Richard Feynman and the Connection Machine (1989)
longnow.orgHeh, this reminds me of my time at Avici Systems: they made a 3d toroidal mesh-based "Terabit Switch Router" using wormhole routing with virtual channels to avoid head of line blocking (Bill Dally was associated with the company..). The company went public and provided the core routers for AT&T for a number of years. (Superseded by Cisco's HFR (Huge F*ing Router..).
The questions involved how much can you get away with (before deadlock) if you don't have enough virtual channels. Also is it ever worth extra buffering outside of the VCs. Also, how to get more bandwidth if one VC does not provide enough. The TSR used source routing (a list of turns on the head flit I think..), so how do you compute the routing list for arbitrarily incomplete meshes?
It's interesting that Feynman was involved in this field of interconnection networks, although for actual papers I do find his son's writing on the CM-5.
"The charming side of Richard helped people forgive him for his uncharming characteristics. For example, in many ways Richard was a sexist. Whenever it came time for his daily bowl of soup he would look around for the nearest "girl" and ask if she would fetch it to him. It did not matter if she was the cook, an engineer, or the president of the company. I once asked a female engineer who had just been a victim of this if it bothered her. "Yes, it really annoys me," she said. "On the other hand, he is the only one who ever explained quantum mechanics to me as if I could understand it." That was the essence of Richard's charm."
A good counterpoint to the "I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, you're still a sexist pig" crowd.
Rather than thinking about it as a "counterpoint," I think it's an excellent illustration of the fact that people are complicated, and are capable of simultaneously being sexist pigs in some ways and progressive and gifted educators in others.
Something that I think really complicates these kinds of discussions is our propensity to think of people in zero-sum and reductionist ways. Examples: "I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, you're still a sexist pig!", "I don't care what a sexist pig you are, you landed a spacecraft on a comet!".
The one does not somehow "cancel out" or "make up for" the other; both facts ("sexist pig", "landed spacecraft on comet"[1]) can exist and be considered simultaneously. We contain multitudes, etc.- something that the female engineer quoted clearly understood. She made no bones about the fact that she found certain aspects of Feynman's behavior toward her offensive, but was also clear that there were other aspects that she found admirable. This is how socially mature human beings think and talk about one another, IMHO.
1: Or, in the case of Feynman, "had horrifically retrograde and damaging opinions about women's roles in society" and "was ahead of many of his peers in some respects".
I think the contradiction is most _ist people think group X in less capable of some activity. So, someone that says you’re an intelligent and capable person, but cultural norms let me dump demeaning task Y on you is not really the same thing. The closest neutral example I can think of is how the new person in a group is often dumped on.
However, much like the thousands of people who emulate the Steve Jobs misanthropy but don't emulate his great vision and talent, thousands of people emulate Feynman's sexism but not his genius and teaching.
Some girls may enjoy fetching a coup of soup and some girls don't.
What is wrong with requesting girls to do that? Maybe he just find them charming, cute, enjoy the interaction with them. It is always the person who is being asked's responsibility to accept, deny or counter offer the request.
Asking a girl to get soup for you does not make one a sexist pig!
I do find these political correctness is being taking way out of hand for political reasons to dived up groups.
What's wrong by it is that some people are genuinly offended, insulted or even frightened by such a direct approach and you really have no way of knowing this before you try it.
"Let me tell you how we did it at Los Alamos." ~ http://youtube.com/watch?v=0ogSC6JKkrY
"It was amateurs who made the progress"
This is a great way to explain why the term <subject matter expert> irritates me so much. Sometimes knowing nothing is a good thing.
Darwin was an amateur. So was Einstein. And both were subject matter experts. It might help to remember that the root of "amateur" is "amator", lover. An amateur is one who does what they do out of love.
Amateur astronomers still make meaningful contributions, especially in the realm of variable stars.
Amateur archaeologists and paleontologists are often welcome at many digs. Not only are they free labor: they provide watchful eyes and minds.
An amateur isn't really someone who knows nothing about a particular subject. On the contrary, every amateur by definition knows at least something about their subject matter. An amateur is simply someone who engages that subject in a non-paid capacity, for personal enjoyment or some other reason. Indeed, amateurs can be, and many are, subject matter experts.
I'm referring to the SME term used in business scope. Where a SME is proven through some standardized way, that makes it impossible for someone not so vetted to have input. Amateur being someone who has interest and knowledge but doesn't meet the checklist to have an opinion.
Like http://www.opm.gov/FAQS/QA.aspx?fid=a6da6c2e-e1cb-4841-b72d-...
Similar to what I was thinking amateur doesn't mean stupid or lazy it just means someone who has little or no experience (yet) but has an interest in the subject.
I wouldn't even go this far. An amateur can have tons of experience, and even be an expert in their field. It's true, many people use the word "amateur" to mean unskilled, beginner, etc, but in actuality it's simply someone who engages in some activity for something other than payment. ("Amateur" means "lover of" in Old French, apparently.)
"One way to do this calculation is to use a discrete four-dimensional lattice to model a section of space-time. Finding the solution involves adding up the contributions of all of the possible configurations of certain matrices on the links of the lattice, or at least some large representative sample."
Did anyone see where I put my sandwich?
That was a really great read.
Great story. Love the anecdotes of Feyman's contributions to CM-1. I worked for a few companies in the 128 tech corridor back in the early nineties, and the whole area still resonates with the echoes of titans.
I love reading this well-written anecdote every time it's posted on HN. :-)
It's too bad feynman didn't teach him how to tell a story.
Feynman didn't have to. That was a very good story that was told very well.
I now have a low opinion of you.
Feynman would have got my joke. And I disagree about the quality of the story. If it was interesting it wouldn't be on tedx
My heart is broken that you think less of me <//3
Your joke was a poor one, one that Feynman would probably have demurred.
The story was decently told, whatever your view of the later TED performance. It gives the reader yet another aspect with which to view Richard Feynman. The reader comes away with more respect for Richard Feynman the man. And a little bit more understanding of Richard Feynman, the genius.
(The Long Now Foundation dates from 1996. Danny Hillis has been involved since the beginning. I believe the Danny Hillis / Richard Feynman / Connection Machine story dates from not long after. Which is long before TED.)