A
reflecting on @KevinSimler’s interactive essay. It’s fun and easy—read it first!
His post has a sudden plot twist toward the end, and takes on a darker tone.
[SPOILERS of sorts coming]https://twitter.com/KevinSimler/status/1128079359267430400 …
-
-
This is so bad that some institutions have started choosing who to fund literally at random. At least that wastes much less time, so if someone competent randomly gets funded, they can do science instead of writing grant applications. (h/t
@michael_nielsen)Show this thread -
Also, funding by peer review results in group-think and whole scientific fields floating off in a self-perpetuating irreality bubble for decades. Randomness will fund mavericks, mostly crackpots, but some may blow up established dysfunctional disciplines.
Show this thread -
We can do better than random, I hope! We know something about what creates innovative “scenes.” And we know something about how institutions can reflect on, and upgrade, their operating principles. https://meaningness.com/metablog/upgrade-your-cargo-cult …pic.twitter.com/5V5YQBvu9G
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Curious if you have a take on how this applies to academic pure math. My sense, from my stint in grad school, is not that nobody's doing "actual math" but that the entire apparatus has gotten totally disconnected from the rest of the world.
-
That sounds right to me; but I didn’t go far enough with math to have an informed opinion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This rot runs deep, as you know. This point here reminds me of
@davidgraeber's writing on bureaucracy and bulls**t jobs.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
interactive essay!
How to prevent disease, control nuclear reactions, and encourage the spread of ideas. All with playable simulations.