3 ms·
I wanted to upvote what you said because you contributed a very positive, affirming, knowledge bit about the Haber process, but then you decided to end it on su
by Lambdanaut 8y ago
I wanted to upvote what you said because you contributed a very positive, affirming, knowledge bit about the Haber process, but then you decided to end it on such a divisive negative note:
> And it's guys like Steve jobs that get called innovators! Absolute nonsense!
There are an infinite number of reasonable ways to measure innovation, and there are so many metrics by which "guys LIKE Steve Jobs"(whatever that means) come out on top.
From a humanitarian perspective, Fritz Haber ended up creating a process that helped us take huge steps forward as a collective species.
We can acknowledge that without putting down other innovators.
We can ALL be acknowledged for our innovation.
- garmaine 8y ago> From a humanitarian perspective, Fritz Haber ended up creating a process that helped us take huge steps forward as a collective species. It also made possible the industrial production of dynamite and other conventional explosives, and you could say it's why WW2 dwarfed WW1 in terms of destructive power. Point is, it's not a one-sided issue as you say.
- euyyn 8y agoExplosives are pretty useful for construction, though.
- guelo 8y agoIf Apple hadn't come out with the iPhone there were a dozen other companies that were working on similar products and today we would have something else iPhone-ish. Without Steve Jobs the inventors of the iPhone, such as Tony Fadell, would have probably done similar work for some other CEO.
- euyyn 8y agoYou can apply that argument to every single discovery, innovation, and development of humankind. Well, maybe not to the discovery of America, as it was sheer dumb luck. But in any case "someone else would have done it eventually" is an empty argument.