His Nobel Prize was for his early quantum work (explaining the photoelectric effect). He was a major participant at the first Solvay conference. Bose-Einstein statistics didn't get that name just because someone though it looked cool.
He of course fully knew that the world is quantum, not classical. His beef with the mainstream QM past the mid to late '20s was with the Copenhagen interpretation. Einstein believed that a complete theory would have realism and so Copenhagen could not be the complete theory.
No. He was working on the photoelectric effect because "the field" already existed. And he was working on it from a classical physics standpoint. What makes quantum physics revolutionary is it's non-classical nature. That's what einstein was against - quantum physics as we know it today. Einstein was a life long classic physicist. His relativity was grounded on classical physics. It's why many are working towards a quantum theory of gravity.
If you had even the shallowest understanding of what Einstein's contributions to physics are, you wouldn't make such comments... He literally got his Nobel prize for photoelectric effect in 2021.
That isn't true. Einstein's "breakout" paper was on the Photoelectric effect. He wasn't a fan of probabilistic interpretations of quantum mechanics but it's not accurate to say that he didn't have a hand in it
Makes me wonder whether these stories are paid advertising ( by electric stove companies or whomever ) or the journalist had to write something and just winged it. I'm guessing most garbage in media is paid advertising, but who knows at this point.
It's a publicly traded company. Not a publicly owned company. The owners of twitter are primarily private citizens/corporations, not public/government.
> But I'm not sure what work the word "private" is supposed to be doing.
Just TheVerge? Every grifting publication has proven themselves to be incompetent, agenda driven and toxic. I still can't believe theverge exists after their "how to build a pc" fiasco. But that's the world of journalism/publishing. All privilege and no accountability.
> NAFTA is a weird political thing, it has some parallels with the EU.
Nothing weird about it and it's nothing like the EU.
> Seems like everyone hates it, in a vague and confusing sort of way,
No. It's rather specific. It's shifting manufacturing to cheaper locations and costing america jobs and industry.
> Weird that it only seems popular in some places if you can wrap it up with xenophobia somehow, which then prevents you voting for the people who agree with your goals.
It's popular everywhere there are sensible people. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of sensible people and capital will always win against labor and the people.
> IME great literature has to connect at an emotional level.
No. It's has to be more than that. Otherwise, every formulaic romance novel would qualify as great literature. Great literature has to have it all, but most importantly, it has to advance language/thought/culture. It's what separates the bible, shakespeare's works, etc from dostoevksy. Dostoevksy's works are entertaining. But they certainly aren't great.
> > IME great literature has to connect at an emotional level.
> No. It's has to be more than that
But, it’s not. Great literature, great music, and great art connects at an emotional level, which doesn’t involve logic, reason, or thought. Most of what we consider great art has this quality and it does it effortlessly and without trying.
A formulaic romance novel isn’t great because it’s gratuitous, sentimental, cliche, and panders to our emotional wants and needs; great art meets us where we are now in life, and doesn’t try to pressure or influence us towards one side or another. That’s the difference.
It’s like being surprised or frightened. You have no control over your reaction because it’s hitting you at the fundamental core of your humanity. It’s a feeling, an experience, and ultimately an emotional response on a very primitive level of cognition.
For me, it’s like Picard pulling out his flute and playing the song of his people at the end of "The Inner Light". This isn’t an exercise in thinking, it’s all about feeling. And that’s why that episode is widely considered the greatest.
> The comment you're replying to is not discrediting that. They are just saying that it needs to be more than just creating an emotional connection.
Specifically, the OP is saying that great art "has to advance language/thought/culture" in addition to having an emotional connection. The problem is that this is very much a rear-view mirror perspective.
Great art doesn’t have to do much of anything except connect the audience with the human experience and condition. And that’s fundamentally an emotional connection.
Advancing language, art, and culture is a meta-perspective about the significance of an artwork that comes much later. It is not a requirement of great art.
Great art is timeless because it connects us emotionally to the human condition—an unchanging experience through the centuries that reaches out beyond time and place.
And yet, while it is certainly true that some great art does "advance" aspects of our culture—Shakespeare is widely known to have contributed an enormous amount to the English language, for example—the greatness of Shakespeare doesn’t rest on this laurel, but rather its unchanging, persistent, emotional connection to the human condition across time.
In other words, great art taps into the timeless, eternal space of our shared lives that is always true, and that reaches out and touches upon everyone, everywhere, in every time. It is this universal appeal that makes it great.
The fact is, the human experience hasn’t really changed that much in the last 10,000 years, and great art taps into this unchanging set of idealized forms.
> The problem is that this is very much a rear-view mirror perspective.
But analyzing art is a rear-view mirror perspective. History judges what is great art. Not the present audience.
You ramble about the same thing over and over again - human condition. Sure. That's a part of it. Silly pop music, formulaic romance novels, etc all have that. But what separates actual great art from entertaining art is it's affect on language/culture/thought/etc.
Whether marvel movies will be considered great art has nothing to do with "human condition" or how it emotionally affected the audience today. It'll be judged in time by its affect on language/culture/thought/etc. Any silly drone can create art that touches on the human condition. That's the easy part.
Shakespeare's hamlet, romeo and juliet, etc aren't considered great art because it "moves" you.
> and great art taps into this unchanging set of idealized forms.
> Dostoevksy's works are entertaining. But they certainly aren't great.
Enough HN for today. It’s just insufferable nonsense far too often these days. I resisted responding to the other guy in this thread that called Freud and Jung quacks but wants to read 10 million 2000 year old Sanskrit meditation texts for insights.
People on HN have been predicting facebook's demise for nearly a decade now. People on HN have been wrong. Almost any popular sentiment on HN, especially tech related, seems to be nonsense.
> The metaverse is a real idea yes - but strapping a phone to your face and walking through your coffee table isn’t it.
And the idea of people watching video on a tiny smartphone was initially thought to be absurd.
> When they first announced the rebrand I actually thought it could be genius
Did you really?
> but epic strategic miscalculation seems to be going around a lot this year.
Right. Like facebook's miscalculation in buying instagram, whatsapp, etc.
I've never used facebook. Think the world's better without facebook and most social media and large tech companies like apple, microsoft, google, etc. But man, you people have been so wrong for so long and it's hard to take the facebook haters seriously anymore. Just like the tesla haters a few years ago.
Because it's probably paid advertising. Almost every article is paid advertising.