Talk:664: Academia vs. Business - Revision history

L-Space Traveler at 19:37, 23 October 2022

2022-10-23T19:37:32Z

172.70.250.67: added a comment, and asked a question

2022-07-29T23:01:56Z

added a comment, and asked a question

Ianrbibtitlht at 03:00, 18 June 2019

2019-06-18T03:00:57Z

Lupo at 14:35, 17 October 2018

2018-10-17T14:35:44Z

AmbroseChapel at 01:28, 21 September 2017

2017-09-21T01:28:18Z

162.158.78.130 at 15:46, 28 August 2017

2017-08-28T15:46:58Z

108.162.219.96 at 15:46, 1 December 2016

2016-12-01T15:46:30Z

Weatherlawyer: Question about the depth of coverage this graphics code problem got

2015-01-04T07:59:53Z

Question about the depth of coverage this graphics code problem got

108.162.237.120 at 20:53, 19 January 2014

2014-01-19T20:53:20Z

108.162.219.223 at 00:49, 7 January 2014

2014-01-07T00:49:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:37, 23 October 2022
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Seeing the presence of cans... possibly alcoholic. Might it be possible that the Ballmer Peak was successfully invoked to reach his solution? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.96\|108.162.219.96]] 15:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)		Seeing the presence of cans... possibly alcoholic. Might it be possible that the Ballmer Peak was successfully invoked to reach his solution? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.96\|108.162.219.96]] 15:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	:They look too small: this, plus the 48-hour time-frame, suggests to me that they're energy drinks. [[User:L-Space Traveler\|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler\|talk]]) 19:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

	Derailing the topic entirely, the old woman in the "Academia" panel seems to be a somewhat recurring character, complete with a semi-consistent personality. I propose "Bunhead" for future references. Anonymous17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)		Derailing the topic entirely, the old woman in the "Academia" panel seems to be a somewhat recurring character, complete with a semi-consistent personality. I propose "Bunhead" for future references. Anonymous17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 29 July 2022
Line 23:		Line 23:
	I ''believe'' that the title text refers to a famous quote by Stephen Jay Gould: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” — it's not a 100% match but I think that was what he was going for. It certainly fits the concept that capitalism and business eat up the intellect of great people and leave nothing to show for it, in contract to the purity of science/academia. I will edit in a comment to that effect. [[User:AmbroseChapel\|AmbroseChapel]] ([[User talk:AmbroseChapel\|talk]]) 01:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)		I ''believe'' that the title text refers to a famous quote by Stephen Jay Gould: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” — it's not a 100% match but I think that was what he was going for. It certainly fits the concept that capitalism and business eat up the intellect of great people and leave nothing to show for it, in contract to the purity of science/academia. I will edit in a comment to that effect. [[User:AmbroseChapel\|AmbroseChapel]] ([[User talk:AmbroseChapel\|talk]]) 01:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
	:The big difference is, that the people from your quote were truly wasted talents, as they were doing mere manual labor. Meanwhile the title text talks about talents that are used, but never became popular.--[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 14:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)		:The big difference is, that the people from your quote were truly wasted talents, as they were doing mere manual labor. Meanwhile the title text talks about talents that are used, but never became popular.--[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 14:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
		+	::How is that difference meaningful? The point is that if some talent wasn't brought out to shine at its brightest, it was lost. What else exactly was done with it doesn't matter.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.67\|172.70.250.67]] 23:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	Where does Gould specify that originally in that quote he was referring to racism and not capitalism?
		+	[[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.67\|172.70.250.67]] 23:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 If this ever happened to me, I would quietly release the solution under the GNU license. My getting fired (possibly) is totally worth the public technological progress highly into the future. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 13:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 The explanation is an interesting contrast to my interpretation. The meaning I got was that in academia, this discovery, like any new discovery,    is interesting; but in business, this discovery has little practical application (apart from finishing what he was doing) so his boss didn't think twice about it. Maybe I'm too cynical.--[[Special:Contributions/18.215.1.155|18.215.1.155]] 01:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 Seeing the presence of cans... possibly alcoholic.  Might it be possible that the Ballmer Peak was successfully invoked to reach his solution? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.96|108.162.219.96]] 15:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:35, 17 October 2018
Line 22:		Line 22:

	I ''believe'' that the title text refers to a famous quote by Stephen Jay Gould: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” — it's not a 100% match but I think that was what he was going for. It certainly fits the concept that capitalism and business eat up the intellect of great people and leave nothing to show for it, in contract to the purity of science/academia. I will edit in a comment to that effect. [[User:AmbroseChapel\|AmbroseChapel]] ([[User talk:AmbroseChapel\|talk]]) 01:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)		I ''believe'' that the title text refers to a famous quote by Stephen Jay Gould: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” — it's not a 100% match but I think that was what he was going for. It certainly fits the concept that capitalism and business eat up the intellect of great people and leave nothing to show for it, in contract to the purity of science/academia. I will edit in a comment to that effect. [[User:AmbroseChapel\|AmbroseChapel]] ([[User talk:AmbroseChapel\|talk]]) 01:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
		+	:The big difference is, that the people from your quote were truly wasted talents, as they were doing mere manual labor. Meanwhile the title text talks about talents that are used, but never became popular.--[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 14:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:28, 21 September 2017
Line 20:		Line 20:

	There was a recent paper claiming to have solved P!=NP		There was a recent paper claiming to have solved P!=NP
		+
		+	I ''believe'' that the title text refers to a famous quote by Stephen Jay Gould: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” — it's not a 100% match but I think that was what he was going for. It certainly fits the concept that capitalism and business eat up the intellect of great people and leave nothing to show for it, in contract to the purity of science/academia. I will edit in a comment to that effect. [[User:AmbroseChapel\|AmbroseChapel]] ([[User talk:AmbroseChapel\|talk]]) 01:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 28 August 2017
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Can anyone remember an episode of Click (or any BBC computer programme) ever giving such in depth explanation of the graphics problem?		Can anyone remember an episode of Click (or any BBC computer programme) ever giving such in depth explanation of the graphics problem?
	I recall one showing the difference in game presentations then and "now" from around about the time the article claims information hit the mainstream but it was no more than 'advertising without naming names' a la Beeb.[[User:Weatherlawyer\|Weatherlawyer]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 07:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)		I recall one showing the difference in game presentations then and "now" from around about the time the article claims information hit the mainstream but it was no more than 'advertising without naming names' a la Beeb.[[User:Weatherlawyer\|Weatherlawyer]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 07:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	There was a recent paper claiming to have solved P!=NP

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:59, 4 January 2015
Line 15:		Line 15:

	Oh, my goodness, "TruthInTelevision"? This isn't TvTropes![[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.120\|108.162.237.120]] 20:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)		Oh, my goodness, "TruthInTelevision"? This isn't TvTropes![[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.120\|108.162.237.120]] 20:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	Can anyone remember an episode of Click (or any BBC computer programme) ever giving such in depth explanation of the graphics problem?
		+	I recall one showing the difference in game presentations then and "now" from around about the time the article claims information hit the mainstream but it was no more than 'advertising without naming names' a la Beeb.[[User:Weatherlawyer\|Weatherlawyer]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 07:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:53, 19 January 2014
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Derailing the topic entirely, the old woman in the "Academia" panel seems to be a somewhat recurring character, complete with a semi-consistent personality. I propose "Bunhead" for future references. Anonymous17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)		Derailing the topic entirely, the old woman in the "Academia" panel seems to be a somewhat recurring character, complete with a semi-consistent personality. I propose "Bunhead" for future references. Anonymous17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
	:I counter-propose 'MsBun'. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223\|108.162.219.223]] 00:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)		:I counter-propose 'MsBun'. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223\|108.162.219.223]] 00:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	Oh, my goodness, "TruthInTelevision"? This isn't TvTropes![[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.120\|108.162.237.120]] 20:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:49, 7 January 2014
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Derailing the topic entirely, the old woman in the "Academia" panel seems to be a somewhat recurring character, complete with a semi-consistent personality. I propose "Bunhead" for future references. Anonymous17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)		Derailing the topic entirely, the old woman in the "Academia" panel seems to be a somewhat recurring character, complete with a semi-consistent personality. I propose "Bunhead" for future references. Anonymous17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
		+	:I counter-propose 'MsBun'. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223\|108.162.219.223]] 00:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)