For Dr. Everitt, who joined the Gravity Probe experiment in 1962 as a young postdoctoral fellow and has worked on nothing else since, the announcement on Wednesday capped a career-long journey.
There's something so profound about that.
To think of how many jobs I've held in my comparatively short life, how many minor career changes I've had here and there, how many massive shifts in interest and passion I've had over the years, and to hold these up beside someone who has been wholly dedicated to the same singular goal since before I was even born--that's just mind-boggling.
And it was selfless! This one singular goal to which he's dedicated himself, every one of the fifty years of work that went into it, ultimately ended up becoming--at least when boiled down to a headline--a footnote to someone else's greatness.
Five decades. I can't even begin to fathom what sort of drive and passion and commitment that must require.
And it was selfless! This one singular goal to which he's dedicated himself, every one of the fifty years of work that went into it, ultimately ended up becoming--at least when boiled down to a headline--a footnote to someone else's greatness.
Don't forget that we do science because we don't know the answer, not because we do. The best-case scenario would have been that after forty years you prove that relativity is wrong.
It's impressive, but keep in mind that most of our parents and grandparents had a job for life decades ago. Times are much different now. Things change so much faster. Companies die faster. We have many more job options, entrepreneurship, and so on.
Why is this so inspiring? I'm not trying to put down his career, I just don't see why his selflessness is something to be admired. Is it because it's not something you would choose? Does that fact alone make that lifestyle profound?
Godwin's Law, HackerNews edition: as a non-tech policy discussion grows longer, the probability of a comment thread devolving into an argument between competing ideas of libertarian vs. interventionist market theologies approaches 1.
Agreed, I was just trying to jocularly comment on the Things That Don't Exactly Belong On Hacker News aspect of it by pointing out that those conversations always end up in the same place.
And, in addition, these conversations tend to be rather shallow and un-anchored by fact. More an exhibition case for general philosophical predilections than a serious examination of the particular policy issue.
The tendency to degenerate into arguments over libertarianism predates Hacker News. Ron(?) Newman proposed it as “Newman’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law” over ten years ago.
Amazing! I run a coworking space for entrepreneurs in Brooklyn, which means every month I'm running around gathering up a dozen or so checks from tenants--so this the most exciting tool I've seen in a long time.
You're right, Paul, there's no evidence of any of this at all.
There's no evidence of pharma companies lobbying for more lax FDA regulations.
There's no evidence of the automative industry lobbying against higher CAFE standards.
There's no evidence of utilities companies lobbying against net neutrality.
There's no evidence of the last midterm election cycle seeing an amount of private spending nearly double the previous record.
Meanwhile there's an abundance of evidence that poor people are successfully lobbying for a higher living wage, longer unemployment benefits, and access to quality healthcare.
If you find yourself saying something so obvious as that lobbying exists, you should wonder whether it supports the point you're claiming.
What this discussion is about is the purported "systemic damage being done by the ever-growing income inequality between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else." Merely pointing out that lobbying exists doesn't support that. In fact, some of your examples are actually counterexamples: e.g. the companies lobbying against net neutrality are less controlled by the superrich than Google, which is lobbying for it. What you have to show is that lobbying is increasing, and that it's increasingly being driven by the agenda of the superrich (rather than merely large corporations).
I'm not sure if you are disputing the claim that lobbying is increasing. Here's some data:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php
Looks to be trending upwards fairly quickly with the exception of 2010. I would assume that represents information not publicly available due to the effects of the Citizens United decision.
Is lobbying a result of income inequity? I think it has more to do with the increasing power and competition between corporations than individual wealth. The more competitors one has, the more likely that one has to match their lobbying efforts just to keep the playing field even.
Beyond that, the effectiveness of lobbying enables the rich to exert more influence over the election process. It may be because our election system is not insulated against this influence that the income distribution seems so unfair. This would imply that we should reduce that influence or reduce the inequity of wealth. Which one is more fair, if they can even be done separately, is not clear to me.
Regarding your first point: since you already stated you're sometimes in favor of publicly subsidizing things like vaccinations and criminal incarcerations, your opposition to publicly funded education must result from this distinction you draw between public good and "private enjoyment". But I think rather than just assuming a position on college degrees a priori there is a rich and valuable debate to be had about whether higher education should be considered a public good and not merely a private enjoyment.
And your second: this seems to be both a distraction (I don't see how arguing that an educated citizenry is a necessary ingredient of democracy implies that one should necessarily agree with denying participation to those deemed incapable) and somewhat misguided (seeing as we already do deny the right to vote to a certain class of people unable to make correct judgments--we call them felons).
Consider as a counterpoint Aristotle's Politics, Vii.2: "It is evident that the form of government is best in which every man, whoever he is, can act best and live happily."
There's something so profound about that.
To think of how many jobs I've held in my comparatively short life, how many minor career changes I've had here and there, how many massive shifts in interest and passion I've had over the years, and to hold these up beside someone who has been wholly dedicated to the same singular goal since before I was even born--that's just mind-boggling.
And it was selfless! This one singular goal to which he's dedicated himself, every one of the fifty years of work that went into it, ultimately ended up becoming--at least when boiled down to a headline--a footnote to someone else's greatness.
Five decades. I can't even begin to fathom what sort of drive and passion and commitment that must require.
Bravo.