3 ms·

> How overly simplistic and descriptive that is. Going academic, would, in it's most 2014'ish, pop-cultaral-way, mean that you probably wouldn't go on to make a

> How overly simplistic and descriptive that is. Going academic, would, in it's most 2014'ish, pop-cultaral-way, mean that you probably wouldn't go on to make any cool apps. I read that as the dilemma that Page was facing, not an absolute truism. This is an article about Larry Page at Google. It seems silly to be annoyed at the author for simplifying the dichotomy between academia and industry to move us through his life. > If you manage to get through the introductory number slalom, it reads like the script for a trailer to a new action flick! Oh shut up, that was a nice piece of writing. It was an interesting hook, a nice way to introduce a main theme of the article; Larry Page's admiration of Nikola Tesla. It may have been flashy but considering how well it fits into the rest of the article (and indeed, the quality of the writing) I'd hardly call it sloppy. Although maybe we just have different standards.

MrJagil 12y ago
> I read that as the dilemma that Page was facing, not an absolute truism. This is an article about Larry Page at Google. It seems silly to be annoyed at the author for simplifying the dichotomy between academia and industry to move us through his life. No, I get that it was about Larry, and I see why the author set it up like that. But writing "...the opportunity to become the inventor of widely used applications", seems like such a simplification of what it's actually about: A choice between two very different ways of expressing your creativity (granted you do research/publicise in academia). I really hope Larry built a company with more thought behind it than making the next Flappy Bird. I.e. SpaceX wasn't founded because Musk wanted to be an "inventor" of top 40 apps, and it seems like Larry didn't either, judging from the article. And the other phrase "... would force him to deal with people in a way he didn’t enjoy". Something about that rubs me the wrong way as well. Maybe it's a bit too soft? I mean, sucks to be you Larry, not enjoying socialising, but welcome to the real world. I don't want to seem too harsh, I'm only replying because it's nice to put ones thoughts into writing once in a while. > Although maybe we just have different standards. Maybe, but starting that discussion means that we'll probably start talking about "high/low" standards, and I try not to think like that.
- ertdfgcb 12y ago
  I don't really have much else to say about this, except that I definitely didn't take "applications" to mean Flappy Birds, because that seems ridiculous. Obviously the guy who they introduced as crying at the end of a Tesla biography doesn't want to spend his life making mobile games. > Maybe, but starting that discussion means that we'll probably start talking about "high/low" standards, and I try not to think like that. I was thinking more in terms of the entertainment/pragmatism scale. I think this is good writing more because it made me go "wow, I enjoyed reading that", whereas it seems like you're coming from more of a "this was kinda lame because some of the things they said were questionable" standpoint. Nothing wrong with that, but if we didn't recognize it we'd be yelling at each other for hours.

MrJagil 12y ago

> I read that as the dilemma that Page was facing, not an absolute truism. This is an article about Larry Page at Google. It seems silly to be annoyed at the author for simplifying the dichotomy between academia and industry to move us through his life. No, I get that it was about Larry, and I see why the author set it up like that. But writing "...the opportunity to become the inventor of widely used applications", seems like such a simplification of what it's actually about: A choice between two very different ways of expressing your creativity (granted you do research/publicise in academia). I really hope Larry built a company with more thought behind it than making the next Flappy Bird. I.e. SpaceX wasn't founded because Musk wanted to be an "inventor" of top 40 apps, and it seems like Larry didn't either, judging from the article. And the other phrase "... would force him to deal with people in a way he didn’t enjoy". Something about that rubs me the wrong way as well. Maybe it's a bit too soft? I mean, sucks to be you Larry, not enjoying socialising, but welcome to the real world. I don't want to seem too harsh, I'm only replying because it's nice to put ones thoughts into writing once in a while. > Although maybe we just have different standards. Maybe, but starting that discussion means that we'll probably start talking about "high/low" standards, and I try not to think like that.

ertdfgcb 12y ago
I don't really have much else to say about this, except that I definitely didn't take "applications" to mean Flappy Birds, because that seems ridiculous. Obviously the guy who they introduced as crying at the end of a Tesla biography doesn't want to spend his life making mobile games. > Maybe, but starting that discussion means that we'll probably start talking about "high/low" standards, and I try not to think like that. I was thinking more in terms of the entertainment/pragmatism scale. I think this is good writing more because it made me go "wow, I enjoyed reading that", whereas it seems like you're coming from more of a "this was kinda lame because some of the things they said were questionable" standpoint. Nothing wrong with that, but if we didn't recognize it we'd be yelling at each other for hours.