How many historians does it take to change a lightbulb?

Well, actually, one could argue how there wasn't really such a radical "change" than what this obviously flawed metaphor could make people think. Whereas, yes, of course the physical lightbulb was, indubitably, substituted by another one, they were pretty much the same - not to go in an overly-reductionist "it's all the same", but the structure underlying the lightbulb, the one that actually makes lightbulbs work, that justifies their esistence and whose existence is, in turn, justified by their activity, didn't actually change; and the new lightbulb itself wasn't really (structurally speaking, at least) that much different from the old one, having basically the same function and public personality as the older one. So, it is quite easy to say that no one really changed the lightbulb, they merely substituted it. This is in no way pedantic nor nitpicky, but it's in fact a necessary matter of terminological correctness, that we need to have to start building a more apt research methodology to better our understanding of the consequences of the alternating between different lightbulbs, when applied to the context of lamps, rooms, and the human agency intrinsic in the question; and to highlight our intrinsic, and to us even invisible, historiographical tendency to look for so-called "change" wherever possible, to dig out narratives from the flow of History that, although useful and occasionally correct, ultimately have the risk to further us from the finding of that historical truth to which our profession is whole-heartedly dedicated.

I am not drunk but quite bored.