Also, giving a name to a formula is "inventing a definition". If you're a programmer and you write a function, or assign the result of an operation to a variable, the act of naming that function or variable can be considered the same.
Bah. That's either wrong or overly pedantic, depending on the case.
At least Newton's lab of universal gravitation and Coulomb's law defined their eponymous constants directly.
In other cases the people doing the defining named them retrospectively after the originator of, or most significant contributor to, the concept that motivated the definition.
The point is that we ascribe enough invention to these definitions to commonly name them after the people who invented them.
Most freshman undergraduate mathematicians have had their fair share debating whether you "invent" or "discover" definitions and proofs. The general consensus is that you "discover" things that are very natural, and you "invent" things for which different mathematicians would have perhaps come up different ideas. But only one thing is shared between both sides of the debate: the distinction really doesn't matter and is definitely bikeshedding.
All definitions were invented. What alternatives are you suggesting exist?
It is fascinating to dig into definitions and conventions that we know, and to realize that much of what we think of as universal fact is actually an arbitrary choice of history, canonized by time.
It happens often in math that people decide on arbitrary definitions. One fun example is Donald Knuth was fond of defining 0^0 = 1, while some other mathematicians prefer to define 0^0 = 0.
You can if you want to try and plaster your name all over VR as a facet of soft lock-in and to arbitrarily insert yourself into every potential aspect of a fledgling industry.
Next they'll invent the 'Ocu-ternion', which is the same as a normal Quaternion but each scalar value is divided by a constant because...VR? Facebook? Who cares, the point is they own it.
It does not. But did you hear anything about patent or trademark protection sought by Facebook for flicks? Does releasing a BSD licensed implementation suggest to you that they intend to protect flicks this way?
I don't love Facebook's products, but I struggle to see the downside in them publishing this idea.
And applies only to this particular implementation. Anyone should be free to implement the flick time unit in any other language, or re-implement the flick time unit in C++.
