8/ Actually, that's not quite right. It's easy after the fact to say "let's have more Geoff Hintons" - he's seen as right!
-
15/ Returning to main argument: Insofar as long-held suspension of skepticism helps overcome this, I'm in favour of it.
16/ Indeed, that long-held suspension of skepticism seems to be one of the main mechanisms we currently have for this.
-
-
17/ In that sense, I support Julia's phrasing in 4, with the proviso that I don't think we need "most" scientists to do this, just many more
-
18/ And I don't think lifelong is quite right, though many years-long, sure. And, for a few, life-long is fine.
-
19/ This is something I like about SV: I view the many ludicrous startups as a feature, not a bug, even if they're sometimes annoying.
-
20/ They indicate a system willing to support a lot of really weird ideas. Most fail.
-
21/ But a few turn into Wikipedia-size successes.
-
22/ A priori, of course, WP looked really silly - wild optimists like Kevin Kelly and Larry Page thought it would fail.
-
23/ Point, as with Hinton, isn't "fund Wikipedia", but rather "support many things that will look silly after the fact"...
-
24/ Finis.
-
Coda: Wikipedia wasn't exactly SV. Funded by Bomis, which was part of the US startup bubble though.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.