6 ms·

I've long been a fan of Wolfram's ideas. But I wish he could write a single thing without most of it being about: how great he is, and how he has supposedly mad

I've long been a fan of Wolfram's ideas. But I wish he could write a single thing without most of it being about: how great he is, and how he has supposedly made the most progress in history with a cognitive step from already explored cellular automata. It's not even that I'm that bothered by the arrogance, it's just repetitive and boring.

WaxProlix 9y ago
It's pretty ceaseless, too, down to the names he gives everything (his name).
flukus 9y ago
At least this was relatively to the point, whenever I've read something from him in the past it's more like a 72 page treatise on cellular automata followed by the two line grilled cheese sandwich review the title promised.
Radim 9y ago
Wolfram reminds me of Richard Feynman, in that sense. The first time I tried to read "Surely You're Joking" as a kid I had to put it down -- the incessant "ME! ME! ME!" dripping from every page was a little too much. I've since mellowed down and can read Feynman or Wolfram without any issues. I even enjoy that style now :-)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- hyperpallium 9y ago
  4/3 I's per paragraph
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- pocketsquare2 9y ago
  The first time I tried to read a Feynman Diagram as a kid I had to put it down -- the incessant "ME! ME! ME!" dripping from every subatomic particle was a little too much.
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    Okay now you're just being contrary. Everyone knows that subatomic particles are all, like, "YOU! YOU! YOU!" ..
- dean177 9y ago
  What were you expecting from a biography?
  - dickbasedregex 9y ago
    Some humility mixed in with his bragging? Seems like a fair ask.
- emmelaich 9y ago
  You're not the only one, Murray Gell-Mann regarded Feynman as self-aggrandising. I still liked "Surely You're Joking" though. A lot, even though I've come to regard Feynman as somewhat flawed.
frou_dh 9y ago
You are afflicted with Wolfram Derangement Syndrome: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10978871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10978871 There is a way out. I believe in you!
- Will_Parker 9y ago
  Ok, point taken, it's a dead horse. Is there an argument that ignoring social pathology and carrying on is dangerous in the long run though?
  - pvg 9y ago
    The argument is that going on about it in every single Wolfram thread is just as quickly "repetitive and boring" and worse, makes it impossible to actually talk about whatever it is that Wolfram is writing about. It's hardly ignoring if everyone already knows about it and the chances of anyone saying anything new and interesting on the topic is just about nil.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    There's an argument, sure, but you're basically arguing against the entire concepts of politics and perspective.
    - moomin 9y ago
      I dunno, if people weren't so bored of fact checkers pointing out lies, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    The alternative is to register the pathology as known, considered, addressed, and ... not of particular interest in the current context. dang's post attempts to do this. HN has poor tools for surfacing such actions and intentions (it has poor tools in a large number of ways, but the very tool paucity also creates, at times, some useful positive dynamics). Sometimes you want low friction, sometimes you want high friction. A wheel, particularly in the flanged steel-on-rail or rubber tyre-on-road varieties, is a device for offering exceptionally low friction and resistance in one dimension, and very high resistance in another. Among the results of such a dynamic is the property, literally, of keeping a vehicle on track. I think HN's quirks of high- and low-affordance capabilties operate somewhat in this nature.
HiroshiSan 9y ago
I read the article and didn't feel the same way, what stood out to you specifically?
- Will_Parker 9y ago
  Here's a start: "Here’s a website (made in a couple of minutes with a tiny piece of Wolfram Language code)". He's bragging about his coding prowess, selling his product and basking in the pleasure of writing his own name, all at once. :)
  - albeva 9y ago
    If I had a language that could do a cool microsite in just few lines of my language code I'd be pretty proud of it too.
  - johnfn 9y ago
    This intrigues me because I never see the self-aggrandizement. > bragging I got that he was saying how easy it was for anyone, not just him. Not bragging. > selling his product To be fair it wouldn't show a lot of confidence if he never used it > writing his own name It's the name of the language. What do you want him to say, "a certain language who's name I will not disclose"? :)
    - Retra 9y ago
      The issue is why bring up the language at all? Why even mention that it was written "in a few lines of Wolfram", rather than just pointing people to the source? Because that's how advertisers speak. They don't say "this coffee is delicious" they say "This single-source Starbucks coffee is delicious." You can speak the truth and be informative while still maintaining your dignity and respecting other people's right to objectivity. He's not doing that. He's asking you to sacrifice your objectivity because it serves him. The self-aggrandizing tone he takes is an affront to the objective simplicity of truth -- that even if he wasn't here to do the things he does, they would still be doable. He writes as though this is not true. He doesn't just say "Rule 30 is one of those rules that has an 'organic' feel to it." He says something like "This Rule 30 that I discovered, is what I call a 'class 4' rule -- one that has an organic feel." It's like he has a compulsive inability to separate plain facts from his own brand. He has to constantly remind you that he is the god who made these things possible.
finolex1 9y ago
I think we're all forgetting that the prime reason Wolfram has a blog IS to expound on his ideas, and showcase the versatile uses of his Mathematica software, in the same way Google, Microsoft or ordinary developers have their own blogs. But for some reason, people expect his posts to be general commentaries about science, math or computing, like a Scientific American Blog post - perhaps it's due to his reputation as a 'genius', which makes people forget he is also a CEO.
- DonHopkins 9y ago
  As CEO's go, he's orders of magnitudes less annoying than Travis Kalanick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laf2ZVUFRxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laf2ZVUFRxg
averagewall 9y ago
When I read the article, I didn't know it was written be Stephen Wolfram. It sounded like any other math/tech blogger. He'd played with these things when he was younger, similar to what many programmers have done. And he was excited to find something familiar on a public building. It sounded completely non-arrogant to me. I used to play with fractals and would be just as excited to see my familiar toy on a public building, even though I didn't discover them. He didn't claim to have invented it, or that the building was designed in his honor. I think you have to be expecting arrogance to see it in this article.
- bane 9y ago
  No, he does. He even calls his cataloging of different runs of CA permutations his "discovery" as in "when I discovered".
  - seszett 9y ago
    I took that as talking about the moment he discovered rule 30 (just like I discovered it myself at one point in my life). It doesn't sound like he's claiming the be "the discoverer" of it. On the other hand, he might very well be the actual discoverer, anyway.
    - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
      He was the first to describe this form of CA and systematically investigate the results of the different rule sets.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thearn4 9y ago
I agree, it does get old fairly quickly. I also don't think cellular automata has made the giant "new kind of science" impact that he proposed that it would.
lookACamel 9y ago
On closer inspection, it's not arrogance. It the sort of literary solipsism that companies use in their PR communications.

WaxProlix 9y ago

It's pretty ceaseless, too, down to the names he gives everything (his name).

flukus 9y ago

At least this was relatively to the point, whenever I've read something from him in the past it's more like a 72 page treatise on cellular automata followed by the two line grilled cheese sandwich review the title promised.

Radim 9y ago

Wolfram reminds me of Richard Feynman, in that sense. The first time I tried to read "Surely You're Joking" as a kid I had to put it down -- the incessant "ME! ME! ME!" dripping from every page was a little too much. I've since mellowed down and can read Feynman or Wolfram without any issues. I even enjoy that style now :-)

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
hyperpallium 9y ago
4/3 I's per paragraph
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
pocketsquare2 9y ago
The first time I tried to read a Feynman Diagram as a kid I had to put it down -- the incessant "ME! ME! ME!" dripping from every subatomic particle was a little too much.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  Okay now you're just being contrary. Everyone knows that subatomic particles are all, like, "YOU! YOU! YOU!" ..
dean177 9y ago
What were you expecting from a biography?
- dickbasedregex 9y ago
  Some humility mixed in with his bragging? Seems like a fair ask.
emmelaich 9y ago
You're not the only one, Murray Gell-Mann regarded Feynman as self-aggrandising. I still liked "Surely You're Joking" though. A lot, even though I've come to regard Feynman as somewhat flawed.

frou_dh 9y ago

You are afflicted with Wolfram Derangement Syndrome: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10978871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10978871 There is a way out. I believe in you!

Will_Parker 9y ago
Ok, point taken, it's a dead horse. Is there an argument that ignoring social pathology and carrying on is dangerous in the long run though?
- pvg 9y ago
  The argument is that going on about it in every single Wolfram thread is just as quickly "repetitive and boring" and worse, makes it impossible to actually talk about whatever it is that Wolfram is writing about. It's hardly ignoring if everyone already knows about it and the chances of anyone saying anything new and interesting on the topic is just about nil.
- rhizome 9y ago
  There's an argument, sure, but you're basically arguing against the entire concepts of politics and perspective.
  - moomin 9y ago
    I dunno, if people weren't so bored of fact checkers pointing out lies, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  The alternative is to register the pathology as known, considered, addressed, and ... not of particular interest in the current context. dang's post attempts to do this. HN has poor tools for surfacing such actions and intentions (it has poor tools in a large number of ways, but the very tool paucity also creates, at times, some useful positive dynamics). Sometimes you want low friction, sometimes you want high friction. A wheel, particularly in the flanged steel-on-rail or rubber tyre-on-road varieties, is a device for offering exceptionally low friction and resistance in one dimension, and very high resistance in another. Among the results of such a dynamic is the property, literally, of keeping a vehicle on track. I think HN's quirks of high- and low-affordance capabilties operate somewhat in this nature.

HiroshiSan 9y ago

I read the article and didn't feel the same way, what stood out to you specifically?

Will_Parker 9y ago
Here's a start: "Here’s a website (made in a couple of minutes with a tiny piece of Wolfram Language code)". He's bragging about his coding prowess, selling his product and basking in the pleasure of writing his own name, all at once. :)
- albeva 9y ago
  If I had a language that could do a cool microsite in just few lines of my language code I'd be pretty proud of it too.
- johnfn 9y ago
  This intrigues me because I never see the self-aggrandizement. > bragging I got that he was saying how easy it was for anyone, not just him. Not bragging. > selling his product To be fair it wouldn't show a lot of confidence if he never used it > writing his own name It's the name of the language. What do you want him to say, "a certain language who's name I will not disclose"? :)
  - Retra 9y ago
    The issue is why bring up the language at all? Why even mention that it was written "in a few lines of Wolfram", rather than just pointing people to the source? Because that's how advertisers speak. They don't say "this coffee is delicious" they say "This single-source Starbucks coffee is delicious." You can speak the truth and be informative while still maintaining your dignity and respecting other people's right to objectivity. He's not doing that. He's asking you to sacrifice your objectivity because it serves him. The self-aggrandizing tone he takes is an affront to the objective simplicity of truth -- that even if he wasn't here to do the things he does, they would still be doable. He writes as though this is not true. He doesn't just say "Rule 30 is one of those rules that has an 'organic' feel to it." He says something like "This Rule 30 that I discovered, is what I call a 'class 4' rule -- one that has an organic feel." It's like he has a compulsive inability to separate plain facts from his own brand. He has to constantly remind you that he is the god who made these things possible.

finolex1 9y ago

I think we're all forgetting that the prime reason Wolfram has a blog IS to expound on his ideas, and showcase the versatile uses of his Mathematica software, in the same way Google, Microsoft or ordinary developers have their own blogs. But for some reason, people expect his posts to be general commentaries about science, math or computing, like a Scientific American Blog post - perhaps it's due to his reputation as a 'genius', which makes people forget he is also a CEO.

DonHopkins 9y ago
As CEO's go, he's orders of magnitudes less annoying than Travis Kalanick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laf2ZVUFRxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laf2ZVUFRxg

averagewall 9y ago

When I read the article, I didn't know it was written be Stephen Wolfram. It sounded like any other math/tech blogger. He'd played with these things when he was younger, similar to what many programmers have done. And he was excited to find something familiar on a public building. It sounded completely non-arrogant to me. I used to play with fractals and would be just as excited to see my familiar toy on a public building, even though I didn't discover them. He didn't claim to have invented it, or that the building was designed in his honor. I think you have to be expecting arrogance to see it in this article.

bane 9y ago
No, he does. He even calls his cataloging of different runs of CA permutations his "discovery" as in "when I discovered".
- seszett 9y ago
  I took that as talking about the moment he discovered rule 30 (just like I discovered it myself at one point in my life). It doesn't sound like he's claiming the be "the discoverer" of it. On the other hand, he might very well be the actual discoverer, anyway.
  - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
    He was the first to describe this form of CA and systematically investigate the results of the different rule sets.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

thearn4 9y ago

I agree, it does get old fairly quickly. I also don't think cellular automata has made the giant "new kind of science" impact that he proposed that it would.

lookACamel 9y ago

On closer inspection, it's not arrogance. It the sort of literary solipsism that companies use in their PR communications.