4 ms·

Wolfram is insufferable in short form -- imagine listening to him talk for 4 hours!

simiones 3y ago
Has Wolfram ever done a short form interview?
rezmason 3y ago
I didn't know Wolfram was even available in short form. I bought NKS for fifty bucks twenty years ago because I thought I could form a group around it that would take turns summing up chapters for each other, but unfortunately, if humans who give a f** represent states and the number of f**s a human can give represent colors, we're talking about a 1,0 turing machine here.
- rcarmo 3y ago
  I actually laughed out loud at "I didn't know Wolfram was even available in short form." That said, I too have read a lot of his work (yes, even A New Kind of Science). I came away very impressed but lacking the right kind of framing to make the best of it (which is, I suspect, what most people who actually make the effort will feel).
ninetyninenine 3y ago
Eh he might be right. I would listen to his ideas dispassionately. Many geniuses who were right were ridiculed.
- martinky24 3y ago
  For every genius who was right and ridiculed, and celebrated accordingly, there are many people who were wrong and ridiculed, and forgotten accordingly.
  - ninetyninenine 3y ago
    Those that were forgotten may be right too. I would still listen dispassionately. He's smarter than most people on this thread, that's for sure. Being logical is ridiculing someone for being wrong, not for being full of himself. Many geniuses were ass holes.
    - martinky24 3y ago
      I assure you -- There's nothing wrong with ridiculing someone for being an asshole. How you interact with other people matters, like it or not.
      - ninetyninenine 3y ago
        I never said there was nothing wrong with it. I said to be logical you should only ridicule people for being wrong. Ridiculing someone for being an ass hole is valid but illogical. There is merit to this distinction because sometimes the ass hole is right and everyone else is wrong. The key here is dispassionate judgment and analysis. Can you handle that? If not that's totally normal and valid.
  - aeonik 3y ago
    His work is definitely worthwhile. Wolfram Language by itself is actually very cool. I really wish he would open source it. I'm not going to use any math package that isn't open source for anything. I think his physics work is pretty interesting as well. I think the reason he aggrandizes, and this is only speculation, is because he is pushing the envelope in many fields simultaneously and wants to "credentialize" himself, and give people context on his background. He might also be insecure self-absorbed. Which, while annoying, doesn't disqualify someone's ideas by itself. It just means you might need to watch for ego-based confabulations in their work. It might also mean he's a pain to work with, if it is indeed an ego thing. But I don't know the guy... so it's all speculation.
    - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
      > His work is definitely worthwhile. Wolfram Language by itself is actually very cool. I really wish he would open source it. I'm not going to use any math package that isn't open source for anything. Here is the official statements of Wolfram Research on this topic: > Why Wolfram Tech Isn’t Open Source—A Dozen Reasons > https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-wolfram-tech-isnt-open-source-a-dozen-reasons/ https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-wolfram-tech-isnt-op... See also > Episode 1: Thoughts on Wolfram & Open Source > https://soundcloud.com/wolframresearch/wolfram-on-open-source https://soundcloud.com/wolframresearch/wolfram-on-open-sourc... If you nevertheless insist on having an open source implementation of the Wolfram language, have a look at the answers at > https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/4454/is-there-an-open-source-implementation-of-mathematica-the-language https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/4454/is-ther...
- lupire 3y ago
  Worlfram's ideas aren't wrong, aside from technical disputes. Anyone can learn a heck of a lot from Wolfram. It's his way of making everything about himself and his plagiarism that put people off. He's Feynman without the charm.
  - deviantbit 3y ago
    He is no Feynman. Feynman warned us about people like him and this kind of alternative science. No one is saying anything.
andyjohnson0 3y ago
I usually defend him from the inevitable HN accusations of hubris. But four hours is a nope from me. Would be interested in a written summary though.
crmd 3y ago
I’m holding out for the 8-hour Stephen Wolfram Eric Weinstein Dueling Life Arcs documentary.
- Whitespace 3y ago
  Larry Ellison enters the chat

Has Wolfram ever done a short form interview?

I didn't know Wolfram was even available in short form. I bought NKS for fifty bucks twenty years ago because I thought I could form a group around it that would take turns summing up chapters for each other, but unfortunately, if humans who give a f** represent states and the number of f**s a human can give represent colors, we're talking about a 1,0 turing machine here.

rcarmo 3y ago
I actually laughed out loud at "I didn't know Wolfram was even available in short form." That said, I too have read a lot of his work (yes, even A New Kind of Science). I came away very impressed but lacking the right kind of framing to make the best of it (which is, I suspect, what most people who actually make the effort will feel).

ninetyninenine 3y ago

Eh he might be right. I would listen to his ideas dispassionately. Many geniuses who were right were ridiculed.

martinky24 3y ago
For every genius who was right and ridiculed, and celebrated accordingly, there are many people who were wrong and ridiculed, and forgotten accordingly.
- ninetyninenine 3y ago
  Those that were forgotten may be right too. I would still listen dispassionately. He's smarter than most people on this thread, that's for sure. Being logical is ridiculing someone for being wrong, not for being full of himself. Many geniuses were ass holes.
  - martinky24 3y ago
    I assure you -- There's nothing wrong with ridiculing someone for being an asshole. How you interact with other people matters, like it or not.
    - ninetyninenine 3y ago
      I never said there was nothing wrong with it. I said to be logical you should only ridicule people for being wrong. Ridiculing someone for being an ass hole is valid but illogical. There is merit to this distinction because sometimes the ass hole is right and everyone else is wrong. The key here is dispassionate judgment and analysis. Can you handle that? If not that's totally normal and valid.
- aeonik 3y ago
  His work is definitely worthwhile. Wolfram Language by itself is actually very cool. I really wish he would open source it. I'm not going to use any math package that isn't open source for anything. I think his physics work is pretty interesting as well. I think the reason he aggrandizes, and this is only speculation, is because he is pushing the envelope in many fields simultaneously and wants to "credentialize" himself, and give people context on his background. He might also be insecure self-absorbed. Which, while annoying, doesn't disqualify someone's ideas by itself. It just means you might need to watch for ego-based confabulations in their work. It might also mean he's a pain to work with, if it is indeed an ego thing. But I don't know the guy... so it's all speculation.
  - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
    > His work is definitely worthwhile. Wolfram Language by itself is actually very cool. I really wish he would open source it. I'm not going to use any math package that isn't open source for anything. Here is the official statements of Wolfram Research on this topic: > Why Wolfram Tech Isn’t Open Source—A Dozen Reasons > https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-wolfram-tech-isnt-open-source-a-dozen-reasons/ https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-wolfram-tech-isnt-op... See also > Episode 1: Thoughts on Wolfram & Open Source > https://soundcloud.com/wolframresearch/wolfram-on-open-source https://soundcloud.com/wolframresearch/wolfram-on-open-sourc... If you nevertheless insist on having an open source implementation of the Wolfram language, have a look at the answers at > https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/4454/is-there-an-open-source-implementation-of-mathematica-the-language https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/4454/is-ther...
lupire 3y ago
Worlfram's ideas aren't wrong, aside from technical disputes. Anyone can learn a heck of a lot from Wolfram. It's his way of making everything about himself and his plagiarism that put people off. He's Feynman without the charm.
- deviantbit 3y ago
  He is no Feynman. Feynman warned us about people like him and this kind of alternative science. No one is saying anything.

andyjohnson0 3y ago

I usually defend him from the inevitable HN accusations of hubris. But four hours is a nope from me. Would be interested in a written summary though.

crmd 3y ago

I’m holding out for the 8-hour Stephen Wolfram Eric Weinstein Dueling Life Arcs documentary.

Whitespace 3y ago
Larry Ellison enters the chat