The problem isn't who we praise, it's who we don't praise.
Maybe we live in a different world today but my sense is scientific innovation happens in a very different way from the genius model.
Sometime long ago I came across an article arguing that we've replaced the concept of a saint with a genius, as the worldview shifted from religion to science. It was very compelling.
Increasingly I feel like there's only collective recognition. If you're too far ahead of the curve or behind it's all the same. Being at the curve just means you're recognizing everything at the same time as everyone else.
I wonder if you just asked 1000 people to draw a spiral without any other context, would there be some handedness/chirality to the drawings? My guess is there would be.
Yeah the author seems to be approaching their overall argument by first establishing that there's no primary source evidence from the time of castle building that the defense theory is true. He seems to be trying to establish that the argument for it is modern and therefore just as good or bad as any other.
I wish he would delve into things more but it seems reasonable to me to first establish where the defense theory first came from.
re: mutability you just have the standard be that the document being linked to is a sort of wrapper to the actual one. My guess is this is really what's going on with doi anyway.
But you're correct that the mutability issue is sort of a tricky one.
Journals, even prominent ones, change names for all sorts of reasons. It doesn't happen often but it does happen. The meaningfulness issue can cut both ways.
I think the real problem is the centralized vs federated vs distributed nature of it. IPFS is a good example of how that could have looked; not sure if it could be moved into that space somehow (I'm sure it could in theory, but in practice?)
That to me, is the key boundary being crossed, like enough to merit a large-class action award for any damages sustained anywhere by anyone who plugged a USB-C device into the port.
I do think there's something to be said for liability for creating a port that is so similar to USB-C, but also causing damage, akin to copyright laws, based on consumer confusion. I.e., if a reasonable person might think it is a variant of USB-C, and USB devices seem to work for long periods of time without apparent damage, then Nintendo is liable by virtue of resulting damage to the consumer's property (not to the USB organization). There's a certain liability for negligence in that case. But I could also see reasonable arguments that if Nintendo were explicitly saying it is not a USB port, that they shouldn't be liable (I don't agree but see it as a reasonable argument).
But if Nintendo is advertising it in anyway like that, they should be held liable. I just don't see a reasonable argument for why that wouldn't be the case. You can't have your cake and eat it too.