Hamilton et al (2016) investigate chance in meaning. They compare global change (how much a vector changes compared to the full vocabulary) to local change (changes in nearest neighbors). They state that the former captures linguistic changes better, whereas the latter is more suitable to capture cultural change. Do you agree? Why do you think this is (not) the case? You can either base your answer on your intuition looking at Figure 1 in Hamilton's paper or base your answer on their argumentation.
