(untitled)

Name more overhyped persona. All you hear is that he is a genius but not hear why is he a genius. Why? Because he created nothing of importance. If he would have created something that seriously proving his genius status he would be known for that stuff. Instead he is just a celebrity hyped because others hype him. He is Kim Kardashian of science. Don't start with "but he published a paper at age of X and get PhD at age of Y". First of all publishing papers is not that much of an achievement 2nd he get the PhD mostly because he published enough of them and he get it in the US where PhD is easier to get than master's degree in many European countries. Not to mention that modern particle physics is a freaking joke where you can grind papers as long as you write about stuff that is unverifiable by eperiments because "wee need more powerful than Great Hard On Colider". It's a trashbin of physics.

>>35555 His personal attitude is also not helping. All he is about is thinking that because HE wrote something or said something it MUST be groundbreaking, unique and never before tried or debated. He also don't bother to credit others, because he is too above others to bother to do so even when he is obviously basing on their works. Neither he bothers to present proofs of his claims. Which is on par with his narcisism and general characteristics of the field that particle physics is – the land where you can be left to roam freely as long as your most outlandish theory is "not yet verifiable by modern science because we have not powerful enough colliders yet" or other exactly lame excuse.

He's obviously very intelligent but exaggerates his own importance. His main accomplishment is being a successful businessman. >he get it in the US where PhD is easier to get than master's degree in many European countries That depends a lot on the specific school, but mostly its false.

Also best of his narcisistic writing: > Perhaps the first faint glimmering of an orientation toward something like Mathematica came when I was about 6 years old > Looking back at its documentation, SMP was quite an impressive system, especially given that I was only 20 years old when I started designing it. > My physics papers started containing all sorts of amazing formulas. > I was 20 years old, and I’d just gotten my PhD in physics. > I wrote lots of code for SMP myself (about 1000 lines/day). I did the design. And I wrote most of the documentation. I’d never managed a large project before. But somehow that part never seemed very difficult. > [...] >>35557 I'm from Poland and some of PhD papers from the US I saw would be barely acceptable for master thesis here. Some of them were literally compilations without any own research or with very microscopic amounts of such. That's master's degree grade stuff here at best.

>>35558 SMP was a bug-ridden crap

>>35555 Neil De Grass Tyson A pretentious twat that dumbs down the science for the masses while at the same time looking as if he is discovering some kind of new law of science. Watch any of the podcast, all he does is talk about some half baked incomprehensible babble story of how something happened or how science works. Even his name is pretentious. What is he? "Advocate of science"? He is akin to those facebook "I love science" pages that everybodies mothers and grandmothers like based on some fake Newton quote. Example: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NPJkK3jq0to

>>35593 Some more examples because I fuarrrking hate this guy: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sOu6yVXKf7Y https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ucolpkp9Teg https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OX2yqdYHNdY https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1c6dZnS2GDI

>>35593 How about picrel? xD

>>35593 He is really the worst. He's an absolute imbecile and says the dumbest bullshit

>>35592 Yeah, pretty much: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.lisp/c/BUxXH76CYdc/m/IunywkAxufMJ >He told me that Lisp was "inherently" (I'm pretty sure even after all this time that this was his exact word) 100 times slower than C and therefore an unsuitable vehicle. I tried to explain to him that this was implausible. That he could probably construct an argument for 2-5 that he could at least defend in some prima facie way, but that 100 was ridiculous. >He in fact did not purport to be adequately competent on the matter of computation at the time but he pointed to a stack (literally) of books (I'd say about a foot high) including the Knuth books, the compiler book with the dragon on it, and a number of other really standard texts. He then said "I'm going to read these and then I'll know as much as you." (Again, I'm pretty sure even now that this is pretty close to an exact quote. But whether it's exact or not, what struck me was the incredible arrogance of the remark.) The point seemed debatable, but I didn't bother to debate it. He seemed deadset on his goal and once he got to the point where he seemed to feel he could use as a credential books he had not yet read, there seemed to be no deflecting him. >My remarks are just personal memories and opinions, offered just as a way to add historical perspective for those who care about such things. I think it's relevant to the Lisp community because it relates to Stephen's departure from Macsyma (and implicitly from Lisp)--he had previously been a Macsyma user and I'm pretty sure he was more annoyed with some specific Macsyma program (that probably used some inefficient data structures that the underlying Lisp would have required it to do)... He seemed annoyed at Lisp but I didn't have the sense that he'd done enough survey of other Lisp programs or of the language itself to really have a believable opinion on this. Then again, I'm sure he's not the only person in Lisp history to see one bad program and then overgeneralize...

>>35596 Michio has some surface level knowledge but at least he isn't acting like he knows everything in great depth. His intentions are pure.

>>35603 you seen vid in which he was shiIling for new larger collider? It was comedy gold. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oa71iB_Z4Q

>>35607 Is it just me, or is modern academia kind of a joke? That videos like these exist just seems bizzare to me. Now, I have no doubt that modern physics has few cranky ideas and what not, but I'm talking about the whole context of this. Apparently we have fallen so low that making youtube videos in the style of early 2010s "snowflakes getting wrecked by facts and logic" by people who (I assume) want to appear serious is something that just happens. Now that is not to say that what he critiques isn't any less absurd. Actually it seems to be part of the same issue. Can you imagine any respectable discipline having conversation like this a century ago?

>>35615 Particle physics in particular has the problem that their proposed experiments are extremely expensive and don't provide any clear benefit to society. So 'should we build a new collider' is a question of public policy, not just science. >Is it just me, or is modern academia kind of a joke? Modern academia has been forced to participate in the economic game. Universities are basically weird corporations at this point, their main scam is getting undergrads to pay ridiculous fees for ever-worsening education. However they make a lot of money contracting out their research expertise and respected names to corporations and governments. Research directions are mainly driven by economic and political forces forces; if you can't get funding you can't pay for grad students, so your field dies out slowly. Most of the profs are aware of this, but they don't see a way out of the Faustian bargain. To be fair, this isn't much worse than academia 100 years ago, when academia was dominated by pompous blowhards who got in mainly because of their wealthy and well-connected families. The best years were probably 1940-1980, when everyone was trying to build up their technological advantage over the other and massive amounts of money poured in with little restraints. Not surprising that most of the great scientific advances of the 20th century happened in that time.

>>35616 >don't provide any clear benefit to society. or science

>>35617 That too, but that's secondary.

>>35615 >Is it just me, or is modern academia kind of a joke? Academia was always a joke. Socrates was a street preacher, a babbling schizo who'd wander around in the market talking to ordinary people. When universities and academies came along, they trapped knowledge in an urban walled garden totally divorced from ordinary life. This gave us Aristotelianism with it's obsession with abstraction and arbitrary principals, and that fed the culture of both medieval universities and later on the Enlightenment. Over the past few decades, academia has become this playground of the rich and wealthy where professors do practically no work, students are taught soykaf and ''science'' is just careerism. It's a joke because now nobody even bothers about basic logical rules or fact checking. Money is what keeps the wheels turning and science is whatever makes money (or weapons for the military).

>>35625 Particle physics makes no weaponry for military. It stopped being useful (as in developing NEW stuff) for doing anything shortly after hydrogen bomb was developed. Univ in the US being insanely expensive is mostly due to government guarantees of student loans and additional funding of grants. It does not matter if that funding is for military stuff (like robotics, mechanics and pretty much other tech and science that IS NOT particle physics or theoretical physics or cosmology) or some medical stuff. More money flooding in for same amount of stuff - prices go up. Basic economics.

Elon was not mentioned coz he is like kicking dead whales down the beach at keeping the hype running by being very public. The more publicity fake "genius" exposes himself to the more obvious is illusion that was created. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5d8IlVWz5g

>>35616 >the problem that their proposed experiments are extremely expensive and don't provide any clear benefit to society. You stumbled around the point there. Doing cutting edge research that benefits other people is called a business. Because people happily pay for soykaf that benefits them. Academia on the other hand is funded by donations and grants from government, corporations and billionaires i.e. the ruling class. They're not generally buying the research itself though, what they are buying is loyalty and a platform. Modern academics are the 21st century equivalent of priests. Their job is to take propaganda from the billionaire class and deliver it to the plebs as the word of Science. Just like how the priests of yore would take propaganda from the king and deliver it to the plebs as the word of God. Same soykaf different century. >>35638 >being insanely expensive is mostly due to government guarantees of student loans People generally don't understand how egregious this is. You get a $100k loan to study feminist dance therapy and then end up earning minimum wage at starbucks after graduation. So the government uses other people's tax money to pay off the university, despite the fact they clearly delivered you a defective product. That's literally fraud. How about when a student can't pay their loan it's the university that loses the $100k, not the taxpayers. Then they will have an incentive to actually teach people useful stuff and help them succeed. But why work if you can use the government to steal from other people, socialism 101. And then everyone is shocked pikuchu face when they learn universities are full of literal marxists. You shouldn't be that shocked if you think about it.

>>35652 >Doing cutting edge research that benefits other people is called a business. Because people happily pay for soykaf that benefits them. Yes, modern universities are "weird corporations". In this post I will focus on US universities because it's what I know. >Academia on the other hand is funded by donations and grants from government, corporations and billionaires i.e. the ruling class. There are three main sources of funding in the sciences: corporations, military, and the NSF. They are very different in how the grant is usually structured and what you need to do to get your money. Some other organizations are big funders in certain fields, like the Simons Foundation, but that's more like the NSF than like a corp. Corps and military are definitely paying for the outcome of the research. They expect regular progress updates and they have concrete deliverables. They don't generally fund blue-sky research. NSF is more stingy with the money, but they're also more hands-off and they will fund research that doesn't necessarily have an immediate application. It is true that which grants get approved is very political, and it is true that if you put buzzwords in your grant application you are more likely to get funding. However I still think that to characterize what the ruling class is "buying" as a propaganda platform is inaccurate. That is definitely secondary to the main thing. The reason the NSF and similar organizations exist is because it was recognized in the 20th century that having a bunch of eggheads in your country is a huge strategic and economic advantage, even if they're not actively working on something with military or economic applications. The product they are paying for is a large pool of highly educated specialists actively doing research. Some of them can be recruited to the NSA, national labs, etc., and some of them will accidentally stumble on something useful. One of the MS students in my program was literally an officer in the army sent to university so he could learn how to write code to simulate nuclear reactors. The fields that get money thrown at them are the ones that have fairly obvious applications. Computer science, machine learning/"big data", engineering, etc. are brimming with easy money, much more so than particle physics or cosmology.

He is brilliant, but people must understand that genius-level intelligence is neither necessary nor sufficient for building useful, interesting, and relevant stuff, a lot of other factors, lots of which don't depends upon anyone in particular (e.g. social, economical, and political context) and capacities (e.g. interpersonal intelligence) must be present for that to happen. For example, if you are brilliant but insufferable, no one will want to work with you or hear what you have to say, thus you either (1) never have the chance to collaborate with anyone, or no one will want to support you, or (2) you produce something by yourself but no one cares. This fantasy of the lone genius is in my view extremely childish, delusional, and simply false, that we know a person or two that apparently did everything by themselves doesn't create a rule that technological, scientific, and cultural advances are an individual endeavor - it is not. Things like winning gold medals in whatever, or doing X at the age of Y are good only for self-aggrandizement and tabloids. Sure, the person has the intellectual chops to do a Ph.D. in theoretical physics but there is a lot of theoretical physics out there that will never contribute to absolutely anything.

>>35658 >Sure, the person has the intellectual chops to do a Ph.D. in theoretical physics but there is a lot of theoretical physics out there that will never contribute to absolutely anything. HOW DARE YOU TO INSULT GREEN ELEPHANTS THEORY THAT CLAIMS THAT UNIVERSE IS BUILT OF 10 LAYERS OF GREEN ELEPHANTS OUT OF WHICH 7 ARE VERY FLAT AND WE CANNOT SNIFF THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO WIDE TO FIT IN A STRAW?

Ahahahahahaha, color me surprised

Let's take a look at his "PhD thesis" https://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2597/ > Some Topics in Theoretical High-Energy Physics >Wolfram, Stephen (1980) Some Topics in Theoretical High-Energy Physics. Dissertation (Ph.D.), California Institute of Technology. doi:10.7907/S6JE-QF83. https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechETD:etd-06142007-142536 Abstract >This thesis discusses various aspects of theoretical high-energy physics. The first two sections describe methods for investigating QCD effects in e⁺e⁻ annihilation to hadrons. The third section presents some predictions for various features of QCD jets. The fourth section shows that any fermions in the standard weak interaction model must have masses ≾100 GeV. In the fifth section, the abundances of any new absolutely stable heavy particles which should have been produced in the early universe are estimated, and found to be inconsistent with observational limits. Finally, the sixth section describes the development of a baryon excess in the very early universe due to B, CP violating interactions. His own research being what exactly? This is literally compilation plus substitution of data to existing formulas. This is not PhD grade material in my country. You can produce such "PhD thesis" at any age after calculus classes. Which in some parts of the world start around the time you are 17. He either had connections to get such trash accepted as PhD or USA PhD in particle physics is not as amazing as he and his fanboys are portraying it.

Ahahahahaha, I cannot from these comments ahahahahahahaha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeuCAT5HDh0 They are either paid shiIIs or they are thinking that Wolfram created first symbolic computer algebra system software in existence. Both possibilities are equally hilarious.

>>35672 >Jewish >Had connections Hmmmm, I wonder.

>>35706 >Yes they can. No government would spend a penny if citizens would not allow it. Governments are results of collective choices of citizens. Even in dictatorships. Glad to know citizens all agreed to spend trillions of dollars killing millions of people in the middle east for the last 20 years.

>>35709 You have pretty interesting but flawed reasoning.

Interesting but now old criticism of Mathematica from the past, sorry excuses of WRI in response for pretty serious criticism are presented https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm9IxKsgpVM

>>35713 >You have pretty interesting but flawed reasoning. What's the flaw? We didn't spend taxmoney bombing children in the middle east for 30 years or the citizens did approve "every penny"?

>>35714 Interesting that at around 16:30 he is basically roasting LISP dialect that Maxyma was written in.

>>35699 The politics in non-stem fields are incredibly vicious because they're fighting over so little money. That's all I know about it, basically. The post I was replying to was specifically about STEM fields and that specifically what I know.

>>35718 Also integral from 17:00 causes Wolfram Alpha to generate message "Standard computation time exceeded..." LMAO. 30 years later Wolfram's software still capitulates at such a basic textbook integral... THIRTY YEARS

>>35716 >Indeed you did not. It looks like you know you're wrong and just playing games to avoid admitting it.

>>35722 Nope, just both your reasoning is wrong and your claim is wrong. At the same time.

>>35725 >your wrong but I can't elaborate wah wah wah 1, quote the part you think is wrong 2. explain why it's wrong 3. post evidence if you feel like Everything else is just you being a crybaby gimp.

>>35730 1.Citing your post is pointless you can just read it if you forget what you wrote. 2.Because it is not factual. 3.You can't post evidence that gnomes or unicorns don't exist. Everything else is just you having sex with your neighbor's dog.

>>35731 >everything you posted is wrong but I can't explain why Glad we're making progress. If you're breaking rule 0 anyway have the decency to post some nudes before the mods come. >Everything else is just you having sex with your neighbor's dog. I bought my own dog actually. How poor is your family.

>>35725 can you elaborate on this?

>>39983 why elaborate? I don't see the point

>>39984 because I want you to, OKAY?

Thread derail by idiots in progress... Anyhow, lets think about "genius" in general. They don't exist. Fraternal orders and cults of Ball along with sundry Mysteries Babylon based mystery cults, not to mention Kaballistic sects, take a frontman and attribute to them a colleciton of "wisdom", sometimes after having surpressed said wisdom for hundreds of years. This alleged Gesius typically becomes a tool for pushing some political goal, in addition to monetizing the tech or "wisdom" the alleged genius presents to the public. Lets look at Eratosthenes. A man named from birth as Earth-Thoth-ness (via ye ol' occult lame name sound same game) will grow up to think (Thoth) alot about the Earth (Erat, H is silent)... Sure, whatever. Lets do "his" experiment which Carl Sagan says proves Earth is a sphere... Now I have two AA batteries on my desk. One is standing upright directly beneath my swing-arm desk lamp's light, and casts no shadow. The other battery is standing 18inches away from the first on same said desk and it does cast a shadow. Therefore we can conclude: My desk is a sphere. INSANE! The air is a lense, so much so that Sunset is Orange/red. The apparent position of the sun is not the actual position, hence, the shadows are not direct indicators of earth/sun angular relation. Eratosthenes did not correct for lensing of the air and yet NASA says his calculations were spot-on. Clearly the "genius" of Eratosthenes must be called into question, along with Carl Sagan... and NASA. No, clearly Eratosthenes is a fictional character who was probably invented in the Reformation and Spanish Inquisition period, wherein history was rewritten and technology removed & suppressed so it could be doled out to us slowly again. NASA is a gov propaganda arm whose acronym means deception in Yiddish. And now for Pythagoras, named from birth after Pi-Staggers (sine waves), which he will eventually discover. Take the serpentine S out, you get Pi-Taggers, occult's lame name game sound's the same as Pythagoras. I independantly discovered "trigonometry" trying to build a computer opponent for a SpaceWar game clone made in Qbasic. What took "a genius" like Pythagoras a full decade to discover I had developed in only one hour -- so, I must be a god then, right? Or, you just never tried to figure out things yourself, they threw the solution at you befere you ever were allowed/required to attempt it yourself. Naw, I really am a God of sorts when it comes to code (my atan2() runs ten thousand times quicker and is more accurate than anyone elses implementation). Point being, this "genius" Pythagoras isn't really that smart, but neither are todays mathematicians... Arc Tangent needs only a divide a multiply and one add to solve in any given piece-of-eight of the circle, Cosine and Sine and Tangent are likewise too slow in todays math libs. They're thinking in trig's triangles instead of cartesian squares and circles. I'll eventually publish my code for lain to use... (no, I'm not a god, just a demoscene cracker who con optimize t3h c0d3z for r34lz, and isn't implessed with an admitted math cult's frontman [frantically tatoos a pentagram on his phallus to fit in with the herd]) Lets look at Nicola Tesla. There are etchings from 1631 depicting an electrical demonstration in a French royal's courtyard complete with "Tesla Coils" shooting lightening and men in full plate armor directing the electricity harmlessy across themselves and through their swords. Why, Faraday himself along with Tesla must have time traveled hundreds of years back in time and taught them these tricks -- Or, the "genius" of Faraday, Tesla, Ben Franklin, Eddison, etc. are all frauds. Such proof I will not force feed to you, you have to choose to take the inform yourself, Neo. Steven Hawking: Teeth fell out and grew back at least once while attaining the Guiness World Record for surviving ALS. Or he's a frontman and [dis]ability figurehead for SocJus (irl IngSoc) ableism identity politics. Anyone can make that chair speak, and alot of ALS sufferers look alike. Has Hawking Radiation ever been observed? No, of course not--Black Holes do not exist. Electromotive forces and refraction better explain the "observations" attributed to black holes. Einstein Rings are blue shifted -- but Gravity lensing should not affect spectra, only direction. We predict blue spectra shift if refraction were the cause: light passes from a less hydrogen saturated intergalactic medium into a dense hydrogen envelope; We MUST witness refractive effects -- but all lensing seen in the heavens MUST be Gravity Lensing or Einstein will have zero evidence fer his bendy syace-time bullshit. In english we might say: Dumb as a box of rocks. In german: dumb as a stone... Ein Stein... the lame name game fake persona Einstein is named after being dumb and is a cometary cataclysm reference to boot. Hawking's work, et. al., depend on the Einsteinian BS. Protip: bendy spacetime was itvented by Einstein's Wife to explain away the uncomfortable fact that inferometers did not detect any rotation of the earth: "experiment must have shrank in the direction of travel" nooope, Earth is not a flying space baal. 1040mph rotation at equator is not relativistic speeds! (They moved the speed goalpost once people started to try and measure bendy cartoon-like spactime) Now, think about the OP's "genius" in this context. Duh! Of course he's a talentless overrated hack! Nearly all cultural icons are fake "apotheosis" Cult of Personality creations.

>>40033 How about "Fibonacci"? Fib O' nacci https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/nacci >nacci : (aor. of naccati) danced; performed as a dramatist.

Another one: Witten. String "theory" (it isn't one in the scientific sense) is unfalsifiable, thus not science. The invasion of physics by pure mathematicians has caused physics progress to slow to a crawl. If it continues, pure Aristotelian logic will supplant science and return us to the mentality of the dark ages.

>>40124 >isnt one in the pscientific sense lol. >is unfalsifiable ideally it would produce predictions, which could then be found accurate or inaccurate, even if its basic mechanics are essentially inscrutable. This is the case for a lot of things. My string theory friends seem to think it has trouble predicting things like the world existing, however...

>>40033 your battery example is flawed. the second battery casts a shadow because of the reflection of light within the room. Erastosthenes did his experiment outside, where the suns rays could not reflect off anything and cast a shadow besides from where the suns rays are coming from.

>>40127 no that's ridiculous. Do the experiment yourself, if you can't simulate it in your head. The second battery casts a shadow because the light is not shining directly at it, but obliquely at it. An experiment like this with the sun can produce two conclusions, either the sun is close enough that parallax matters, or the sun is far but the earth is not flat. With good clocks, you can make the question into the apparent position of the sun in the sky at a given instant. From battery 1's perspective, it is Noon. From battery 2's perspective, it is, lets say, 3 o'clock. This is just because the lamp is quite close to the table, so the parallax effect is large.

>>40125 "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." String "theory" is not a scientific theory. "Lol"

>>40127 Dumbass >>40128 Also wrong. Erasthones' experiment measured the angle of the sun overhead at noon. This is something that depends on your latitude. Two measurements are not enough to show that the earth is round: they are only enough to calculate the radius of the earth assuming it is a ball. To show that the earth is round, you need three measurements. The length of the cast shadow is linear with (north-south) distance between the measurements if and only if the earth is flat.

>>40131 Addendum: this only would prove that the earth curves in the north-south direction. It could still be a cylinder. To show that it curves in the east-west direction, the easiest way to do that is to use a somewhat accurate clock and figure that the sun rises at different times in different longitudes. Another would be to have people light signal fires when they see the sun rise, and measure how long it takes between when you see the fire and when you see the sun rise. But this is susceptible to the local deformation of the earth's crust messing things up.

>>40131 Forgive me, the 'looks like 3oclock' statement is somewhat poor wording; in the far north noon often looks like five oclock, if you think noon means sun at zenith, which is what I was suggesting. Such time statements are meaningless in the static world of the desk lamp. >if and only if the earth is flat I don't think you're properly accounting for the fact that there are two essential assumptions. First is as you note that the earth is round, second is that the sun's light hits earth in parallel rays.

>>40135 >First is as you note that the earth is round, With three measurements (or knowing the latitude of a location where the sun is directly overhead at noon -- constituting a third measurement that you don't have to actually make), this assumption is removed. You could do this experiment on a flat world and you would see a linear relationship, on a round world you do not. >second is that the sun's light hits earth in parallel rays. It makes the assumption that the sun is a point light source at a finite distance from the earth, and its rays travel in straight lines. If the sun was infinitely far from the earth and the earth was flat then the angle would never change at all. Without a proposed alternative theory, this is one which obviously matches lived everyday experience. An alternative theory would have to be tested on its own.

>>40135 I'm very sorry, I misread this at first. I suppose you could say that, assuming the sun's rays travel parallel, erasthones' two measurements would show that the earth is round. However you need three measurements to remove this assumption and replace it with "the sun is a point light source and its rays travel in straight lines".

literally who???? >Kim Kardashian of science literally WHO????????????????????????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4BOdRzZI6Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbX5qIVIuJs

>>35555 (literally who) he looks like an asian george costanza

>>44182 >george costanza literally who ?

>>35558 >My physics papers started containing all sorts of amazing formulas. You can read all of Feynmann's autobiography and immediately realize he's a genius but he's generally embarrassed by his achievements and blames them on boredom and/or curiosity. I don't think he mentions his formulas or research specifics once.