28 ms·

Loved this essay. The phrase “aggressively conventional minded” is genius, and may contribute a lot towards the solution. As someone coming from an ex-soviet s

Loved this essay. The phrase “aggressively conventional minded” is genius, and may contribute a lot towards the solution. As someone coming from an ex-soviet state, I’ve felt personal alarm bells ring more and more, as I experience the kind of intolerance and double speak America is heading into. Both the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right militarizing). Yet, as PG points out, the independent minded are good at figuring out solutions. No matter what, the fundamental ideas that America is built on is focused so heavily on freedom that I trust the aggressively independent to protect, and the passively independent minded to innovate.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
>No matter what, the fundamental ideas that America is built on is focused so heavily on freedom Freedom as long as you aren't threateningly critical of America. The journalist of the Syrian War who took an anti-American stance and was targetted by American drone strikes would prove otherwise: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...
- stopachka 6y ago
  The fact that an article exists, and it’s possible for him to sue, is a right and luxury afforded to us by this American belief in freedom.
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    His suit was dismissed by the government because having to defend themselves against the accusation would disclose state secrets. The right to sue only matters if you can meaningfully exercise it... And your standards are ridiculous. If anyone anywhere was able to show you a story of the US trying to kill someone for committing ideological heresy then the very fact they could tell you the story is proof that Amrrica believes in ideological freedom? You see the contradiction surely...
    - stopachka 6y ago
      I don’t quite see it, because at least in the part of the world I was raised, I can tell you that someone talking about this on the news would have sounded ridiculous. I do agree that America has never been a perfect bastion of freedom, and there are large struggles today. It definitely saddens me to see that. Yet, this is the whole point of the idea that our ties to freedom are fundamental — that some group in the U.S _will_ disagree with authorities, that even if a suit is dropped, they may continue the fight. It’s not ideal that we have to fight, but the fact that we can is a freedom that is very rare.
      - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
        I was raised in such a world too. I get what you're saying. But like everything there is a middle ground. US has good press freedom, but they also, like every country, will kill you if you "blaspheme" against them too much. There's a balance between freedom and security. And what the US deems "safe" and "unsafe" is always important to keep in mind
- lm28469 6y ago
  You don't even have to look that far, there are secret police officers using unmarked rental cars to arrest protesters without telling them who they are and why they are being arrested. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/17/portland-protests-federal-officers-george-floyd https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/17/portland-pro... https://twitter.com/sparrowmedia/status/1283436911307218948 https://twitter.com/sparrowmedia/status/1283436911307218948
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    How many bad apples makes a police black site? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli...
  - philwelch 6y ago
    The guy they’re “arresting” also doesn’t say anything, and is extremely compliant for someone who’s allegedly an anti-police protester. I believe that is a video of an informant extraction.
    - lm28469 6y ago
      > I believe that is a video of an informant extraction. It could very well be but it isn't an isolated thing (as far as I can tell) and it's in line with everything that happened in the last weeks/months in the US. In absence of any proofs I wouldn't side with the law enforcement by default, but you're right to question it.
      - philwelch 6y ago
        > it isn't an isolated thing (as far as I can tell) and it's in line with everything that happened in the last weeks/months in the US. If that’s the case, then why is this very strange and anomalous video the one thing people keep talking about when there are much more clear-cut examples such as Lafayette Park? More importantly, why is that the one data point that people are building the narrative around and saying, “well, it isn’t an isolated incident”.
- mc32 6y ago
  And while you are aghast at that, I’d have ask if you’d be aghast at the people who bully and gaslight and threaten individuals who are critical of some aspects of progressivism. I ask because if we ever had an “antifa” government I can be almost certain the abuses would escalate to heights we dare not imagine.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tenuousemphasis 6y ago
    "Yes I understand you're outraged by killing people with drone strikes, but think of the people whose companies didn't want anything to do with them after they said something nasty!"
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    I also am not a fan of cancel culture or the sort of progressive Victorianism we see these days. Sure an antifa government would suck. But that's just bad manners, these are people being assassinated because the government disagrees with them.
    - mc32 6y ago
      I wouldn’t be so optimistic. Level headed people in the French Revolution, the liberals in the Russian revolution, they had some rather horrible things happen. Done by very lucid people. You can’t say that was then. It’s hard to escape that fate.
newacct583 6y ago
> the fundamental ideas that America is built on is focused so heavily on freedom that I trust the aggressively independent to protect, and the passively independent minded to innovate. If you saw that essay as a defense of existing social structures, how are you so sure you're not just one of the convention minded too?
- stopachka 6y ago
  To clarify how I see it - I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Some existing social structures promote it, and so would others that don’t exist yet (some ideas: social network that proliferates good debates, tool that shows a politician’s vested interests, laws on transparency and symmetry, a new kind of univ focused on experience in the real world, etc) To answer the question, how do I know if I’m just one of the convention minded? - I don’t think you can know with certainty, so you should question yourself, but there are a few signs: - if your ideas are nuanced and don’t quite fit on an axis, sign of a good thing - if you read original sources, and reflect on your own experience to form theories, good sign - if you have gotten deeper on opposing views, and can articulate them well, good sign - if you notice most people in your social circle wouldn’t agree with some of your ideas, could be a good sign (conventionally minded folks are often conventionally minded to gain support of their immediate peers)
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Right, in the same sentence in which you identified "freedom", not as an abstract ideal that stands alone, but as one of "the fundamental ideas that America is built on". That tells me you're making a political point (or an identity one, I guess), not a principled one. As far as your definition, I'd just go with this: - Do you regularly find your ideas conflict in serious ways with people who hold actual power over your daily life. - Do you do anything about it? If you don't answer yes to BOTH of those questions, I think you can rule out the "independent thinker" label. If you do, well maybe I guess. But I'd suggest toning down the identity stuff unless you're trying to signal to a particular tribe. It's conformist almost by definition.
PaulHoule 6y ago
It's his personal problem. He built the ultimate machine to attract conformists who want to get another badge. First the conformists will push out individualists by their sheer bulk and better ability to navigate the approval process. (It's their core competency in life!) Y Combinator is a plant that has grown too large for its pot. Someday something is going to go wrong, there are so many people going through it that sooner or later there is going to be a scandal. Graham is not on a growth trajectory, and sooner or later decay is going to catch up with him. I don't know exactly how, but the logic of exponential growth will to discover it. If he wants to do anything except "richmansplain" about how there's some kind of problem that he can't talk about except in abtruse code (e.g. I am clearly agonized about something, but I have to draw four quadrants to pretend that I'm thinking deeply about it rather than obscure what bothers me) because if he was able to put his ineffable thoughts into words then somebody is going to do something completely indescribable. He won't listen but here is my advice. Graham has accomplished as much as he can in the place he is at. If he stays where he is, he can at best tread water, at worst various problems are going to catch up with him, he's going to paint himself into a corner, the amoral conformists attracted to his organization are going to create a scandal, the u.s. becomes unable to support s.v. b ecause capital has waged an investment strike against most of it, etc. If he leaves Y Co in the hands of people he trusts (does he trust anyone?) and spends a year or two doing something else in a different place I think he'll have something interesting to say and he It's sad, but reading his essays feels so much like reading Peirs Anthony, it is just the same essay over and over again with very little feeling he's grown. Maybe he needs to hang out with some adults, admit that being a zillionaire doesn't make you immortal, that you're always going to be frustrated because your species is split into two genders, etc.
- stopachka 6y ago
  He doesn’t run YC anymore. He lives in the Uk at this point
  - PaulHoule 6y ago
    Thanks for the correction! It might be nice to hear something about his experience in the UK then.
missosoup 6y ago
Also from an ex soviet state. Also feel alarm bells going off. I'm legitimately scared. I've seen this before, I know where it goes. It's really hard to convey my feeling of alarm to people here though. Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, I guess. Doesn't help that the conformists have been allowed to frame the narrative as 'either you agree with us, or you're literally Hitler/Stalin' depending on political alignment, which is a very powerful weapon to shut down discourse. This rising culture is freedom and diversity in all things except thought. This is how totalitarian regimes form. This is what my parents dumped their entire life savings into escaping, and here I am watching it rise again.
- wdwecewc 6y ago
  As someone from the real world, I just read comments like this and laugh. Most of the alarmism is based solely on a few nasty twitter threads. There is no real speech suppression going on (except, maybe, by the right wingers in power), but the leftists and mobs reminiscent of the soviet era certainly don't have any power right now. People pull out the 'i am from a soviet state' card all the time and it's just so far removed from the present day United States I can only recommend you take a break from the web.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - missosoup 6y ago
    You sound like someone who has never experienced the second phase of where this culture inevitably leads to. I pray that it remains that way. This is not a left/right issue. This is a mental homogeneity to the point of militant aggression towards dissenting views issue. And it always leads to totalitarianism.
    - wdwecewc 6y ago
      As someone who claims to be educated on history, it is important then to remind yourself of why this actually occurs. You can't make essays dismissing some angry mob as if they are a homogenous hivemind. They won't listen to you because they literally can't listen to you, they act independently and uncoordinated. You have to tackle issues which cause them to be aggressive towards racists to begin with. Police brutality, for example, is still a threat not yet addressed. yet in all of Paul's preaching about the mob I don't see him making an iota of effort to do something that would actually stop the mob: fixing their issues. Instead, the current plan seems to be to dismiss their outcries and trod steadily along down the path of least resistance in a world that was already collapsing with or without the anger.
blueyes 6y ago
Some ideas are dangerous, and closely tied to both actions and policies. It is the responsibility of smart, powerful and conscientious people to acknowledge that. I am not saying that dangerous ideas should not be discussed. But we should be careful what we say in public. How should society regulate pedophilia, if at all? Nambla has opinions about that. Does Paul draw the line at legalizing pedophilia? Does he advocate that our most popular platforms embrace and encourage that debate? Race-based eugenics is another idea that has surfaced again and again. Why not optimize the human species through sterilization of its less desired members? That idea seems to march in lockstep with policies of extermination. Does Paul draw the line at that idea? If not, why not?
- captainredbeard 6y ago
  By removing pedophiles from society through violence, naturally.
peisistratos 6y ago
> As someone coming from an ex-soviet state, I’ve felt personal alarm bells ring more and more Good! I have been working to make it such for years alongside others, and our work has been bearing fruit. Who knows, we might be under a Politburo in a few years. It worked for China. Of course, as Marx said, history marches forward in a dialectic manner. The other class has to do their part, and they have done it - the population has to be pauperized and proletarianized, and that has come to pass. As Lenin said, liberals are worse than the Tsar's Black Hundreds. Stalin said social democracy is social fascism. I'm happy to see the discussions of cutting Covid aid in congress - it is exactly the attack the working class needs against it. As Mao said, everything under heaven is in disorder, the situation is excellent.
- dang 6y ago
  We've banned this account for using primarily HN for ideological battle and ignoring our requests to stop.
maerF0x0 6y ago
> the independent minded are good at figuring out solutions. Ideally it wouldn't cost one their life, liberty or means of sustenance in the pursuit of figuring out these solutions
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
so33 6y ago
> the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right militarizing). If I had to choose between “cancel culture” versus militarized violence, cancel me any day.
- sparkie 6y ago
  I see you slipped the word "violence" in there. Perhaps you misspelled "defence"? The State is the primary perpetrator of violence, not "the right". You shouldn't be thinking in "left vs right", but in "individuals vs the state". The only things sitting between your liberties and the State are: its constitution (if any), and the "militarized right" (gun owners). There's some historical examples of individuals giving up their guns, perhaps you should read into what happened afterwards?
  - poutrathor 6y ago
    hello from europe, we got all the versions running for 150 years, none proved armed citizens turned out good I think?
bePoliteAlways 6y ago
Thinking little more on this. Today's independent become tomorrow's conventional. Not sure if the same person maintains the independence or gets tied to their idea and in a way loosing the independence. In scientific community too new ideas are challenged by conventional great scientist sometime.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

>No matter what, the fundamental ideas that America is built on is focused so heavily on freedom Freedom as long as you aren't threateningly critical of America. The journalist of the Syrian War who took an anti-American stance and was targetted by American drone strikes would prove otherwise: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...

stopachka 6y ago
The fact that an article exists, and it’s possible for him to sue, is a right and luxury afforded to us by this American belief in freedom.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  His suit was dismissed by the government because having to defend themselves against the accusation would disclose state secrets. The right to sue only matters if you can meaningfully exercise it... And your standards are ridiculous. If anyone anywhere was able to show you a story of the US trying to kill someone for committing ideological heresy then the very fact they could tell you the story is proof that Amrrica believes in ideological freedom? You see the contradiction surely...
  - stopachka 6y ago
    I don’t quite see it, because at least in the part of the world I was raised, I can tell you that someone talking about this on the news would have sounded ridiculous. I do agree that America has never been a perfect bastion of freedom, and there are large struggles today. It definitely saddens me to see that. Yet, this is the whole point of the idea that our ties to freedom are fundamental — that some group in the U.S _will_ disagree with authorities, that even if a suit is dropped, they may continue the fight. It’s not ideal that we have to fight, but the fact that we can is a freedom that is very rare.
    - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
      I was raised in such a world too. I get what you're saying. But like everything there is a middle ground. US has good press freedom, but they also, like every country, will kill you if you "blaspheme" against them too much. There's a balance between freedom and security. And what the US deems "safe" and "unsafe" is always important to keep in mind
lm28469 6y ago
You don't even have to look that far, there are secret police officers using unmarked rental cars to arrest protesters without telling them who they are and why they are being arrested. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/17/portland-protests-federal-officers-george-floyd https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/17/portland-pro... https://twitter.com/sparrowmedia/status/1283436911307218948 https://twitter.com/sparrowmedia/status/1283436911307218948
- threatofrain 6y ago
  How many bad apples makes a police black site? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli...
- philwelch 6y ago
  The guy they’re “arresting” also doesn’t say anything, and is extremely compliant for someone who’s allegedly an anti-police protester. I believe that is a video of an informant extraction.
  - lm28469 6y ago
    > I believe that is a video of an informant extraction. It could very well be but it isn't an isolated thing (as far as I can tell) and it's in line with everything that happened in the last weeks/months in the US. In absence of any proofs I wouldn't side with the law enforcement by default, but you're right to question it.
    - philwelch 6y ago
      > it isn't an isolated thing (as far as I can tell) and it's in line with everything that happened in the last weeks/months in the US. If that’s the case, then why is this very strange and anomalous video the one thing people keep talking about when there are much more clear-cut examples such as Lafayette Park? More importantly, why is that the one data point that people are building the narrative around and saying, “well, it isn’t an isolated incident”.
mc32 6y ago
And while you are aghast at that, I’d have ask if you’d be aghast at the people who bully and gaslight and threaten individuals who are critical of some aspects of progressivism. I ask because if we ever had an “antifa” government I can be almost certain the abuses would escalate to heights we dare not imagine.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tenuousemphasis 6y ago
  "Yes I understand you're outraged by killing people with drone strikes, but think of the people whose companies didn't want anything to do with them after they said something nasty!"
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  I also am not a fan of cancel culture or the sort of progressive Victorianism we see these days. Sure an antifa government would suck. But that's just bad manners, these are people being assassinated because the government disagrees with them.
  - mc32 6y ago
    I wouldn’t be so optimistic. Level headed people in the French Revolution, the liberals in the Russian revolution, they had some rather horrible things happen. Done by very lucid people. You can’t say that was then. It’s hard to escape that fate.

newacct583 6y ago

> the fundamental ideas that America is built on is focused so heavily on freedom that I trust the aggressively independent to protect, and the passively independent minded to innovate. If you saw that essay as a defense of existing social structures, how are you so sure you're not just one of the convention minded too?

stopachka 6y ago
To clarify how I see it - I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Some existing social structures promote it, and so would others that don’t exist yet (some ideas: social network that proliferates good debates, tool that shows a politician’s vested interests, laws on transparency and symmetry, a new kind of univ focused on experience in the real world, etc) To answer the question, how do I know if I’m just one of the convention minded? - I don’t think you can know with certainty, so you should question yourself, but there are a few signs: - if your ideas are nuanced and don’t quite fit on an axis, sign of a good thing - if you read original sources, and reflect on your own experience to form theories, good sign - if you have gotten deeper on opposing views, and can articulate them well, good sign - if you notice most people in your social circle wouldn’t agree with some of your ideas, could be a good sign (conventionally minded folks are often conventionally minded to gain support of their immediate peers)
- newacct583 6y ago
  > I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Right, in the same sentence in which you identified "freedom", not as an abstract ideal that stands alone, but as one of "the fundamental ideas that America is built on". That tells me you're making a political point (or an identity one, I guess), not a principled one. As far as your definition, I'd just go with this: - Do you regularly find your ideas conflict in serious ways with people who hold actual power over your daily life. - Do you do anything about it? If you don't answer yes to BOTH of those questions, I think you can rule out the "independent thinker" label. If you do, well maybe I guess. But I'd suggest toning down the identity stuff unless you're trying to signal to a particular tribe. It's conformist almost by definition.

PaulHoule 6y ago

It's his personal problem. He built the ultimate machine to attract conformists who want to get another badge. First the conformists will push out individualists by their sheer bulk and better ability to navigate the approval process. (It's their core competency in life!) Y Combinator is a plant that has grown too large for its pot. Someday something is going to go wrong, there are so many people going through it that sooner or later there is going to be a scandal. Graham is not on a growth trajectory, and sooner or later decay is going to catch up with him. I don't know exactly how, but the logic of exponential growth will to discover it. If he wants to do anything except "richmansplain" about how there's some kind of problem that he can't talk about except in abtruse code (e.g. I am clearly agonized about something, but I have to draw four quadrants to pretend that I'm thinking deeply about it rather than obscure what bothers me) because if he was able to put his ineffable thoughts into words then somebody is going to do something completely indescribable. He won't listen but here is my advice. Graham has accomplished as much as he can in the place he is at. If he stays where he is, he can at best tread water, at worst various problems are going to catch up with him, he's going to paint himself into a corner, the amoral conformists attracted to his organization are going to create a scandal, the u.s. becomes unable to support s.v. b ecause capital has waged an investment strike against most of it, etc. If he leaves Y Co in the hands of people he trusts (does he trust anyone?) and spends a year or two doing something else in a different place I think he'll have something interesting to say and he It's sad, but reading his essays feels so much like reading Peirs Anthony, it is just the same essay over and over again with very little feeling he's grown. Maybe he needs to hang out with some adults, admit that being a zillionaire doesn't make you immortal, that you're always going to be frustrated because your species is split into two genders, etc.

stopachka 6y ago
He doesn’t run YC anymore. He lives in the Uk at this point
- PaulHoule 6y ago
  Thanks for the correction! It might be nice to hear something about his experience in the UK then.

missosoup 6y ago

Also from an ex soviet state. Also feel alarm bells going off. I'm legitimately scared. I've seen this before, I know where it goes. It's really hard to convey my feeling of alarm to people here though. Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, I guess. Doesn't help that the conformists have been allowed to frame the narrative as 'either you agree with us, or you're literally Hitler/Stalin' depending on political alignment, which is a very powerful weapon to shut down discourse. This rising culture is freedom and diversity in all things except thought. This is how totalitarian regimes form. This is what my parents dumped their entire life savings into escaping, and here I am watching it rise again.

wdwecewc 6y ago
As someone from the real world, I just read comments like this and laugh. Most of the alarmism is based solely on a few nasty twitter threads. There is no real speech suppression going on (except, maybe, by the right wingers in power), but the leftists and mobs reminiscent of the soviet era certainly don't have any power right now. People pull out the 'i am from a soviet state' card all the time and it's just so far removed from the present day United States I can only recommend you take a break from the web.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- missosoup 6y ago
  You sound like someone who has never experienced the second phase of where this culture inevitably leads to. I pray that it remains that way. This is not a left/right issue. This is a mental homogeneity to the point of militant aggression towards dissenting views issue. And it always leads to totalitarianism.
  - wdwecewc 6y ago
    As someone who claims to be educated on history, it is important then to remind yourself of why this actually occurs. You can't make essays dismissing some angry mob as if they are a homogenous hivemind. They won't listen to you because they literally can't listen to you, they act independently and uncoordinated. You have to tackle issues which cause them to be aggressive towards racists to begin with. Police brutality, for example, is still a threat not yet addressed. yet in all of Paul's preaching about the mob I don't see him making an iota of effort to do something that would actually stop the mob: fixing their issues. Instead, the current plan seems to be to dismiss their outcries and trod steadily along down the path of least resistance in a world that was already collapsing with or without the anger.

blueyes 6y ago

Some ideas are dangerous, and closely tied to both actions and policies. It is the responsibility of smart, powerful and conscientious people to acknowledge that. I am not saying that dangerous ideas should not be discussed. But we should be careful what we say in public. How should society regulate pedophilia, if at all? Nambla has opinions about that. Does Paul draw the line at legalizing pedophilia? Does he advocate that our most popular platforms embrace and encourage that debate? Race-based eugenics is another idea that has surfaced again and again. Why not optimize the human species through sterilization of its less desired members? That idea seems to march in lockstep with policies of extermination. Does Paul draw the line at that idea? If not, why not?

captainredbeard 6y ago
By removing pedophiles from society through violence, naturally.

peisistratos 6y ago

> As someone coming from an ex-soviet state, I’ve felt personal alarm bells ring more and more Good! I have been working to make it such for years alongside others, and our work has been bearing fruit. Who knows, we might be under a Politburo in a few years. It worked for China. Of course, as Marx said, history marches forward in a dialectic manner. The other class has to do their part, and they have done it - the population has to be pauperized and proletarianized, and that has come to pass. As Lenin said, liberals are worse than the Tsar's Black Hundreds. Stalin said social democracy is social fascism. I'm happy to see the discussions of cutting Covid aid in congress - it is exactly the attack the working class needs against it. As Mao said, everything under heaven is in disorder, the situation is excellent.

dang 6y ago
We've banned this account for using primarily HN for ideological battle and ignoring our requests to stop.

maerF0x0 6y ago

> the independent minded are good at figuring out solutions. Ideally it wouldn't cost one their life, liberty or means of sustenance in the pursuit of figuring out these solutions

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

so33 6y ago

> the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right militarizing). If I had to choose between “cancel culture” versus militarized violence, cancel me any day.

sparkie 6y ago
I see you slipped the word "violence" in there. Perhaps you misspelled "defence"? The State is the primary perpetrator of violence, not "the right". You shouldn't be thinking in "left vs right", but in "individuals vs the state". The only things sitting between your liberties and the State are: its constitution (if any), and the "militarized right" (gun owners). There's some historical examples of individuals giving up their guns, perhaps you should read into what happened afterwards?
- poutrathor 6y ago
  hello from europe, we got all the versions running for 150 years, none proved armed citizens turned out good I think?

bePoliteAlways 6y ago

Thinking little more on this. Today's independent become tomorrow's conventional. Not sure if the same person maintains the independence or gets tied to their idea and in a way loosing the independence. In scientific community too new ideas are challenged by conventional great scientist sometime.