3 ms·

You don't have to insult me with this "not grammatically valid" nonsense. Look, anyone seeing your explanation of the correspondence can see that your view is s

You don't have to insult me with this "not grammatically valid" nonsense. Look, anyone seeing your explanation of the correspondence can see that your view is somewhat naive. Comparing doing an Internet startup doing to the kind of research required to discover new things about the world is a bit ridiculous. No sane person would say it takes the same level of intellectual rigor to do a startup as research physics. This is not to say it is not hard but, well, Twitter is not "rocket science," but rocket science is. Let's strive for intellectual honesty. Also, I did say autodidactism exists and is great. Sure many people teach themselves to program. I think the issue here is in scale and magnitude. Sure, Ramanujan's are out there but not everyone we chat up with at Borders about string theory is one.

cool-RR 17y ago
Comparing doing an Internet startup doing to the kind of research required to discover new things about the world is a bit ridiculous. [...] Twitter is not "rocket science," [...] I disagree. I agree that building a start-up involves less rigor than doing research, but rigor is just one variable among many in the success of a research (or a start-up.) I don't think that building a successful start-up is less of an intellectual achievement than doing scientific research.
- dinkumthinkum 17y ago
  But rigor is what is at issue! It is the crux of the entire thing.
  - cool-RR 17y ago
    I think I lost track of what we're talking about... Rigor is the crux of what? (To clarify, the reason I was comparing research to starting a startup was to show how, even though a field appears to be immensely popular and having a lot of money and talent being poured into it, it is still possible for a determined person to make a breakthrough in it.)
- apu 17y ago
  I don't think that building a successful start-up is less of an intellectual achievement than doing scientific research. I strongly disagree. I have the utmost respect for those who have built successful startups, but virtually none are a very significant intellectual achievement. It takes ambition, dedication, determination, courage, talent, skill, tact, vision, luck, and a hundred other attributes to achieve success in building a startup, but very rarely does it require an intense intellectual effort, and almost never is there any fundamental advancement of scientific thought. Also, having spent time studying computer science, physics, and aeronautical engineering, one major difference I see is the relative maturity and depth of various fields. Computer science is so much newer than physics that there is simply much more unexplored territory at a shallower level -- which doesn't require as much studying to get to -- that it is easier to come up with new ideas there than in physics.

cool-RR 17y ago

Comparing doing an Internet startup doing to the kind of research required to discover new things about the world is a bit ridiculous. [...] Twitter is not "rocket science," [...] I disagree. I agree that building a start-up involves less rigor than doing research, but rigor is just one variable among many in the success of a research (or a start-up.) I don't think that building a successful start-up is less of an intellectual achievement than doing scientific research.

dinkumthinkum 17y ago
But rigor is what is at issue! It is the crux of the entire thing.
- cool-RR 17y ago
  I think I lost track of what we're talking about... Rigor is the crux of what? (To clarify, the reason I was comparing research to starting a startup was to show how, even though a field appears to be immensely popular and having a lot of money and talent being poured into it, it is still possible for a determined person to make a breakthrough in it.)
apu 17y ago
I don't think that building a successful start-up is less of an intellectual achievement than doing scientific research. I strongly disagree. I have the utmost respect for those who have built successful startups, but virtually none are a very significant intellectual achievement. It takes ambition, dedication, determination, courage, talent, skill, tact, vision, luck, and a hundred other attributes to achieve success in building a startup, but very rarely does it require an intense intellectual effort, and almost never is there any fundamental advancement of scientific thought. Also, having spent time studying computer science, physics, and aeronautical engineering, one major difference I see is the relative maturity and depth of various fields. Computer science is so much newer than physics that there is simply much more unexplored territory at a shallower level -- which doesn't require as much studying to get to -- that it is easier to come up with new ideas there than in physics.