3 ms·
This line of thought follows previous posts on the same subject. It's very Norvig-esq (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNjJTgXujno http://www.youtube.com/watch?
by presty 18y ago
This line of thought follows previous posts on the same subject.
It's very Norvig-esq (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNjJTgXujno http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNjJTgXujno), but there's also http://anand.typepad.com/datawocky/2008/03/more-data-usual.html http://anand.typepad.com/datawocky/2008/03/more-data-usual.h... and also Chris Anderson and Wired's flame bait http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_t... (that month's wired was dedicated to this subject)
And like someone at the previous discussions has said, this is the base of the scientific method, not it's death
- ntoshev 18y agoI would also add the "Theorizing from data" talk from Norvig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU8DcBF-qo4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU8DcBF-qo4
- andreyf 18y agoNorvig had a great response to that wired article: http://norvig.com/fact-check.html http://norvig.com/fact-check.html
- bd 18y agoGolden quote from Norvig's talk at Startup School: Q: What's your opinion about semantic web? A: Semantic web. Future of the web. And it always will be. Also: If I assigned engineers to (semantic web) formats based on the percentage of pages that had those formats, then the correct number of engineers for semantic web was zero.