends up reading something of Yud's at some point, which is more than can be said of the people who would probably qualify more. That's more or less the entire thesis of TFA.
- notahacker 2y agoFair, 'most influential' isn't necessarily 'greatest', but if he'd wanted to elaborate that Yud was an example of someone who qualified mainly by being visible and prolific and very accessible online when there were far more deserving candidates I'm sure he'd have done so