philosophers

So what if certain things were done just because philosophers just didn't want to consider themselves meat puppets?

Each of these philosophers cites a previous philosopher and has transformed our thinking of political economy in some way.

Note that almost most all of the philosophers surveyed were from English-speaking countries, which are dominated by Analytic Philosophy.

You must be mistaken, because the Dining Philosophers example only dates back to May 2015.

Conversely, many of the issues which concern Continental philosophers aren't even mentioned in this survey.

It just that those who know this don't often become philosophers, they become scientists.

For some reason armchair philosophers seem to find it fascinating, but it fundamentally misses the point has largely been ignored in modern times for good reason.

The dining philosophers example definitely runs destructors and frees memory.

Quick, to the philosophers, they can solve this!

Which philosophers refuse to consider scientific evidence?

Yes, it's bad algorithms/bloat/poor code efficiency that are the immediate cause, but as Socrates pointed out re the Presocratic philosophers, describing only immediate causes can yield quite shallow explanations.

I bet you'd get quite different results if the philosophers surveyed were from the rest of the world, where Continental Philosophy is much more prominent.

So it would be more accurate to call this article "What do Analytic Philosophers Believe?"

To some, thinking about those questions is "beating dead horses", others become philosophers.

It's because the original usage is rather technical--I've only seen philosophers use it, and only then as the adjective "question-begging".

Claiming there's no difference between prediction and understanding reminds me to what philosophers of science call "instrumentalism": theories are only to be judged by how well they work in predicting facts.

Philosophers have always been good about asking the interesting questions.