Fat Tails are actually very important in this domain. Innovation is inherently incremental with the major players actually being hobbyist tier until around the 20th century (military advances being what ended up becoming a big contributor)
-
-
Replying to @fides_et_cancri
Not sure why you’d think this is incompatible with anything I said.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mr_scientism
Because 2 of the 4 avenues you mentioned dont do shit
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @mr_scientism
No. Just actually tracing the roots of technical development through egyptian/grecian roots, through european monastic empiricsm, and western european hobbyist experimentation
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fides_et_cancri @mr_scientism
Its unlikely youre even familiar with the fairly miraculous synchronous development of the transistor and information theory.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @fides_et_cancri @mr_scientism
the “hobbyists” you are referring to were aristocrats with a research budget comparable to a small nation
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
there'e ppl with research budgets the size of a small nation who faff around for decades and never get anything done, & big corp and gov R & D depts with an admin process of stunning scale and sophistication who never get anything done either. not sure this is the axis to look on
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
idk exactly what you’re saying, but from Boyle to Babbage funding was a major permissive condition
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
really all I'm saying is it's necessary but not sufficient
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
sure. but there is also an element of uncertainty in *all* science programs. eg one goal of Tycho’s research was to put astrology on a firmer footing, and that... didn’t happen
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.