4 ms·
Forget science: as an “army of one” you’re unlikely to make a contribution of sufficient magnitude that some needle might be moved in the right direction. Take
by maxaf 7y ago
Forget science: as an “army of one” you’re unlikely to make a contribution of sufficient magnitude that some needle might be moved in the right direction. Take advantage of the skills you do have: make money by doing what startup entrepreneurs do, then donate all proceeds to scientific research.
There may be the next Zuckerberg hiding in you. Imagine what would be possible if you could reach that level of wealth and use all that money to propel science forward. I’m not talking about some chickenshit foundation; real impact is made by committing all of your financial means to helping science. That’s how a real difference is made.
- 6d6b73 7y agoA lot, if not most of the important scientific discoveries were result of work of "an army of one". From biosciences to physics you can do amazing stuff. We don't need any new zuckebergs that siphone all of the great minds that are out there into showing more ads.
- ken 7y agoThe individual scientific discovery was common in the early history of science, but has grown less common over time. Looking at this list [1], for example: - Prior to roughly WWII, it was mostly individuals, and so we named things after them (Kelvin, Doppler, Joule, Ohm, etc). - From WWII until the late 20th century, it was a lot of small teams (transistor, 3; DNA, 4; pulsars, 2; etc). - Since then, team sizes have grown so that individuals aren't even named (cloning, an Institute; Top Quark, a Lab; Tau neutrino, a Collaboration; etc). In fact, in the past 35 years, the only individually named contributors on that list were mathematicians who constructed proofs of long-standing unsolved problems in mathematics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discove...