
Feynman Algorithm (2014) - LaFolle
http://wiki.c2.com/?FeynmanAlgorithm
======
scandinavegan
There's a quote under "Skill theory" on that page from Feynman:

> "Right. I don't believe in the idea that there are a few peculiar people
> capable of understanding math, and the rest of the world is normal. Math is
> a human discovery, and it's no more complicated than humans can understand.
> I had a calculus book once that said, 'What one fool can do, another can.'
> What we've been able to work out about nature may look abstract and
> threatening to someone who hasn't studied it, but it was fools who did it,
> and in the next generation, all the fools will understand it. There's a
> tendency to pomposity in all this, to make it deep and profound." \--
> Feynman, Omni 1979

The "what one fool can do" quote from a calculus book is probably from
Calculus Made Easy that was posted on HN a couple of days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14161876](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14161876)

In Calculus Made Easy, the exact quote is "What one fool can do, another can.
-- (Ancient Simian Proverb)".

~~~
chii
I dont know if the book you had was correct, but in one of his interviews,
Feynmen had mentioned he used a book called 'calculus for the practical man'
([https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Practical-Man-J-
Thompson/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Practical-Man-J-
Thompson/dp/1406756725)) i think.

~~~
giardini
Yes. On page 6 of the book "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out" by Richard P.
Feynman is a story:

"There was a series of math books, which started _Arithmetic for the Practical
Man_ , and then _Algebra for the Practical Man_ , and then _Trigonometry for
the Practical Man_ , and I learned trigonometry for the practical man from
that. I soon forgot it again because I didn't understand it very well but the
series was coming out, and the library was going to get _Calculus for the
Practical Man_ and I knew by this time by reading the _Encyclopedia_ that
calculus was an important subject...and then the calculus book finally came
out ...and I went to the library to take it out and she looks at me and she
says, "Oh, you're just a child, what are you taking this book out for, this
book is a [book for adults]." So this was one of the few times in my life I
was uncomfortable and I lied and I said it was for my father, he selected it.
So I took it home and I learnt calculus from it..."

 _Calculus for the Practical Man_ was first published in 1931 when Feynman was
about 13 years old, which fits the story (he was waiting for the book's
publication).

So that would point to Feynman's calculus book being "Calculus for the
Practical Man" by J.E.Thompson rather than Silvanus P Thompson's "Calculus
Made Easy", whose second edition came out in 1914. I would not be surprised
that Feynman read and used both.

The two books are quite different in approach, _Practical_ having, to me, a
rather unique physics orientation and being a more demanding text.

~~~
scandinavegan
> So that would point to Feynman's calculus book being "Calculus for the
> Practical Man" by J.E.Thompson rather than Silvanus P Thompson's "Calculus
> Made Easy", whose second edition came out in 1914. I would not be surprised
> that Feynman read and used both.

It's just that the quote on fools is very prominent in the beginning of
Calculus Made Easy, and the author continues to hilariously refer to both
other people and himself as fools. I searched inside Calculus for the
Practical Man [1] on archive.org for the word "fool" without a single hit.

I'm sure Feynman read both, but I was interested in the origin of the quote,
since I learned it a few days ago and think it's very inspirational. Feynman
was constantly arguing that everyone has the capacity to figure things out,
it's just that they rarely practice it.

[1]
[https://archive.org/details/calulusforthepra000526mbp](https://archive.org/details/calulusforthepra000526mbp)

~~~
giardini
scandinavegan says: _" I'm sure Feynman read both, but I was interested in the
origin of the quote, since I learned it a few days ago and think it's very
inspirational."_

As I continued reading I found the relevant quote to the second text, Calculus
Made Easy, on page 194 of Feynman's "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out",
where Feynman states:

"I had a calculus book once that said, 'What one fool can do, another can.'"

While he doesn't name it, that's almost without a doubt "Calculus Made Easy".
Both calculus texts are thus referred to in Feynman's "The Pleasure of Finding
Things Out". In the index of that book, under the topic "Calculus", the pages
of both references can be found.

------
apo
The algorithm might not be a trite as it seems at first.

In particular, I find the first step to be extremely valuable:

 _Write down the problem._

Part of my bag of problem-solving tricks is to start by writing a question for
StackOverflow. The point is not to post the question for someone else to
answer, but for me to frame the problem in such a way that it can be written
about clearly enough for someone else to understand it.

I find that about 50% of the time I have the answer to my own question before
even hitting the post button.

~~~
stcredzero
My algorithm went like this:

    
    
        1) Write down the problem.
        2) Try several established strategies to solve it.
        3) Get stuck, resign self to failing out of school
        4) Go to sleep
        5) Write out the answer over breakfast

------
synthmeat
I honestly do not wish to bash on the implementer, but it's an absolute
disgrace what they did to c2.com.

It feels like an April Fool's joke.

~~~
zeveb
The only good thing is that the database is available via web calls. The bad
thing is that the code to render the text is insane (take a look:
[https://github.com/WardCunningham/remodeling/blob/master/sta...](https://github.com/WardCunningham/remodeling/blob/master/static/index.html)).
Even the goal of the 'remodel' (really, more of a demolition) is crazy: 'The
original wiki rewritten as a single page application.' That's like saying,
'roast beef, now with added concrete and carpet!'

I just don't get how someone can think the change is a good idea.

~~~
chriswarbo
I hate JS single-page apps, but as far as c2 goes, I think the idea is to
eventually make it distributed. To make that work requires two parts:

\- Some way for the page to communicate with other instances (e.g. bittorrent,
or whatever, implemented in JS)

\- Some way to display the results (i.e. a JS renderer)

The easiest part is the JS renderer, so it makes sense to implement that
first. With a JS renderer, the server side rendering can be thrown away. Now
that it's a single page using JS calls to fetch data, it's a much easier
target to make distributed: "just" switch out where those calls get their data
from.

I'm glad such experiments are going on, and don't mind putting up with this
awkward in-between phase in the mean time.

~~~
zeveb
Actually, I think that the IndieWebCamp guys have it right with WebMention:
[http://indieweb.org/webmention](http://indieweb.org/webmention)

A _page_ shouldn't communicate with other instances; _servers_ should. The
server can render the result of input from other instances once and display it
to readers many times, rather than forcing each reader to rerender it itself.
The 'some way to display the results' then becomes … static HTML.

I think static HTML is rather easier than a JavaScript renderer.

> With a JS renderer, the server side rendering can be thrown away.

That's a bit like saying, 'with a single can of soda, you can get rid of
running water!' Replacing server-side rendering with client-side JavaScript is
strictly worse.

~~~
chriswarbo
> A page shouldn't communicate with other instances; servers should.

That requires a server. The point of c2 is it's a wiki: you can edit the
content just by browsing to the URL and clicking a button. Sure, self-hosted
static HTML sites are a really good solution to lots of problems; editing
wikis isn't one of them.

The alternative view is that visiting the page brings up your own personal
server, allowing you to participate in the network; it just so happens that
the server is written in JS and runs in a browser tab.

> The server can render the result of input from other instances once and
> display it to readers many times

This is exactly what decentralising a site is supposed to avoid: wiki is an
experiment in collectively owned content; removing central points of
contact/ownership is the next step.

> > With a JS renderer, the server side rendering can be thrown away.

> That's a bit like saying, 'with a single can of soda, you can get rid of
> running water!'

Maybe a better analogy is selling seeds rather than vegetables: you save
yourself costs on transport, storage, refrigeration, etc. by offloading a
bunch of cultivation work on to your customers. It's exactly the wrong
approach if you're trying to run a supermarket. If you're an experimental
botanist, and a few specialists keep asking you for produce, it's probably a
good idea to save yourself time and money by empowering them with seeds.

> Replacing server-side rendering with client-side JavaScript is strictly
> worse.

It's worse, but not strictly so; for the reasons I've listed above.

~~~
zeveb
> That requires a server. The point of c2 is it's a wiki: you can edit the
> content just by browsing to the URL and clicking a button.

If I want other people to see my edits, then they need a way to know that I
made them, which requires some agreed-upon rendezvous point — i.e., a server.

> This is exactly what decentralising a site is supposed to avoid: wiki is an
> experiment in collectively owned content; removing central points of
> contact/ownership is the next step.

So support a federated system, in which one user's server contacts another.
Without servers, how will I see your edits when your browser is offline, or
simply no longer visiting the page? Your edits will have to live somewhere
else — a server (whether it's your server, my server or c2.com's server is
beside the point: it's a server).

> Maybe a better analogy is selling seeds rather than vegetables: you save
> yourself costs on transport, storage, refrigeration, etc. by offloading a
> bunch of cultivation work on to your customers. It's exactly the wrong
> approach if you're trying to run a supermarket. If you're an experimental
> botanist, and a few specialists keep asking you for produce, it's probably a
> good idea to save yourself time and money by empowering them with seeds.

I thought the whole point of Ward's Wiki was to be a neat place to discuss
computer science & programming — in your analogy, to be the supermarket. Sure,
it's a high-tech supermarket, conducting some really neat experiments.

If I lost my favourite supermarket because the owner decided to go into
experimental botany and didn't bother to pay his supermarket rent, I'd feel
similarly upset.

> > Replacing server-side rendering with client-side JavaScript is strictly
> worse.

> It's worse, but not strictly so; for the reasons I've listed above.

It's strictly worse if one has disabled JavaScript (as everyone who truly
cares about privacy & security does): the site no longer works, and one gets
no benefits at all.

~~~
chriswarbo
> requires some agreed-upon rendezvous point — i.e., a server.

Or a P2P network with a DHT. This can be done right now with a dedicated
client (BitTorrent, BitCoin, FreeNet, IPFS, etc.). There are existing browser
plugins which will opportunistically use a P2P protocol instead of HTTP, e.g.
if you get the IPFS firefox extension, enable the "DNS lookup" option, and
visit chriswarbo.net it should fetch the page via P2P. Projects like IPFS are
currently experiments, but are aiming for browsers to eventually support
(something like) them natively, alongside HTTP/HTTPS/FTP/etc.

Projects like WebTorrent are trying to implement this kind of thing in JS.

> Without servers, how will I see your edits when your browser is offline, or
> simply no longer visiting the page?

Again, distributed storage (DHT, etc.).

> I thought the whole point of Ward's Wiki was to be a neat place to discuss
> computer science & programming — in your analogy, to be the supermarket.

I've been told many times that my analogies are terrible ;) In this case, the
supermarket represented some commercial Web site, with a clear separation
between business and customer, where the business wants as much ownership and
control as possible, and will go out of its way to keep customers happy (as
long as it's profitable).

From what I can tell, Ward is doing this for the love of it. There is no
profit to chase, so any project costs (like running a server) are a drain, and
make it more likely to collapse. Removing those costs helps the project, even
if it inconveniences visitors. Like the botanist, who wants to get on with
their research rather than spending time growing produce for others.

Likewise, the visitors are contributors, not customers. They're not just after
some product with as little transaction friction as possible (at least, the
most valuable ones aren't; I assume most visitors just read something then
leave). They're already investing their time into the project, so making
things a little less convenient might be acceptable, if it means the project
can stay afloat.

> It's strictly worse if

That's not how "strictly worse" works. If you claimed it's worse, I would
emphatically agree (I hate single page JS "apps"!)

"Strictly worse" means that it is not better in any way; that the old version
is a pareto improvement over the new one. It's not. There are reasons one
might choose to do this. Those reasons are not ones that a commercial Web site
should choose (exactly the opposite, in fact; they're like the supermarket);
they're not ones that a static informational site should choose (e.g. they
might choose to host on IPFS, but shouldn't go down the JS route); they
shouldn't be chosen if identity/ownership are the goal (like indieweb, where
self-hosted/managed servers make sense).

They do make sense if you want to throw a collaboration platform out into the
world, with the only goal being to see what happens. That's what wiki was, so
it makes sense.

~~~
zeveb
Everything you write about a DHT is true, but … that's not what Ward's Wiki is
doing.

It sounds like what it's doing is a very, _very_ good fit for what the IWC
guys are up to — and it could all be done without JavaScript!

> "Strictly worse" means that it is not better in any way; that the old
> version is a pareto improvement over the new one.

Viewed in links, lynx or eww, the old version _is_ a Pareto improvement over
the new, because the new version is nothing but a blank page, while the old
version was full of information.

~~~
chriswarbo
> Viewed in links, lynx or eww, the old version is a Pareto improvement over
> the new

Again, if you're qualifying the statement, it's not pareto. On transparency,
water is a pareto improvement over Coca Cola. On growability, wood is a pareto
improvement over steel.

The old version was an improvement over the new one; the new version is worse.
They're not "pareto" or "strict" though, and I'm interested to see what the
next steps are, building on this new foundation.

------
aban
Whenever the Feynman Algorithm comes up, I'm tempted to share "Stop Treading
Water: Learning to Learn" [0] by Edward Kmett. It's a great talk and I highly
recommend it if you haven't watched it (or frankly, if you already have :).

[0]: [https://yow.eventer.com/yow-2014-1222/stop-treading-water-
le...](https://yow.eventer.com/yow-2014-1222/stop-treading-water-learning-to-
learn-by-edward-kmett-1750)

~~~
rustacean
Thank you

~~~
aban
You're welcome :)

------
jwilk
Archived copy, which can be read without JS enabled:

[https://archive.fo/I403G](https://archive.fo/I403G)

~~~
pasbesoin
Which appears to block me for using a VPN service.

I looked for it on wayback.org, which now requires Javascript, itself, just to
use its interface. And the one archived result is just a page-load spinner.

Looked for it in Google Cache. Spinner.

I guess it's time to go back to books and print.

~~~
jwilk
Here's a plain text version:

[https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anonymous/0f377b79eb4bae5...](https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anonymous/0f377b79eb4bae5e3f2161ff569dce8d/raw/b34b398ea6148276c6897f26b108259625dde40f/gistfile1.txt)

~~~
pasbesoin
Thank you. And pardon the partially rhetorical nature of my initial response.

I... "grump" a bit, that way, every so often, as I hate to see the "open" web
become -- from my perspective -- less and less so.

(All the more so for what is essentially static content.)

P.S. I don't consider Javascript-delivered content as libre as other, as the
client has to trust that the scripting won't compromise them.

------
thriftwy
My algorithm is usually along the lines of:

    
    
        * Think of a problem
        * Think real hard
        * Write down a solution
        * Write down the problem

------
swiley
This site used to be one of my favorite examples of content over presentation.
What happened?

~~~
Iv
Youngsters.

~~~
wolfgang42
I'm not sure what you mean by 'youngsters'\--c2.com (and the associated wiki)
are still maintained by Ward Cunningham, and the effort to rewrite the wiki[1]
is hosted under his GitHub account and appears to have been his decision. It
appears to have been motivated by a desire to "federate" the wiki, though I'm
unclear on what exactly this vision entails.

[1]:
[https://github.com/WardCunningham/remodeling](https://github.com/WardCunningham/remodeling)

------
abecedarius
There's an oral-history interview of Feynman where the interviewer brings up
his notebooks, saying something like "where you recorded your results" \--
Feynman interrupts like "no, it's where I worked them out". He's emphatic
about it after being questioned again.

The "Feynman algorithm" is an OK joke, and gets at something real, but I think
it smacks a little too much of putting words in the guy's mouth. It has a
flavor of mystification that goes against the spirit of a lot that he said in
his lectures. There was a lecture explicitly on problem-solving methods in the
"Tips on Physics" volume.

------
dom0
> 7 requests, 691 KB, 19 s

?!? What is going on there?

~~~
throwanem
They redid their UI last year to be more Web 2.0, which would've still been a
mistake, if a less grave one, had it been competently executed.

I wonder if it's still serving a complete list of article names to every
visitor? If so, that all by itself is probably a big chunk of that 691K. If
not, God knows what they're doing now - I don't have a console on my phone,
and won't switch to my desktop just to dissect the latest mistakes of rampant
NIH as applied to the modern web.

~~~
dom0
The long request goes to
"[http://c2.com/wiki/remodel/pages/FeynmanAlgorithm"](http://c2.com/wiki/remodel/pages/FeynmanAlgorithm")
which seems to be just the articles' text. But there's also a names.txt which
is ~640K (260K gzip'd). Hm.

~~~
throwanem
Yup, that's the one. Hooboy.

------
mtempleton
Feynman was a particularly interesting, intelligent, but also a very moral
person. He said in an interview in his older years, while tearing up: 'I know
the difference between right and wrong.'

Of science, my favorite bit from him is that 'in science, it does not matter
what your last name is, how brilliant you are, how beautiful your theory is,
all that matters is if it experimentally agrees with nature. That's all that
science is'[1]

After devoting his time to science, he indulged in sex, drugs and art, and in
the meantime had a great deal good to say about not just nature, but about
morality as well. My type of person.

1-[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY)

------
mack73
>I had a calculus book once that said, 'What one fool can do, another can.'

A link to a pdf file of a copy of an old calculus book from early nineteen-
hundreds showed up on HN a week or so ago. I read the first couple of pages.
That quote is likely referencing that particular book. I have lost the link
now. Anyone remember?

Edit: sry, that was weak Googleing from my part. Here it is:
[http://djm.cc/library/Calculus_Made_Easy_Thompson.pdf](http://djm.cc/library/Calculus_Made_Easy_Thompson.pdf)

~~~
ralfd
"Calculus made easy". Just search for it.

~~~
mack73
Yeah that's the one, thx.

------
stcredzero
_There are people who solve a problem the same way that you do, just much much
faster._

Apparently, Murray Gell-Mann was one such person. I had a professor like that.
He was constantly blurting out your next thought just as you were on the verge
of forming the words. Gell-Mann did this so often, that his grad students once
played a trick on him by meeting up and thinking out a new series of
conclusions ahead of time, just so they could blurt out the next conclusion
just as Gell-Mann was about to speak it.

------
kazinator
Occurs in:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14190069](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14190069)

------
mitsoz
This is as useful as

    
    
      * Write down the problem.
      * ???
      * Profit

~~~
bitexploder
Not if you were Richard Feynman. That is sort of the point of the article. Can
or should more people be able to do this? Amusingly, Rob Pike claims some of
the best programming advice he ever got was from Ken Thompson. The advice
amounted to: when you are stuck, stop, think hard, and then fix the problem.

This advice could be seen as amusing rhetoric to stop and think more often.

~~~
rothron
A variation I've heard is "Don't just do something. Stand there!"

~~~
bitmage
This is something we try to instill in our new ops people. If you don't
understand what's going on, don't do anything. There's nothing to be gained by
quickly applying the wrong solution.

------
ddingus
I want to share a look at this from a bit different perspective.

As a kid, I would fix, trade and sell older radios and TV's for money and
other things. I fell in love with vacuum tube era things. They are beautiful
and it's all human scale. You can see the parts. Back then, I didn't have
much. Our family was in poverty a lot of the time. Reasons. That's not a big
deal, and in fact, was of great benefit to me personally. It kind of forced
exploring the world and meaning to get something out of it. I needed it!

Anyway, I had a couple of old ratty texts from the 50's era that explained the
theory of operation. And I had various toys and projects that showed parts of
that theory to me. A crystal radio, for example. I must have reread that text
50 times.

At first, I understood very little. Being young, much of the higher level
stuff would blow right by. But the general concepts were there.

So, imagine being faced with the radio. You don't have much, no fancy test
gear, etc...

I submit Feynman didn't fix the radio. It's still broken in a sense. But, what
he did do was make that radio, imperfect or broken, damaged, as it was,
perform as needed. He moved the problem out of the way.

This is important. The radio is a system. It's designed to do a task, and it's
parts are designed to perform to a specification or other. Each radio is kind
of unique too. Whatever flaws it has gets compensated for.

Problem: Noise in the radio audio

Think real hard:

Here, one can start to analyze the radio, take the theory of operation and
identify where noise might be coming from. This means one has sufficient
understanding to solve the problem in the first place. The heavy lift is
realizing it!

But, say one does not possess that level of understanding. I didn't back then.
Not until many years later, lots of fixes under my belt, and some kind souls
giving me test gear.

So then, as a system, what's still possible? Fixing the radio may not be an
option due to lack of components, understanding, tools.

Move the radio Swap the tubes Modify antenna Change power source Change
adjustable things in the radio Remove something from the radio Etc...

For each of these things one CAN do, which of them may resolve noise?

In this way, the problem shifts from, "fixing it", which implies the radio is
brought from a flawed state to an acceptable one. (just less and more minor
flaws really)

That is what Feynman did. A poor component at one stage of the radio may
perform another task just fine. Swapping the tubes does that.

For many years, I would get this gear from people. And it was a lot of, "look
at the problem", "think real hard", "execute solution."

And a bunch of that boiled down to what I could do, not so much what should be
done, or needed to be done. And a lot of that was successful. Try stuff,
observe, try more stuff, observe. After a time, which stuff to try boiled down
to a potent set of things. More successes.

I would get an older TV, for example. Maybe it had a red tint, or the picture
bloomed. One could make adjustments in the set to re-balance the picture, or
improve focus, limit overall brightness, and any number of things to bring
that particular system into a functioning order sufficient to perform the task
required of it. Still broken, in the technical sense. New components would
very likely improve it, but a removal of one, or replacement with similar one,
even removing one, tweaks to the unit, all could combine to make it perform.

In my following of Feynman, I find a consistent theme where he was very good
at understanding basic understanding. The calculus book he refers to contained
some general solutions he found could solve a very broad set of problems.
Rather than explore all the solution sets and struggle to apply them, he would
take a very useful one and max it out, applying it everywhere. Where it would
not work, or was impractical, he would seek another one.

I see this as a very important aspect of this awesome problem solving ability
he demonstrated. Collecting things like this, as well as taking problems from
various angles:

What can be done, and could it help? What has been done before? What should be
done. Combine things done before. Guess at possible new things to be done.
etc...

seems to be major contributors to this skill.

Feynman often mentioned puzzles. When you combine a "gauntlet" of puzzles and
Feynman's natural ability to recognize fundamental understanding with time and
a zeal to solve, his remarks about "not being a genius" have some real merit!

Now, he was, and that's not really a matter of serious debate. But, the
method, to him, is more about doing the work to be lucid. Solve, solve, solve,
refine tools, collect new ones, solve, solve, solve...

The difference here, between Feynman, and us ordinary mortals, is the breadth
and depth of that lucidity.

Those skills I learned in my early youth still apply today. I can't tell you
how many times I've arrived at simple ways to "fix" something, just based on
what could be done, and inferences on what must be true. It's theory of
operation, coupled with broad experience and that "gauntlet" of puzzles run
with "the tools"

Each of us can do this. Some of us can do it extremely well in a given domain
too.

I feel Feynman never did appreciate his skill and lucidity about reality
itself, the world, it's parts. Few of us have that.

But, the Feynman way of looking at things, solving problems, collecting tools
to solve them with, being observant, and inference:

What is possible? What can we do? What must be true? Etc...

Is something everyone can cultivate to varying degrees, depending on our
affinity for a given domain, personal attributes, and resources.

I know this is a zen like argument, but he didn't actually fix that radio. He
made a broken one, or flawed one perform better.

And in that last bit is an important realization:

We state the problem. Fine. But, we need to also state the goal too.

Given a goal, the problem may be too limiting. A solution may appear out of
reach, or not be seen due to a problem statement constraining things, or
masking things.

Work backward from the goal and sometimes one can factor the original problem
statement away. And in the doing of that, arrive at a solution that gets it
done, or renders the problem a non problem.

And I'll add Feynman did the work. A lot of it, and he credits that to a lot
of his insights. Solving a bazillion puzzles will turn anyone into a much
better solution finder, and he's right about that.

Do the work. Seek the puzzles, and keep at them. Over time, one gets an
internal sort of understanding that is more broadly applicable.

------
throwanem
Feynman was a fascinating person, and remains well able to reward further
interest - his autobiographical works being a fine place to start.

Generally I'd also try to recommend a work by someone with a less favorable
but still well founded perspective, for comparison. But I have yet to
encounter anyone who takes such a view of Feynman. Perhaps the closest is the
article [1] on his time at Thinking Machines, whence comes this matchless
quote:

> 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."

[1] [http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-
machine...](http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-machine/)

~~~
willvarfar
Was Feynman sexist? A quick googling finds nothing.

~~~
coldtea
> _Was Feynman sexist?_

In the same way, and probably much less, that any male was in a totally
different era of the 60s and 70s...

~~~
xorcist
The above described behaviour was at the very least extremely bad manners ..
even in the 60s/70s.

~~~
eeeficus
Why is asking people for something is bad manners? Especially as you put it
"extremely bad manners"?

~~~
foldr
I suggest that you try asking random women in the office to bring you soup and
see how that goes.

~~~
oblio
Heh, for an even better reaction he should try asking random _men_ in the
office to bring him soup.

Depending on his workplace, things could become physical :D

------
golergka
Oh no. What used to be the best designed website in the whole internet is now,
too, a slow mess that doesn't work in javascript, uses several trackers and
loads half a megabyte to display few screens of text.

Who the hell thought that slapping some annotations on top is worth this price
to pay? Why not add stories to it, too?

~~~
BackwardSpy
It won't even load for me, I just get an infinite spinner gif. Tried turning
my browser extensions off, still no luck.

~~~
cpressland
Ditto...

