Gauss's notes and margins is riddled with proofs he didn't bother to publish - he was wild.
Not sure if true, but allegedy he insisted his son not go into maths, as he would simply end up in his father's shadow as he deemed it utterly Impossible to surpass his brilliance in maths :'D
> as he would simply end up in his father's shadow as he deemed it utterly Impossible to surpass his brilliance in maths
Definitely true but also bad parenting. Gauss was somewhat of a freak of nature when it came to math. Him and Euler are two of the most unreasonably productive mathematicians of all time.
But what he deemed being posited as true, was this really bad parenting? It could be to head off competition or it could be brutal realism to head off future depression.
Nepotism existed since time immemorial but for a mathematical genius, what was the nepotistic deliverable for the child? A sinecure placement at university?
Implicit in the "correctness" of this motive is the idea that unless you're #1 in your field, you are nothing (depression implies strong feelings of worthlessness).
I don't know if you think that's a great lesson to teach your kids as a parent, but I don't.
A valid point. I might add I followed my dad into the field and my son followed me into the field and both academically and in capability he exceeds my ability. I'm enormously proud of him, and I did not seek to prevent him following his heart into the field beyond noting there are other dreams to follow worth considering. I did seek to persuade him not to become a chef, it's a really hard, stressful life.
I totally did not exceed my dads abilities: as one of the 1950s computing pioneers who build some of the first machines in the UK, founded a department of computer science and did work in IFIP, and the BCS, this was always going to be hard.
It’s unusual to tell others not to do something because you’re projecting they’re secretly doing it to compete with you, or that they’ll be depressed when they don’t do what you did.
Doubly so when the rationale is “I’m so fucking awesome”
Triply so when it’s something you’re passionate about, presumably inherently.
Quadruply so when it’s your child. Its tough as a kid hearing your parents come up with elongated excuses why you can’t dream and work towards a future.
When you let people find their own way, you might even learn something from it (ex. 70 yo Gauss learns he didn’t need to tie his mental state to his work because his son doesn’t suddenly become depressed from not matching dads output)
Re: second half, sounds about right, confused at relevancy though (is the idea the child would only do it to pursue nepotistic spoils and an additional reason is the spoils aren’t even good?)
I posit Gauss knew he was a GOAT and had ego. But I also posit he loved his children.
So, a nepotistic delivery was beneficial for his family, and advising his son to seek excellence outside the shadow cast by Gauss himself wasn't stamping on dreams (in my view) it was seeking the happiest outcome.
Without overdoing it, the suicide rate for rich kids with famous parents isn't nothing. There are positive examples, Stella McCartney comes to mind. She isn't wings.
Paul McCartney started a band called Wings and she was also in it. I think the idea is "she received nepotistic spoils, lived in the shadow of dad even in his backup projects that 0.01% of people who know the Beatles even recognize." (This elides a very successful career as a fashion designer, as well as the awkward question of what _would_ have guaranteed her more “success”, as well as a lack of understanding of how you feel after grand success you were chasing for it’s own sake (empty))
I meant, she isn't defined by wings and being daddy's kid. She struck out into a field neither Paul nor Linda had occupied. She isn't (defined by) wings.
For what it’s worth, his children were quite successful by all accounts. Two of the boys became successful businessmen after emigrating to the US and one of the boys became a director of the railway network in Hannover. Seems as though they weren’t harmed by their upbringing.
This website is quite broken on firefox android. Lots of jank but most notably the viewport isn't fixed so when you interact with sliders the viewports also shifts to the side. Figured I'd point it out as it's an article about website interaction.
> Like why did Trump want to bash on Canada in the first place?
Canada was a founding member of NATO, and it's very obvious Trump does not want a strong NATO alliance. Whatever the reason may be is up to speculation, but from an outside looking in it's quite jarring seeing clips of Hillary Clinton 8 years ago warn everyone that Trump was going to dismantle NATO. How any American is baffled by the current events is the only thing that is baffling to me.
Small suggestion from a DFW fan, read the extremely brief book This Is Water, and then try to take on Infinite Jest - just make sure to read the foreword by Dave Eggers before you start, it will light a guiding torch for the journey and what to expect coming out of it.
Amazing delivery! Thank you for sharing this, I started The Pale King many years ago but got sidetracked - this video inspired me greatly to try to finish it again.
I'm not sure how being fully submerged for long periods of time affects this, but in outdoor culture there are sayings like "warm when wet" - pertaining to certain fabrics such as wool and polyester.
One famous strategy is the pile and pertex combination. Where you have a thin basically windproof but not waterproof shell made typically from Pertex, and then fake fur from polyster on the inside.
These jackets are used to (might still be) be worn by law enforcement to old school rock climbers for it's ability to keep you warm and damp for hours.
There are videos of people submerging in ice cold water and "walking it off" until they are damp but warm again.
Another saying is "cotton kills", because it does not provide warmth when wet and also sucks up insane amounts of water for its weight, so it bascially never dries out.
I sold a pair of pretty renowned speakers with 6" woofers for a much smaller pair of DSP controlled close range studio monitors that came with a calibration microphone. Even though I liked my old speakers I could tell they couldn't shine in my room (mainly the bass couldn't be controlled, which impressed everyone except me that just wanted to hear what the audio engineers intended).
I'm super happy how good my mostly untreated room sounds now with some calibration and careful monitor placement. I'm a somewhat critical listener having had basic ear training and always protected my hearing at live shows. My room is very bad in terms of acoustics, so of course proper room treatment would greatly improve the setup, but not everyone is in a position where room treatment is feasible, so to me this is a great way to get maybe half way there.
Sure, it was a used pair from the brand IK Multimedia, the model is named MTM. I still can't believe such a small speaker can punch this hard above its weightclass in terms of bass. When I have people over they think my air purifier by the desk is a subwoofer.
Assuming you meant < 6 inches I'm all for it as well, it would be another incredible usp for these devices.
reply