>Another interpretation, one that I prefer, is that Thrun tried something bold and novel based on a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. It didn't work, he's learning and adapting. No garden paths or greek tragic flaws required.
The problem with this is that there are real (underprivileged) human beings used as guinea pigs for this "reasonable hypothesis".
Thrun can fail all he wants on his own dime and time.
The message from the link seems to be that failure is not acceptable for anybody trying to help less privileged kids. But what's the alternative? Don't try anything new?
The author, and Thrun's critics within the existing system, often have hypotheses of their own for ways to improve the situation, but don't those carry a risk of failure as well?
Say a sociologist were to provide a cadre of students with free housing and food and an allowance, to test the hypothesis that financial stress contributed to academic underperformance. And say it didn't work out: maybe those students underperformed even more, due to some confounding factor. Would Tressiemc accuse the sociologist of a war-crimes level ethical breach, as he has done Thrun?
The problem with this is that there are real (underprivileged) human beings used as guinea pigs for this "reasonable hypothesis".
Thrun can fail all he wants on his own dime and time.
http://tressiemc.com/2013/11/19/the-audacity-thrun-learns-a-...