I live in his hometown, thankfully a large chunk of the population has been aware of his story since the late 80s. He's an extremely eloquent person and has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the condition.
A necessary (?) part of progress IMO. Environmental hazards have been a thing for a lot longer too. Settlements used to be covered in smog due to coal fires for example.
Part of the environmental/emissions argument from developing countries is about past emissions by developed countries. I think it's a fair argument to say given these sacrifices made by past generations in industrialised countries + the benefit of developed cleaner technologies through that industrialisation is an argument against that.
> Settlements used to be covered in smog due to coal fires for example.
Used to? Lots of them still are. Right now there's 150 µg/m³ of PM2.5 outside my window, and it's a "clean" day. Yesterday's concentrations were up to 900 µg (yes, that's correct), and the highest I've seen this winter were 2000 µg (yes, this is also correct). And it keeps getting worse, recently our so-called president mentioned that coal is our strategic reserve and we won't be phasing it out any time soon.
I'm relatively sure most of the "global south" has bad air quality, even if such extreme values are rare.
Here are some random photos of a typical winter day (winter is 8 months per year):
I was thinking more localised. When legislation changes happened (here in the UK) the problem disappeared quickly. The UK being an industrialised country in the context of the parent comments.
I strongly suspect that most of the things we now know to be problematic were also known to be problematic to the ancients, but were thought still to be worth it for their rewards. That’s pretty much where we still are today. Nobody likes breathing pollution, everybody likes modernity.
I suppose even then it would have been obvious to anyone traveling outside London that, hmmm, the fog/smog goes away out here. Only in major cities… What could it be?
I had the same thought. I guess a lot of those keys may belong to dormant/deleted accounts and only a % of people who have enabled Gemini (presumably it required user action)
I did. Specifically the part about "When you enable the Gemini API". This doesn't take into account that people may have had years old forgotten about other services they use.
Fair enough. It's a reasonable expectation of someone that enabled Google maps 15 years ago that enables Gemini 6 months not to understand the fundamentals of how Google treats their keys. If it wasn't explained on the enabling Gemini screen, what do you expect the user to do.
Totally agreed. But it clearly requires user action. I have some old projects that only use Google Maps for websites and that wouldn't magically be impacted. Google needs to do better though
The problem with extremely smart people is not many people understand them. They're typically going to be non-conformist in any event, and may come across as arrogant if they have an intricate belief system that you may not take the time to understand. I'd think one of the greatest scientists of a generation would have the kind of depth of thinking that few would understand. Having listened to many of his interviews (unfortunately I'm too young to have witnessed these things in real time) he comes across as one of the most eloquent people I can think of.
While reading through that I was suspecting it was perhaps a peer that was envious of Feynman, but an ex (scorned?) partner is extremely plausible.
> The problem with extremely smart people is not many people understand them.
I know this is a common trope in many media portrayals, but it's really not my experience. The "insufferable genius" stereotype tracks most not for the extremely smart people but the kinda-smart people who are absolute jerks but try to defend their jerkassery on the basis of their intelligence.
The few very brilliant people I've known devoted themselves to master a subject, at the cost of neglecting others, like socialization. They were not autists by any measure of the condition, just very socially undeveloped. Some embraced the awkwardness, but others chose to be jerks because it is easier than rescuing an atrophied skill. The jock equivalent of wearing baggy pants because they skipped leg days.
I've also known a handful of artists, and some seemed to adopt the tortured artist stereotype out of style, not fate. They were convinced no one would take them seriously artistically if they weren't interesting and eccentric. In their case, being a jerk is a fashion.
I guess my point is, we choose what skills we want to develop, and also if we accept the skill exchange, or make excuses like "I'm bad at X", "I am this way and can't change", etc. Leave that to people that are actually diagnosed with a limiting condition; they usually put a great deal of effort and still need help to succeed.
I understand where you're coming from. I wasn't meaning from the context of the pseudo-smart person portraying that (which is obviously a thing, probably more obvious nowadays), but a person that is the real article. You meet all walks of life in your lifetime and that unattainable-ness of very smart people can come across as inaccessible, unexplainable or arrogant.
The kind of person that has spent much time chiselling their belief system or is simply fascinated by a field of study that not many people can relate to on that depth. Feynman was a great communicator, but I can think of a few people that may have Asperger's syndrome that have that exceptional insight into things that sometimes results in collateral damage in relationships.
What I mean is there are exceptional people, and sometimes people fail to understand what is exceptional and take exception themselves.
The political narrative of the time obviously was extra cynical about declarations of which team you're playing for, or non-declaration. That's what I meant about non-conformist, they're not interested in the politics.
> The "insufferable genius" stereotype tracks most not for the extremely smart people but the kinda-smart people who are absolute jerks but try to defend their jerkassery on the basis of their intelligence.
Autism plays a lot into this. You'll get people who can seem condescending or unaware of different social norms, and it's genuinely not from a bad place, just a complete inability to understand their own communication style (especially in the moment).
> Autism plays a lot into this. You'll get people who can seem condescending or unaware of different social norms
Recently "autism" is a scapegoat for everything, both claiming to be autist to get a free pass to be a jerk, or calling someone autist because they do something unexpected.
I have been called autist after a meeting just because I said something could not be done in the timeframe proposed. Acording to social norms, the correct thing to do was to lie, say it could be easily done, and deal with expected missed deadlines with even more lies.
Another "autism" trait I have is to say a dry "no" to invitations I don't want to attend, apparently the social norm is to say "yes" and then fake an excuse a couple of hours ahead, or even worse, just don't go.
The point is the word "autism" (or even jerk) is being used as a synonym of "direct", "sincere" or "no bullshit" too often. And I am not talking about calling people fat or ugly out of the blue (that's a real jerk), but saying "no" when it is enough.
> The problem with extremely smart people is not many people understand them. They're typically going to be non-conformist in any event, and may come across as arrogant if they have an intricate belief system that you may not take the time to understand.
This is the bucket Ayn Rand falls into. Her philosophy is radically different, revolutionizing the entire field, to the point that most people can’t even grasp that the things she questions are open to debate.
LMAO Ayn Rand could get rolled up by an 8th grader.
No idea about how social systems actually work, or how real humans act.
If there's one thing that was real about Rand it was that ego.
There's few people that can make an ass of themselves to multiple fields so quickly, but if you stuck an artist, an economist, and an anthropologist in the room with Rand, after 15 minutes they could have all left with a laugh on Rands behalf.
It's also so funny to me the modern US libertarians that claim to love her so much. Rand hated libertarians! She thought they were crybabies and had no moral or logical foundation.
Isn't part of it that he had leverage on many people, given the amount of evidence there seems to be? I guess that would be one way to further the network via 'favours'.
Did you write your own summary parser for this? I wrote one in the past and found the wiki markup quirky to deal with. The wiki dumps do provide summaries but they seem to suffer similar issues.
Technically there is, it's mostly used by the worst domain registrars that nobody should be using, like GoDaddy to pre-register names you search for so you can't go and register it elsewhere.
Most registrars don't allow, nor have the infrastructure in place to let you cancel within the 5 day grace period so don't offer it and instead just have a line buried in their TOS to say you agree its not something they offer.
it is an abuse vector, GoDaddy use it on domain they deem valuable. If you use their site to check a domains availability they'll often pre-reg it, forcing you to buy it through them or they'll just register it and put it up for auction.
It's why you do not, ever use GoDaddy, they are an awful company.
reply