shas3

60 ms·

541.
by shas3 13y ago
You conveniently leave out the reasonable portions of his article. I read your comment before I read the article, and guess what, you have cherry picked specific parts of the article such that Taleb comes off as stupid. It took me ten secon
542.
by shas3 13y ago
Evolution and (what you presumably refer to as) natural selection don't work that way. It is a pernicious mistake to apply 'evolution' and 'natural selection' to everything. In the interest of good science and the s
543.
by shas3 13y ago
The 'problem' with Indian math was the general aversion (or ignorance) of the importance of the method of proof. The more well known works of Greek mathematics were great in emphasizing the importance of the concept of mathematica
544.
by shas3 13y ago
My father used to work for ISRO too, from '74 to '97. He started with Satish Dhawan, one of the founders of the Indian space program. They moved at the same time from IISc. I agree with everything deepGem has to say about ISRO. It
545.
by shas3 13y ago
Note, the rankings are: > as a percentage of its revenue. Also, regarding 3M, I am not sure what you mean by 'far lower margin industry'. 3M is a conglomerate. It's like GE, in some sense- doesn't play in any single i
546.
by shas3 13y ago
Totally disagree. Carnegie Institutions, Wellcome Trust, etc. are all 'private sector' and dispense millions of dollars of grants for fundamental research. You probably mean, 'for-profit private sector'. But then, you di
547.
by shas3 13y ago
Apple is the top spender on R&D, as a percentage of its revenue. Second is Google. 3rd Samsung, 4th Amazon, 5th 3M. [1] Xerox had about 10 years of glorious moon-shot type research. IBM is notoriously fickle about spending on R&D. T