6 ms·

This comment is not very popular, especially in America, but Feynman was by and large a showman. His most celebrated publication is path integral approach. Dira

by aborsy 6y ago

This comment is not very popular, especially in America, but Feynman was by and large a showman. His most celebrated publication is path integral approach. Dirac had a paper earlier (known as Dirac’s little paper), so did Norbert Wiener in a different context, on this approach. They didn’t pursue path integrals, as they could not (and still people can’t) make sense of them rigorously. Feynman looked up that paper and expanded on it. He also drew useful diagrams, but you know ... :)

adrian_b 6y ago
I agree that his original contributions might not be so important as believed by those who actually do not know them in detail. On the other hand, as a child I have enjoyed very much the Feynman Lectures on Physics, much more than most other similar books. I am certainly very grateful to him, because his work had a very positive influence on me, when I was young.
wunderflix 6y ago
So he was awarded the Nobel Prize for being a "showman"?
- jorgenveisdal 6y ago
  Wouldn’t be the first. Bob Dylan, Winston Churchill, Barack Obama etc
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    It seems reasonable to hold Nobel Prizes in advancing science to a different level than Nobel Prizes in influencing people. Though both are valuable for society, the latter essentially must include elements of showmanship.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Henry Kissinger
- morelisp 6y ago
  There is a tendency for such awards to go to those in the top 10% of both the field in question and the top 10% of ability to sell themselves, rather than those in the top 1% of the field in question.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    That can be true for Literacy or Peace Nobel's but not for physics. The amount of cynical consipratory thinking in HN horrifies me.
    - morelisp 6y ago
      10% is a drastic overestimate for Literature or Peace. I would be shocked if Peace is better than random. Your optimism concerning the Nobels for sciences is adorable.
- aborsy 6y ago
  For contributions I noted in my comment. I wouldn’t say he didn’t deserve it (he was a good popular expositor). You should not neglect the role of politics and presentation in academia. As science became increasingly a valuable commodity, it attracted a lot of people with perverse incentives: politicians, administrators, research managers, status-hungry individuals etc. I see what’s happening and it’s not pretty. Frankly, I think it’s not a healthy environment and this academic system would not last too long. Smart people will leave, as they realize this has become an industry not different from banking or any other, except the currency is fame and reputation, and stakes are so low. It’s no longer like 1930s, and people like Feynman helped set the stage for a new eta. And it’s not surprising at all, once you learn that politics and showmanship actually pay off.
  - auggierose 6y ago
    There are a lot of politicians, administrators and managers in academia. To say that Feynman is responsible for them, is pretty ridiculous. And to say that Feynman wasn't a great physicist makes words basically meaningless.
    - morelisp 6y ago
      Without looking it up, can you name the other two people who won the Nobel with him? Were they lesser physicists than Feynman? If not, why so much focus on his life but not theirs?
      - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
        S. and T., didn't take half a second's thought. Being a showman doesn't mean that Feynman was only a showman. Indeed, one can hardly be an effective educator without a strong touch of showmanship in presenting ideas.
        morelisp 6y ago
        You don't normally win a Nobel for being an effective educator or communicator either - and nominally he didn't.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Do you believe that all Nobel prizes are equivalent ?
nabla9 6y ago
Feynman was a showman but he was also a good physicist. Not among top 10 or 20 in the 20th century as many popular polls put him, but still really good physicist. He had great teaching ability. That justifies his fame. Just like Gilbert Strang deserves his fame.
matthewh806 6y ago
I would say its not a very popular comment because its deliberately contrarian and not the full story. Yes, Feynman was a showman (amongst many other things) but he was also a truly gifted physicist. You can be both those things at the same time. And he was. "Feynman looked up that paper and expanded on it", yes, science doesn't happen in a vacuum? Standing on the shoulders of giants etc
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ElFitz 6y ago
Not American, but I would argue that his greatest contributions weren’t necessarily in exploring the fundamental laws of physics but in making physics more accessible, easier to understand, and more pleasant to study. The fact he got his Nobel prize in part thanks to a way of representing interactions between particle is quite telling. His books, and even more so his BBC interview (have yet to dive into the Physics lectures) completely changed my perspective on science. I liked it, and wanted to love it, but watching him talk about fire and photosynthesis finally made it all click together. Those weren’t abstract formulas, or curious and amusing concepts. All of it was deeply tied to everything around me, and somehow managed to make it all much more fascinating. I didn’t know the formulas, or the exact rules, but I got a general understanding of each of these processes and, feeling like a child once again, actually wanted to know more. It was suddenly so obvious, and yet... why did it take all this time? And why couldn’t anyone else help me realise that earlier? I certainly could blame the French education system, which isn’t really fond of making itself likeable or giving meaning to what it teaches, but still... it seems much more widespread than that. So... I wouldn’t be surprised if he is both directly and indirectly responsible for many other physicists actually getting into research and developing this "intuition" that comes with truly understanding. Edit: Also, his explanation is the first satisfying one I’ve ever gotten to "What is fire?" since I started asking the question over a decade ago.
- darkerside 6y ago
  I've found that my deepest understanding fire has come from building communal fires time and again over the course of the pandemic, seeing (and causing) the chain reaction grow from nothing into a continuous reaction.
Radim 6y ago
Your assessment, while phrased provocatively, isn't all that controversial (except maybe in some pop-sci worship circles). Feynman shone in popularizing physics, and physicists. Freeman Dyson, one of Feynman's closest friends (and a prodigious scientist in his own right; died last year) regularly described Feynman as a "fast calculator rather than a particularly deep thinker". IIRC Dyson picked Fermi as the greatest physicist he'd ever met – much to the dismay of reporters, who of course expected Dyson to name his buddy Feynman :-)
- morelisp 6y ago
  > Your assessment, while phrased provocatively, isn't all that controversial (except maybe in some pop-sci worship circles) HN is therefore likely a good place to remind people of such...
- EngrRavi 6y ago
  The following is Serge's account of Dyson's account of Fermi's opinion of QED [1]: ''' “When Dyson met Fermi, he quickly put aside the graphs he was being shown indicating agreement between theory and experiment. His verdict, as Dyson remembered, was “There are two ways of doing calculations in theoretical physics. One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the process you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and self-consistent mathematical formalism. You have neither.” When a stunned Dyson tried to counter by emphasizing the agreement between experiment and the calculations, Fermi asked him how many free parameters he had used to obtain the fit. Smiling after being told “Four,” Fermi remarked, “I remember my old friend Johnny von Neumann used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” There was little to add.” ''' [1] Segre G., Hoerlin B. The Pope of Physics: Enrico Fermi and the Birth of the Atomic Age. Henry Holt and Co, 2016 ISBN 9781627790055 This quote is from Oliver Consa's 2020 paper: "Something is rotten in the state of QED".
  - Radim 6y ago
    Since we're trading Dyson anecdotes, here's a similarly awkward one, about how Dyson met Wolfgang Pauli for the first time [0]: > I remember the very first time I met [Pauli] at a conference in Zurich. He was talking with a whole group of people about Julian Schwinger, who had just come to Switzerland. Schwinger was a brilliant young American who had done some very fine work. He was a rival of Feynman; they were the two geniuses then. Pauli was saying that Schwinger told us all this stuff that actually made sense, not like that nonsense Dyson has been writing. At that point I came walking up with a friend of mine, Markus Fierz, who was also a Swiss scientist. With a twinkle in his eye, Fierz came up to Pauli and said, “Please allow me to introduce you to my friend, Freeman Dyson.” Pauli said, “Oh that doesn’t matter. He doesn’t understand German.” Which of course I did. That was a good beginning and we were friends right from the very first day. [0] https://nautil.us/issue/43/heroes/my-life-with-the-physics-dream-team https://nautil.us/issue/43/heroes/my-life-with-the-physics-d...
EngrRavi 6y ago
Oppenheimer's opinion of Feynman seems to have vastly diminished after the Shelter Island and Pocono conferences. According to Dyson [1]: “When after some weeks I had a chance to talk to Oppenheimer, I was astonished to discover that his reasons for being uninterested in my work were quite the opposite of what I had imagined. I had expected that he would disparage my program as merely unoriginal, a minor adumbration of Schwinger and Feynman. On the contrary, he considered it to be fundamentally on the wrong track. He thought adumbrating Schwinger and Feynman to be a wasted effort, because he did not believe that the ideas of Schwinger and Feynman had much to do with reality. I HAD KNOWN THAT HE HAD NEVER APPRECIATED FEYNMAN, but it came as a shock to hear him now violently opposing Schwinger, his own student, whose work he had acclaimed so enthusiastically six months earlier. He had somehow become convinced during his stay in Europe that physics was in need of radically new ideas, that this quantum electrodynamics of Schwinger and Feynman was just another misguided attempt to patch up old ideas with fancy mathematics.” [1] Dyson F. Disturbing the Universe. Henry Holt and Co, 1979 ISBN 9780465016778. This quote and an earlier one I made are from Oliver Consa's 2020 paper: "Something is rotten in the state of QED".
- wunderflix 6y ago
  This all sounds an awful lot like a standard telenovela drama.
egocodedinsol 6y ago
This comment may be unpopular because it's not tremendously useful.
kevinwang 6y ago
Although I wasn't around during the 50s, this comment seems likely to be revisionist history to me. The article itself quotes Oppenheimer as writing (unsolicited): "He is by all odds the most brilliant young physicist here, and everyone knows this." and 'Wigner said, "He is a second Dirac, only this time human."' I wonder if perhaps this opinion of Feynman as a showman has gotten more popular over the decades as Feynman and the physicists who knew him passed away, and more and more of us are exposed to him only through his lectures and books. (If you'll excuse an aside: a bit like Bill Simmon's thesis on the basketball greats Bill Russell vs. Chamberlain -- those of us looking back on history, with only artifacts, may draw conclusions that would be ridiculous at the time.) I don't know if this is the case, but it's a fun speculation.
da-bacon 6y ago
If only. Dirac and Wiener did not understand the significance of the action appearing where it did. Feynman gave it meaning. An analogy for what you are saying is that Einstein just rederived Lorentz’s equations. That’s one of the most interesting characteristics of physics, it’s not just math and computation, meaning is hugely significant. I’d also say the path integral is not what he is most known for among practicing physicists, but that’s another story (I recommend “QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga@).
elteto 6y ago
He was definitely a showman, but Schwinger and Tomonaga were definitely not. Being a larger-than-life character type does not detract from his contributions.
madhadron 6y ago
I have several friends who personally knew Feynman. He was a problematic individual in many ways. One of them remembers being in an elevator with his girlfriend, and Feynman getting on the elevator and immediately hitting on her. Another recalls being dragged along to crash parties at Caltech for free food. That same one commented that, yes, he was super careful about his legacy and all the stories published about him. But they spent time around him in a working context, and they are all absolutely clear in their minds that, beyond the showmanship, he was a genius.
- WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
  Here. You have used that word. PROBLEMATIC. You know, not "asshole". Not "womanizer". Not "arrogant" or even "abrasive". Not "his feet stank". No. PROBLEMATIC. A very nice umbrella term. Very vague. Very accusatory at the same time. Can't wait for the news where reeducation facilities are being built for the PROBLEMATIC individuals and measures being taken so that no PROBLEMATIC individuals ever remain. Another problem is, who's going to be the ultimate arbiter of who is PROBLEMATIC and who's not? (Oh, I probably am DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC by misvirtue of even talking about this. Keep 'em downvotes coming, but I'd rather see people eradicate this word from their vocabularies and say instead things like, "some people had reasons to dislike him". More, you know, honest that way.)
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't take HN threads into flamewar. Getting provoked by one word and making a flamewar reply out of it is definitely not in the set of response patterns we want here. We want the kind that lead to more interesting / less predictable discussion. To do this requires resisting this sort of provocation in oneself—i.e. waiting until the activation dies down, and then either moving on to something else or finding a more interesting response to share. More on that here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=reflective%20reflex%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Also, please don't use allcaps for emphasis and please don't go on about downvotes. These things are all in the site guidelines—would you please review them (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and stick to the rules when posting here? We'd appreciate it, because we're trying to avoid the internet hell in which everything becomes consumed by the never-ending flamewars.
lalalandland 6y ago
Murray Gell-Mann talks about Richard Feynman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnMsgxIIQEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnMsgxIIQEE

by aborsy 6y ago

adrian_b 6y ago

I agree that his original contributions might not be so important as believed by those who actually do not know them in detail. On the other hand, as a child I have enjoyed very much the Feynman Lectures on Physics, much more than most other similar books. I am certainly very grateful to him, because his work had a very positive influence on me, when I was young.

wunderflix 6y ago

So he was awarded the Nobel Prize for being a "showman"?

jorgenveisdal 6y ago
Wouldn’t be the first. Bob Dylan, Winston Churchill, Barack Obama etc
- sokoloff 6y ago
  It seems reasonable to hold Nobel Prizes in advancing science to a different level than Nobel Prizes in influencing people. Though both are valuable for society, the latter essentially must include elements of showmanship.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Henry Kissinger
morelisp 6y ago
There is a tendency for such awards to go to those in the top 10% of both the field in question and the top 10% of ability to sell themselves, rather than those in the top 1% of the field in question.
- nabla9 6y ago
  That can be true for Literacy or Peace Nobel's but not for physics. The amount of cynical consipratory thinking in HN horrifies me.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    10% is a drastic overestimate for Literature or Peace. I would be shocked if Peace is better than random. Your optimism concerning the Nobels for sciences is adorable.
aborsy 6y ago
For contributions I noted in my comment. I wouldn’t say he didn’t deserve it (he was a good popular expositor). You should not neglect the role of politics and presentation in academia. As science became increasingly a valuable commodity, it attracted a lot of people with perverse incentives: politicians, administrators, research managers, status-hungry individuals etc. I see what’s happening and it’s not pretty. Frankly, I think it’s not a healthy environment and this academic system would not last too long. Smart people will leave, as they realize this has become an industry not different from banking or any other, except the currency is fame and reputation, and stakes are so low. It’s no longer like 1930s, and people like Feynman helped set the stage for a new eta. And it’s not surprising at all, once you learn that politics and showmanship actually pay off.
- auggierose 6y ago
  There are a lot of politicians, administrators and managers in academia. To say that Feynman is responsible for them, is pretty ridiculous. And to say that Feynman wasn't a great physicist makes words basically meaningless.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    Without looking it up, can you name the other two people who won the Nobel with him? Were they lesser physicists than Feynman? If not, why so much focus on his life but not theirs?
    - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      S. and T., didn't take half a second's thought. Being a showman doesn't mean that Feynman was only a showman. Indeed, one can hardly be an effective educator without a strong touch of showmanship in presenting ideas.
      - morelisp 6y ago
        You don't normally win a Nobel for being an effective educator or communicator either - and nominally he didn't.
ekianjo 6y ago
Do you believe that all Nobel prizes are equivalent ?

nabla9 6y ago

Feynman was a showman but he was also a good physicist. Not among top 10 or 20 in the 20th century as many popular polls put him, but still really good physicist. He had great teaching ability. That justifies his fame. Just like Gilbert Strang deserves his fame.

matthewh806 6y ago

I would say its not a very popular comment because its deliberately contrarian and not the full story. Yes, Feynman was a showman (amongst many other things) but he was also a truly gifted physicist. You can be both those things at the same time. And he was. "Feynman looked up that paper and expanded on it", yes, science doesn't happen in a vacuum? Standing on the shoulders of giants etc

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ElFitz 6y ago

Not American, but I would argue that his greatest contributions weren’t necessarily in exploring the fundamental laws of physics but in making physics more accessible, easier to understand, and more pleasant to study. The fact he got his Nobel prize in part thanks to a way of representing interactions between particle is quite telling. His books, and even more so his BBC interview (have yet to dive into the Physics lectures) completely changed my perspective on science. I liked it, and wanted to love it, but watching him talk about fire and photosynthesis finally made it all click together. Those weren’t abstract formulas, or curious and amusing concepts. All of it was deeply tied to everything around me, and somehow managed to make it all much more fascinating. I didn’t know the formulas, or the exact rules, but I got a general understanding of each of these processes and, feeling like a child once again, actually wanted to know more. It was suddenly so obvious, and yet... why did it take all this time? And why couldn’t anyone else help me realise that earlier? I certainly could blame the French education system, which isn’t really fond of making itself likeable or giving meaning to what it teaches, but still... it seems much more widespread than that. So... I wouldn’t be surprised if he is both directly and indirectly responsible for many other physicists actually getting into research and developing this "intuition" that comes with truly understanding. Edit: Also, his explanation is the first satisfying one I’ve ever gotten to "What is fire?" since I started asking the question over a decade ago.

darkerside 6y ago
I've found that my deepest understanding fire has come from building communal fires time and again over the course of the pandemic, seeing (and causing) the chain reaction grow from nothing into a continuous reaction.

Radim 6y ago

Your assessment, while phrased provocatively, isn't all that controversial (except maybe in some pop-sci worship circles). Feynman shone in popularizing physics, and physicists. Freeman Dyson, one of Feynman's closest friends (and a prodigious scientist in his own right; died last year) regularly described Feynman as a "fast calculator rather than a particularly deep thinker". IIRC Dyson picked Fermi as the greatest physicist he'd ever met – much to the dismay of reporters, who of course expected Dyson to name his buddy Feynman :-)

morelisp 6y ago
> Your assessment, while phrased provocatively, isn't all that controversial (except maybe in some pop-sci worship circles) HN is therefore likely a good place to remind people of such...
EngrRavi 6y ago
The following is Serge's account of Dyson's account of Fermi's opinion of QED [1]: ''' “When Dyson met Fermi, he quickly put aside the graphs he was being shown indicating agreement between theory and experiment. His verdict, as Dyson remembered, was “There are two ways of doing calculations in theoretical physics. One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the process you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and self-consistent mathematical formalism. You have neither.” When a stunned Dyson tried to counter by emphasizing the agreement between experiment and the calculations, Fermi asked him how many free parameters he had used to obtain the fit. Smiling after being told “Four,” Fermi remarked, “I remember my old friend Johnny von Neumann used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” There was little to add.” ''' [1] Segre G., Hoerlin B. The Pope of Physics: Enrico Fermi and the Birth of the Atomic Age. Henry Holt and Co, 2016 ISBN 9781627790055 This quote is from Oliver Consa's 2020 paper: "Something is rotten in the state of QED".
- Radim 6y ago
  Since we're trading Dyson anecdotes, here's a similarly awkward one, about how Dyson met Wolfgang Pauli for the first time [0]: > I remember the very first time I met [Pauli] at a conference in Zurich. He was talking with a whole group of people about Julian Schwinger, who had just come to Switzerland. Schwinger was a brilliant young American who had done some very fine work. He was a rival of Feynman; they were the two geniuses then. Pauli was saying that Schwinger told us all this stuff that actually made sense, not like that nonsense Dyson has been writing. At that point I came walking up with a friend of mine, Markus Fierz, who was also a Swiss scientist. With a twinkle in his eye, Fierz came up to Pauli and said, “Please allow me to introduce you to my friend, Freeman Dyson.” Pauli said, “Oh that doesn’t matter. He doesn’t understand German.” Which of course I did. That was a good beginning and we were friends right from the very first day. [0] https://nautil.us/issue/43/heroes/my-life-with-the-physics-dream-team https://nautil.us/issue/43/heroes/my-life-with-the-physics-d...

EngrRavi 6y ago

Oppenheimer's opinion of Feynman seems to have vastly diminished after the Shelter Island and Pocono conferences. According to Dyson [1]: “When after some weeks I had a chance to talk to Oppenheimer, I was astonished to discover that his reasons for being uninterested in my work were quite the opposite of what I had imagined. I had expected that he would disparage my program as merely unoriginal, a minor adumbration of Schwinger and Feynman. On the contrary, he considered it to be fundamentally on the wrong track. He thought adumbrating Schwinger and Feynman to be a wasted effort, because he did not believe that the ideas of Schwinger and Feynman had much to do with reality. I HAD KNOWN THAT HE HAD NEVER APPRECIATED FEYNMAN, but it came as a shock to hear him now violently opposing Schwinger, his own student, whose work he had acclaimed so enthusiastically six months earlier. He had somehow become convinced during his stay in Europe that physics was in need of radically new ideas, that this quantum electrodynamics of Schwinger and Feynman was just another misguided attempt to patch up old ideas with fancy mathematics.” [1] Dyson F. Disturbing the Universe. Henry Holt and Co, 1979 ISBN 9780465016778. This quote and an earlier one I made are from Oliver Consa's 2020 paper: "Something is rotten in the state of QED".

wunderflix 6y ago
This all sounds an awful lot like a standard telenovela drama.

egocodedinsol 6y ago

This comment may be unpopular because it's not tremendously useful.

kevinwang 6y ago

Although I wasn't around during the 50s, this comment seems likely to be revisionist history to me. The article itself quotes Oppenheimer as writing (unsolicited): "He is by all odds the most brilliant young physicist here, and everyone knows this." and 'Wigner said, "He is a second Dirac, only this time human."' I wonder if perhaps this opinion of Feynman as a showman has gotten more popular over the decades as Feynman and the physicists who knew him passed away, and more and more of us are exposed to him only through his lectures and books. (If you'll excuse an aside: a bit like Bill Simmon's thesis on the basketball greats Bill Russell vs. Chamberlain -- those of us looking back on history, with only artifacts, may draw conclusions that would be ridiculous at the time.) I don't know if this is the case, but it's a fun speculation.

da-bacon 6y ago

If only. Dirac and Wiener did not understand the significance of the action appearing where it did. Feynman gave it meaning. An analogy for what you are saying is that Einstein just rederived Lorentz’s equations. That’s one of the most interesting characteristics of physics, it’s not just math and computation, meaning is hugely significant. I’d also say the path integral is not what he is most known for among practicing physicists, but that’s another story (I recommend “QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga@).

elteto 6y ago

He was definitely a showman, but Schwinger and Tomonaga were definitely not. Being a larger-than-life character type does not detract from his contributions.

madhadron 6y ago

I have several friends who personally knew Feynman. He was a problematic individual in many ways. One of them remembers being in an elevator with his girlfriend, and Feynman getting on the elevator and immediately hitting on her. Another recalls being dragged along to crash parties at Caltech for free food. That same one commented that, yes, he was super careful about his legacy and all the stories published about him. But they spent time around him in a working context, and they are all absolutely clear in their minds that, beyond the showmanship, he was a genius.

WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
Here. You have used that word. PROBLEMATIC. You know, not "asshole". Not "womanizer". Not "arrogant" or even "abrasive". Not "his feet stank". No. PROBLEMATIC. A very nice umbrella term. Very vague. Very accusatory at the same time. Can't wait for the news where reeducation facilities are being built for the PROBLEMATIC individuals and measures being taken so that no PROBLEMATIC individuals ever remain. Another problem is, who's going to be the ultimate arbiter of who is PROBLEMATIC and who's not? (Oh, I probably am DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC by misvirtue of even talking about this. Keep 'em downvotes coming, but I'd rather see people eradicate this word from their vocabularies and say instead things like, "some people had reasons to dislike him". More, you know, honest that way.)
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't take HN threads into flamewar. Getting provoked by one word and making a flamewar reply out of it is definitely not in the set of response patterns we want here. We want the kind that lead to more interesting / less predictable discussion. To do this requires resisting this sort of provocation in oneself—i.e. waiting until the activation dies down, and then either moving on to something else or finding a more interesting response to share. More on that here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=reflective%20reflex%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Also, please don't use allcaps for emphasis and please don't go on about downvotes. These things are all in the site guidelines—would you please review them (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and stick to the rules when posting here? We'd appreciate it, because we're trying to avoid the internet hell in which everything becomes consumed by the never-ending flamewars.

lalalandland 6y ago

Murray Gell-Mann talks about Richard Feynman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnMsgxIIQEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnMsgxIIQEE