Found in 4 comments on Hacker News
First, I disagree that physics, and its foundations, have not changed. Incrementalism is common in mature areas of study, but the cumulative effect is still felt.

Second, I am reminded of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [0] This work described exact the state, with historical examples of the cycles, whereby progress exhibits peaks and valleys, periods of time wherein little monumental progress is made followed by brief frantic periods of discoveries, often stemming from the fertile ground laid by those who worked in plodding toil.

And so I am more inclines to believe we are in such a trough at the moment and not even a particularly deep one. Various avenues of thought & experiment show amble potential to thrust us forward into one of Khun's Scientific Revolutions.


Maro · 2015-09-05 · Original thread
I heard about Kuhn at school when I was doing my physics degree. His famous work 'The structure of Scientific Revolutions' is worth the read:

I'm a huge believer in going back to primary texts, and understanding where ideas came from. If you've liked a book, read the books it references (repeat). I also feel like book recommendations often oversample recent writings, which are probably great, but it's easy to forget about the generations of books that have come before that may be just as relevant today (The Mythical Man Month is a ready example). I approach the reading I do for fun the same way, Google a list of "classics" and check for things I haven't read.

My go to recommendations: - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn, (1996) - The Pragmatic Programmer, Andrew Hunt and David Thomas (1999)

Things I've liked in the last 6 months: - How to Measure Anything, Douglas Hubbard (2007) - Mythical Man Month: Essays in Software Engineering, Frederick Brooks Jr. (1975, but get the 1995 version) - Good To Great, Jim Collins (2001)

Next on my reading list (and I'm really excited about it): - The Best Interface is No Interface, Golden Krishna (2015)

The assumption that all intangible value is constrained to that which can be expressed through code is flawed. A better argument would be bootstrapping may be infeasible for start-ups producing tangible goods.

>If you’re sincere about getting into startups, start learning to code today.

Tech start-ups, yes, and a diminutive definition of technology at that (you know what you don't need to know for, say, an interior design, drilling technology, or infrastructure start-up?). We all have a tendency to over-articulate our fields - it's in the structure of how normal science progresses [1]. I tend to do it with finance, coding, and engineering. Just as everyone need not know how to tranche out a capital structure or Fourier transform their cat, not every problem need be (nor can be) addressed through code.


Fresh book recommendations delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday.