From your quote: > (...) Feyman's cargo-cult science has no chance of working, while cargo-cult programming works but isn't understood. Cargo-cult science doe

From your quote: > (...) Feyman's cargo-cult science has no chance of working, while cargo-cult programming works but isn't understood. Cargo-cult science does not work because by "work" it would need to involve causality, which it doesn't. This is not the same as the cargo-cult mentality referred to in tech circles. That refers only to the belief that the performative aspect correlated to an expected outcome is actually the cause, whereas it's at best a correlation. People build landing strips expecting cargo planes to drop off riches. People use a specific project tree layout expecting the project to work. People use a programming language expecting their code to be memory safe and vulnerability-free. People use a container orchestration service expecting their system to be highly scalable and resilient. People use a framework expecting their system to be high performance and efficient. You'll see claims that "this app runs on Kubernetes, thus is very resilient and highly scalable". Cargo cult mentality. Do you understand why the "lazy, meaningless attack" remark makes absolutely no sense when actually considering the concept? There is no justification. There's only a straw man based on, at best, a gross failure to understand the very basis of concept that's being criticized.