3 ms·

Because the world would be better off having people of that calibre making progress on outstanding problems in maths than having one more mediocre restaurant in

Because the world would be better off having people of that calibre making progress on outstanding problems in maths than having one more mediocre restaurant in it

rosywoozlechan 4y ago
ok, you're insulting the guy's restaurant and the market disagrees with you, apparently
- arrow7000 4y ago
  Contrary to what you may believe, the market has failure modes. Just because something is difficult to monetise doesn't mean that it's not valuable. Fundamental research is one such thing. It can open up vast realms of possibility for all of humanity, but in a way that's difficult, if not impossible, to privatise. And the benefits may take years, decades or even centuries to pay off. Thus there is very little incentive for any market actors to invest in them. But if Newton had decided to open an inn instead of work on the Principia the world would have been far worse off for it. Possibly centuries behind where we are now. I will apologise for calling the restaurant mediocre. I have no idea about the quality of the food, but if you think that's what this hinges on then you've missed the point. That as good a restaurant as it may be, it's not worth losing a mathematician of his calibre over.
  - rosywoozlechan 4y ago
    I get it, but I do get some satisfaction out of observing when justifications of perceived value meet market realities. I don't think it's bad, I think it's interesting, and the person made the choice that was theirs to make. That's economic freedom.
    - arrow7000 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you're deriving satisfaction out of. That the market prevented someone from being able to earn a living and fulfilling their potential at the same time? I'm genuinely confused
      - rosywoozlechan 4y ago
        I don't believe there's enough data in the original comment to assume that the market prevented them from being able to fulfill their living working with physics. It said they could make more money running a restaurant. If that it is the case they could not earn a living at all, and it's due to discrimination, which I asked about, then I agree it's not good. But if it's the case they could make a living in physics but chose to instead open a restaurant due to making a better living that way, then yes I think it's good.
        arrow7000 4y ago
        Based on the provided information I judge it more likely that their passion was maths and physics but were prevented from doing so because of certain economic realities than they had more interest in running a restaurant than engaging in research. You may disagree.
        x0x0 4y ago
        It's late, but he made poverty wages as an adjunct.

Because the world would be better off having people of that calibre making progress on outstanding problems in maths than having one more mediocre restaurant in it

rosywoozlechan 4y ago

ok, you're insulting the guy's restaurant and the market disagrees with you, apparently

arrow7000 4y ago
Contrary to what you may believe, the market has failure modes. Just because something is difficult to monetise doesn't mean that it's not valuable. Fundamental research is one such thing. It can open up vast realms of possibility for all of humanity, but in a way that's difficult, if not impossible, to privatise. And the benefits may take years, decades or even centuries to pay off. Thus there is very little incentive for any market actors to invest in them. But if Newton had decided to open an inn instead of work on the Principia the world would have been far worse off for it. Possibly centuries behind where we are now. I will apologise for calling the restaurant mediocre. I have no idea about the quality of the food, but if you think that's what this hinges on then you've missed the point. That as good a restaurant as it may be, it's not worth losing a mathematician of his calibre over.
- rosywoozlechan 4y ago
  I get it, but I do get some satisfaction out of observing when justifications of perceived value meet market realities. I don't think it's bad, I think it's interesting, and the person made the choice that was theirs to make. That's economic freedom.
  - arrow7000 4y ago
    I'm not sure what you're deriving satisfaction out of. That the market prevented someone from being able to earn a living and fulfilling their potential at the same time? I'm genuinely confused
    - rosywoozlechan 4y ago
      I don't believe there's enough data in the original comment to assume that the market prevented them from being able to fulfill their living working with physics. It said they could make more money running a restaurant. If that it is the case they could not earn a living at all, and it's due to discrimination, which I asked about, then I agree it's not good. But if it's the case they could make a living in physics but chose to instead open a restaurant due to making a better living that way, then yes I think it's good.
      - arrow7000 4y ago
        Based on the provided information I judge it more likely that their passion was maths and physics but were prevented from doing so because of certain economic realities than they had more interest in running a restaurant than engaging in research. You may disagree.
      - x0x0 4y ago
        It's late, but he made poverty wages as an adjunct.