Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mvf0's commentslogin

Here is that exact documentary you were thinking of [0]. It's really a fantastic documentary on the incredible feats of von Neumann and worth a watch by everyone here.

That person you quoted was Edward Teller and the interview can be found at 54:58 [1].

I read somewhere that the young boy asking von Neumann a question at 6:13 [2] is actually Bill Clinton. Can anyone verify this?

[0] https://youtu.be/Y2jiQXI6nrE

[1] https://youtu.be/Y2jiQXI6nrE?t=3299

[2] https://youtu.be/Y2jiQXI6nrE?t=371


>I read somewhere that the young boy asking von Neumann a question at 6:13 [2] is actually Bill Clinton. Can anyone verify this?

The top comment poster on the other video says it's his father, Bill Walters.


Bill Clinton would have been nine years old when this was filmed. The boy in the clip looks a bit too young to have a nine year old kid.


Can't verify it 100% but the boy in the video looks similar to Bill's boyhood photos: https://images.app.goo.gl/WT6GygVPiTiKgkuY7

However, Clinton was born in 1946, and this video is from 1955, so he would have been 9. The boy in the video looks older than 9 to me.


No, it’s not Clinton.


Ha, that is indeed the exact documentary I was talking about, thanks!


Agreed. And it's pretty obvious too. If you ever have some serious misgivings about any of these IoT privacy invasions and voice it in a comment, a deluge of comments scolding you for being a Luddite start appearing within seconds.


Apparently a majority of HN doesn't know what CS is.

Computer science isn't software engineering.

Computer science isn't coding.


"Computer science" has always been a problematic term. Actual sciences don't need to put "science" in their name. Most of what computer scientists do is not really science, not that there's anything wrong with that. With all the mathematicians involved, you would have thought someone would have come up with a pleasantly evocative name. (several subjects within mathematics have mellifluous names) "Computation", for example, would have been elegant, but that ship has sailed.

TFA isn't talking about that anyway.


While true, it's also the case that most people don't become researchers in the field that they studied in college. Most engineers become CAD operators, and most CS majors become programmers. We now teach CAD in engineering school so that students won't be broadsided by it when they get their first job.


And thermodynamics isn't gasses or engines, aerodynamics isn't wings or aircraft, and mathematics isn't arithmetic.

Realistically, people have to start somewhere, and trying to teach applied mathematics without the application is foolishness.


They learned a 'big word' and they use it to feel smart. It's like the time Peter Griffin learned the phrase 'shallow and pedantic'.

https://youtu.be/yetwdpsiM8Q


Your analysis is incorrect.

'southpaw' is a boxing term that refers to left-handed boxers. It is in no way derogatory and did not originate with baseball [1]. In fact, it is more of a compliment because southpaws have a strategic and tactical advantage over right-handers due to stance.

'paw' as in hand

'south' as in 'not usual'

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southpaw_stance


If the guy that replaced him was that much better than him, that that person should be treated like a first class citizen. Right now H-1B workers are treated like indentured servants and labor abuse is rampant.


Thank you for confirming this. These kind of errors drive me crazy when I try to work through proofs on my own.


I would argue that there are rabbit holes in Haskell that can lead to baroque terrors of syntax on par with the C++ horrors in the article. The difference between Haskell and C++ is that Haskell code always has a well defined meaning even if it is _insanely_ terse. There is no ambiguity like with C++.


Your head is in the sand if you think risotto is the only thing revealed by the Podesta leaks.


I haven't read them all (there are thousands) but the emails I have read are mostly benign and reveal things about her and her team that perhaps while embarrassing or even impolitic, are hardly criminal.


Top Clinton aide Doug Band signals his concern over Bill Clinton's conflicts of interest

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/21978

“I signed a conflict of interest policy as a board member of cgi ... Oddly, wjc does not have to sign such a document even though he is personally paid by 3 cgi sponsors, gets many expensive gifts from them, some that are at home etc.”

Do you think conflicts of interest at the highest peaks of federal government are "benign" and "hardly criminal"? This is just one example of really shady stuff revealed in the leaks. IMO the Clinton Foundation sells political influence and that's illegal.


"The overall parameters (area surveyed, sensitivity, etc.) of the RATAN search are not reported by Bursov et al. ..."

I find this incredible. They rushed to get credit for an ET candidate but didn't even bother to mention the details needed for others to be able to verify. Great work by the Berkeley people. Skepticism is healthy and vital to science.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: