What killed the Convex Booster ?
  A landmark negative result of Long and Servedio established a worst-case
spectacular failure of a supervised learning trio (loss, algorithm, model)
otherwise praised for its high precision machinery. Hundreds of papers followed
up on the two suspected culprits: the loss (for being convex) and/or the
algorithm (for fitting a classical boosting blueprint). Here, we call to the
half-century+ founding theory of losses for class probability estimation
(properness), an extension of Long and Servedio's results and a new general
boosting algorithm to demonstrate that the real culprit in their specific
context was in fact the (linear) model class. We advocate for a more general
stanpoint on the problem as we argue that the source of the negative result
lies in the dark side of a pervasive -- and otherwise prized -- aspect of ML:
\textit{parameterisation}.
