3 ms·
Sorry to go meta, but is there a review of that review which lays out some or most of the things you object to in it?
by leoc 13y ago
Sorry to go meta, but is there a review of that review which lays out some or most of the things you object to in it?
- nswanberg 13y agoHere you go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972635#up_3974503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972635#up_3974503 My personal single biggest objection, though, is that the review appears to be used as a sort of conversation-ending trump card, usually posted with very little comment, sort of like you might see from a fan of talk radio posting in a newspaper comment section. https://hn.algolia.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cscs.umich.edu%2F~crshalizi%2Freviews%2Fwolfram%2F#!/comment/forever/0/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cscs.umich.edu%2F~crshalizi%2Freviews%2Fwolfram%2F https://hn.algolia.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cscs.umich.edu%2F... https://hn.algolia.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fvserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu%2F~crshalizi%2Freviews%2Fwolfram%2F#!/comment/forever/0/http%3A%2F%2Fvserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu%2F~crshalizi%2Freviews%2Fwolfram%2F https://hn.algolia.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fvserver1.cscs.lsa.umi... It's about as bad as bringing up Wolfram's ego--the consequent discussion never leads to anything interesting. Witness this thread that marktangotango started. I don't believe he was being malicious, but it's clear that rather than start a discussion about cellular automata like he intended it spawned a wasteland thread about attribution. Why must we talk about TMZ-level bullshit when we could be talking about Turing's paper and the original paper in the post? Why is that discussion losing out to gossip?