41–50 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only in HN is the notion that the "geniuses" of this generation are working for the FAANGs, sure, some may be, but I am willing to bet 99% of them are not.
I think his comment was implying that such individuals would have naturally gravitated toward the highest-paying jobs and thus adtech. The subtext being that we waste the brightest minds of our generation on trivial and useless jobs.
One thing that struck me at an exhibit of Leonardo's notebooks is how totally wrong he was about so many things. It wasn't mentioned in the exhibit but for every one thing he was correct about, it seemed like there were many many, dozens perhaps, that he was completely incorrect about. Some of the ideas seem preposterous now, although it's difficult to view them appropriately as they would have been at the time. This…
People like Leonardo and Newton are valuable thinkers because they once in a while produce a really good idea, and it doesn't really matter if they know themselves which ideas are good or bad. This is a really bad trait for a leader or a trader though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only in HN is the notion that the "geniuses" of this generation are working for the FAANGs, sure, some may be, but I am willing to bet 99% of them are not.
How do you figure? Intelligence / multi-talented-ness, and interest in changing the world, aren't necessarily correlated. Most "geniuses" still probably just want to get reasonable wealthy and retire to pursue their hobbies. (They just have more interesting hobbies than the average person.) And, for people who weren't born to wealth, the FAANGs are a good place to get one's f-you money from, without necessarily needi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. What about his occult studies, alchemy, and chronology [1]? It seems only historians (academic and amateur), Newton buffs, and compulsive Wikipedia clickers know or care about these weird ideas that were so important to Newton. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...
I don't think this sort of thing is rare, or a reflection of the time period he lived in or his status as an extreme outlier in historical influence. Many scientists spend a portion of their time in oddball or fruitless pursuits and sometimes it takes them over, particularly as they get older. Linus Pauling and Vitamin C is one thing that comes to mind. There was some scientist whose name I can't remember, was asked…
https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/new-york-hospitals-treating-co...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996765/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3937164/
Just because someone looks silly to their contemporaries doesn't mean they're wrong. Look at Semmelweis. He figured out germs well before Pasteur. Doctors didn't accept it because they didn't like the implications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Sagan says it best. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/85171-one-of-the-saddest-le...
I see many smart naysayer's on HN who argue "this would never work" or "this is considered bad practice" without offering some alternative idea. In fact, this is probably the most common type of comment. While they are usually correct, this is the exact opposite of how a polymath thinks. Polymaths have a confidence in their own ideas and a desire to explore and build a mental model for themselves before taking the tribal wisdom at face value. Thinking via first principles comes innately to these types.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. What about his occult studies, alchemy, and chronology [1]? It seems only historians (academic and amateur), Newton buffs, and compulsive Wikipedia clickers know or care about these weird ideas that were so important to Newton. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...
Were these studies inconsistent with a curious mind and the limitations of knowledge at the time? In any research, some avenues of investigation are fruitful and others are not. When people look back on us 300 years from today, they'll likely find many cases of geniuses working on things that seem naive or misguided in retrospect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They say that about advertising spend too. I think it was David Ogilvy but I'm too lazy to look it up.
That is wishful thinking on their part IMO. Saying that half of X is wrong makes X look like half true. It could be false in a much higher proportion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only in HN is the notion that the "geniuses" of this generation are working for the FAANGs, sure, some may be, but I am willing to bet 99% of them are not.
I think it might be an allusion to the Jeff Hammerbacher quote "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this sort of thing is rare, or a reflection of the time period he lived in or his status as an extreme outlier in historical influence. Many scientists spend a portion of their time in oddball or fruitless pursuits and sometimes it takes them over, particularly as they get older. Linus Pauling and Vitamin C is one thing that comes to mind. There was some scientist whose name I can't remember, was asked…
Suggesting that Linus Pauling was wrong about vitamin C is an interesting choice. In my opinion he's looking more and more prescient. https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/new-york-hospitals-treating-co... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3937164/ Just because someone looks silly to their contemporaries doesn't mean they're wrong. Look at Semmelweis. He figure…
This is the focus of my main keynote presentation topic, On Being a Deep Generalist . Specialisation came to the fore during the Industrial Revolution and achieved a form of preeminence in the 20th Century that hadn’t existed elsewhere in human history when knowing, at depth, a wide variety of skills and disciplines was either essential for survival or in order to be considered a well-rounded individual. The internet…
What's the definition of Deep Generalist that you have in mind?
― Robert A. Heinlein