QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: CollectorQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperWorld's first personal supercomputer unveiledlooks like a workstation to me.Anyone getting one ?4000+ GBP and 250 times faster than "an average pc"what happened with the 1999 personal supercomputer (for climate research)are u talking about the first personal supercomputer for non climate research?QuoteBut Mousie, thou art no thy lane, In proving foresight may be vain: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley, An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy!Robert BurnsMost real innovation happen by chance and luck anyways.Funny how the people that spend years studying and working a field tend to be the luckiest.Examples:Maxwell, Pasteur, Edison, Faraday and Eureka. What these guys have in common is that they stumbled on their inventions by chance.My wife has extensively studied Pasteur & Edison and their discoveries were the antithesis of chance. Both of them put in thousands of hours of study, research, and experimentation to create what they created. She's not looked at Maxwell or Faraday but a cursory reading of their wikipedia pages seems to imply that both had the mathematical skills and empirical inclinations to make intentional discoveries -- chemicals, lenses, batteries, coils, and magnets don't self-assemble by chance.Once the eureka has been found then it becomes production I suppose. I bow to your wife's knowledge but the anecdotes suggest otherwise. The unconscious mind is a source in maths. See Hadamard's book on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field.Her studies of the anecdotes show that they seldom tell the whole story. Whether it's humility or a lack of self-awareness, many anecdotes about inventions or discoveries seem to gloss over the large role of training, cultivated mindset, and empirical work that precedes the oft quoted "Eureka" moment. For example, Edison tested 900 different filament materials to "discover" the light bulb -- lucky him!Unlike what would be expected if discovery/invention were stochastic, most people make no significant discoveries in their lives and those people who do make discoveries tend to make many of them.P(person_i_makes_discovery_n | person_i_makes_discovery_n-1) >> P(person_i_makes_discovery_1)A very small percentage of people seem repeatedly "lucky" in making multiple discoveries and if one studies their lives, the source of that luck seems quite clear.Bravo. But that was not my point. QuoteEdison tested 900 different filament materials to "discover" the light bulb -- lucky him!You could also argue 900 times is kinda dumb. (only kidding)

QuoteSo right place, right time, right intuition, and right interpretation.Aka Lady Luck?

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteSo right place, right time, right intuition, and right interpretation.Aka Lady Luck?"Correctness ergo luck" seems a strange bit of logic.Would one conclude the same about computer programming (all joking aside) -- that someone was lucky to have the right characters, right sequence, right place, right time to create some bit of code?None of these variables are randomly distributed and neither are the outcomes.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteSo right place, right time, right intuition, and right interpretation.Aka Lady Luck?"Correctness ergo luck" seems a strange bit of logic.Would one conclude the same about computer programming (all joking aside) -- that someone was lucky to have the right characters, right sequence, right place, right time to create some bit of code?None of these variables are randomly distributed and neither are the outcomes.As TS states, you need the above ingredients. Feel free to disagree.

To extend the discussion in a graceful way, we also have the Four Noble Truths:The First Truth identifies the presence of suffering. (dukkha)The Second Truth seeks to determine the cause of suffering. (samudaya)The Third Noble Truth, the truth of the end of suffering, has dual meaning, suggesting either the end of suffering in this life on earth, or in the spiritual life through achieving Nirvana. (nirhodha)When one has achieved Nirvana, which is a transcendent state free from suffering and our worldly cycle of birth and rebirth, spiritual enlightenment has been attained. The Fourth Noble truth charts the method for attaining the end of suffering and reaching nirvana. (magga)This is called the Noble Eightfold Path. When you are ready for the Noble Eightfold Path, let me know!

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteSo right place, right time, right intuition, and right interpretation.Aka Lady Luck?"Correctness ergo luck" seems a strange bit of logic.Would one conclude the same about computer programming (all joking aside) -- that someone was lucky to have the right characters, right sequence, right place, right time to create some bit of code?None of these variables are randomly distributed and neither are the outcomes.As TS states, you need the above ingredients. Feel free to disagree.We've no disagreement on the necessity of these ingredients, only the mechanisms by which some people seek and acquire these ingredients.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteSo right place, right time, right intuition, and right interpretation.Aka Lady Luck?"Correctness ergo luck" seems a strange bit of logic.Would one conclude the same about computer programming (all joking aside) -- that someone was lucky to have the right characters, right sequence, right place, right time to create some bit of code?None of these variables are randomly distributed and neither are the outcomes.As TS states, you need the above ingredients. Feel free to disagree.We've no disagreement on the necessity of these ingredients, only the mechanisms by which some people seek and acquire these ingredients.Well, we have not yet defined the problem in unambiguous terms. That's the issue.

While you are defining the problem(s) in unambiguous terms, I will provide the steps of the Noble Eightfold Path:Right UnderstandingRight ThoughtRight SpeechRight ActionRight LivelihoodRight EffortRight MindfulnessRight Concentration. The Path is divided into three themes: Good moral conduct (Understanding, Thought, Speech)Meditation and mental development (Action, Livelihood, Effort), and Wisdom and insight (Mindfulness and Concentration)**I am heading off to the movies soon. I hope that I will see the right one! (Interstellar - just in time, before it leaves the nearby cinema.) I hope that you will all have a pleasant and enlightening evening.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteSo right place, right time, right intuition, and right interpretation.Aka Lady Luck?"Correctness ergo luck" seems a strange bit of logic.Would one conclude the same about computer programming (all joking aside) -- that someone was lucky to have the right characters, right sequence, right place, right time to create some bit of code?None of these variables are randomly distributed and neither are the outcomes.As TS states, you need the above ingredients. Feel free to disagree.We've no disagreement on the necessity of these ingredients, only the mechanisms by which some people seek and acquire these ingredients.Well, we have not yet defined the problem in unambiguous terms. That's the issue.That may be true. I thought we were discussing the probability of invention or discovery and whether individuals take steps to markedly increase that probability. There's no doubt that science involves uncertainty -- prior to working out a theory and doing an experiment, both X and not(X) may be possible and thus awaiting discovery. Yet I maintain that some people cultivate a set of skills and direct their resources to resolve far more than their "fair share" of X vs. not(X) discoveries. In that sense, some people make their own luck by going to the right place, waiting for the right time (or tailoring their work to suit the current time), cultivating processes for intuition, and working on skills for interpretation.

QuoteI thought we were discussing the probability of invention or discovery and whether individuals take steps to markedly increase that probabilityThat's not exactly what I meant. The only thing I said Jan 7 12.40 pm was:QuoteMost real innovation happen by chance and luck anyways. My implicit assumption did not really include individuals as such. More about products come into existence and evolve. But the individual level is also a good one. This could be a parallel thread IMO.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteI thought we were discussing the probability of invention or discovery and whether individuals take steps to markedly increase that probabilityThat's not exactly what I meant. The only thing I said Jan 7 12.40 pm was:QuoteMost real innovation happen by chance and luck anyways. My implicit assumption did not really include individuals as such. More about products come into existence and evolve. But the individual level is also a good one. This could be a parallel thread IMO.Sorry for the misinterpretation! As to the timing of inventions, I'd think there's even less of a role of chance in that. From what I've seen, most inventions were inevitable within the technological and social milieu at the time of invention. If person A had not invented X, person B would have a few months/years later.

Total's Supercomputer now the Industry?s Most Powerful Worldwide

Tesla collabora con la polizia ticinese

Switzerland. 1 killed trapped in Tesla in flames.

I was busy in 2015/16 so I missed the interesting discussion on discovery by chance. The best description of this is in the Richard Feynman Nobel Lecture. He worked a long time down a number of blind alleys before he came up with QED. I suppose the plate *was* chance, but the work beforehand was not.

We have a habit in writing articles published in scientific journals to make the work as finished as possible, to cover all the tracks, to not worry about the blind alleys or to describe how you had the wrong idea first, and so on. So there isn't any place to publish, in a dignified manner, what you actually did in order to get to do the work, although, there has been in these days, some interest in this kind of thing. Since winning the prize is a personal thing, I thought I could be excused in this particular situation, if I were to talk personally about my relationship to quantum electrodynamics, rather than to discuss the subject itself in a refined and finished fashion. Furthermore, since there are three people who have won the prize in physics, if they are all going to be talking about quantum electrodynamics itself, one might become bored with the subject. So, what I would like to tell you about today are the sequence of events, really the sequence of ideas, which occurred, and by which I finally came out the other end with an unsolved problem for which I ultimately received a prize.

Feynman Nobel Lecture