Feynman_i_dont_like_honors_ [longer_version]

A slightly longer quote: [VIDEO] Brilliant! However, it makes me kind of sad that PG goes to shit like this instead of working on Arc :( 100 year languages don't discover themselves...

This observation applies to all prizes, and is articulated well from another angle by Feynman (commenting on his own Nobel prize): [VIDEO]

This is a really great video to watch. It's worth watching once or twice a year to remind onself to be humble. And it's particularly apt this week! [VIDEO]

Elon probably shares your sentiments, since he was an avid reader of Feynman. Source: [LINK] Feynman himself once said that he didn't like honors: [VIDEO] So when Elon won the Lady Vivamus sword after accepting the heinlein award for advances in space commercialization, he fools around with it instead of just being another trophy, sometimes to impress the ladies: [LINK]

This seems shortsighted... they'll probably find more funding, but what a bunch of nonsense to have to deal with in the interim. This bit of the article makes it seem like it could be as petty as a clash of personalities: > "The department remains committed to seeking independent technical advice and review," Pentagon spokesperson Heather Babb said. But Aftergood sees another reason for the end of the relationship. He says that the Jasons are a blunt bunch. If they think an idea is dumb or won't work, they aren't afraid to say so. > "They were offering the opposite of cheerleading," he says. "And DOD decided that maybe they didn't want to pay for that any longer." An interesting bit of trivia from the wiki page shows they lost funding before in 2002 for something perhaps just as petty, them not relenting on having exclusive control over who they let join: > In 2002, DARPA decided to cut its ties with JASON. DARPA had not only been one of JASON's primary sponsors, it was also the channel through which JASON received funding from other sponsors. DARPA's decision came after JASON's refusal to allow DARPA to select three new JASON members. Since JASON's inception, new members have always been selected by its existing members. After much negotiation and letter-writing—including a letter by Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey[26]—funding was subsequently secured from an office higher in the defense hierarchy, the office of the Director, Defense Research & Engineering, name changed

I'm talking about the perception by general people like business managers and HR etc. I think it's silly that there's this purity contest or practicality contest going on. I studied CS but at a more engineering focused university, so the curriculum was closer to electrical engineering than to math and physics. Many engineering profs had a weird distaste for physicists/natural scientists and vice versa. They were both "elitist" just from a different view of the world. I like Feynman's take on this kind of bickering among fields: [VIDEO]

To me original motivation is solving a problem and innovation. If you come up with an idea to create a service/product, you may be invested in the innovation in the beginning. But, as soon as you start making it using other people's money, it starts being less about the product. [Edit] [VIDEO] Richard Feynman, explaining if "it" was worth the Nobel Prize. "...I already got the prize. Prize is the pleasure of finding the thing out, kick in the discovery, the observation other people use it. Those are the real things..."

Should you care what another engineer’s title is? These kinds of discussions bother me because it always implies some kind of worthiness of the title. Maybe it’s just my work experience but I’ve found very little correlation with e.g. the success of an engineer’s career trajectory and the success of the projects they’re responsible for. Going a little more off topic now but these discussions always leave me feeling a bit like how Richard Feynman describes his instinct to be repulsed by “honors” and everything like them: [VIDEO]