
Ask HN: Whom do you admire most? - eserorg
Whom do you admire most? In what way does that person inspire you?
======
danteembermage
Mr. Rogers. The guy was amazing on so many levels; there are lots of examples
but I'll go with a HN related one. He contributed valuable testimony to the
betamax case.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers>

~~~
sachinag
Here's the Junod profile of Mister Rogers (it's never, _ever_ "Mr."):
[http://www.thedqtimes.com/pages/castpages/other/fredrogersca...](http://www.thedqtimes.com/pages/castpages/other/fredrogerscanyousayheropg1.htm)

It will make you cry.

~~~
apsurd
Thank you for this link. I read it. It is very nice.

------
Eliezer
Leo Szilard. Had the idea for fission chain reaction, realized what would
happen if Hitler got hold of it, and kept his mouth shut... while browbeating
the skeptical Fermi into starting the Manhattan Project, and ghostwriting
Einstein's letter to Roosevelt.

Right up there with Norman Borlaug and Stanislav Petrov on the list of people
you've never heard of because CNN is too busy covering Michael Jackson.

~~~
antiismist
Is the Hitler story true? Wikipedia says that he got the idea in London, where
he filed a patent (!) for the fission chain reaction.

Here's the link to his patent, btw:
[http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=GB&...](http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=GB&NR=630726&KC=&FT=E)

~~~
Eliezer
I think he filed the patent and then got the patent classified.

------
jobenjo
Bill Watterson (creator of Calvin and Hobbes).

He created an epic masterpiece, never sold out, and left at the top of his
game. He achieved fame without being drawn into celebrity, and his ideas have
permeated our culture in a deep and wonderful way.

~~~
thismat
Bill Watterson had an ability to capture such emotion and life like expression
with a small 2d comic strip like no other comic or graphic I've ever seen.

The guy was amazing, and I love that he lives as a recluse in a town that
won't give him up to the media either. In fact, not many people even know what
he looks like anymore from what I've read.

The never selling out part is also awesome. He refused to allow even one
Hobbes stuffed tiger to be made because it would devalue his
character...simply amazing, he really did it for the art.

------
yesimahuman
John Carmack. I think I've just always been an Id fan since I grew up with
Quake, and I was just blown away the first time I read the Quake 1 source. I
have just always dreamed of being a great C hacker like him. And he's doing
even more amazing stuff now with Armadillo.

~~~
projectileboy
Seconded. I remember reading his .plan files in the 90s when he was working on
Quake II, and I was amazed at how much he'd get done in a day. If you want an
education in programming, download some of his source code:

<http://www.idsoftware.com/business/techdownloads/>

------
fogus
My grandfather. You guys have probably never heard of him, but he rocked.

~~~
shaddi
I am sure many of us look to our parents, grandparents, and other relatives as
heroes.

For me, I look to my dad as a hero, which is kind of funny considering how
often have disagreements. I'm reminded of that line from Randy Pausch's last
lecture, "Just remember, when your father was your age, he was fighting the
Germans." Growing up I always heard stories about what my dad was like and
what he was doing when he was in college, and the stories always seemed so
distant. Now, I am going through those same years, and it blows me away to
think about what my dad went through when he was at the same point in my life
as I am.

Coming to the US with only a few dollars in his pocket, not knowing the
language, working full time at bad jobs in rough neighborhoods in Houston,
going to school full time in engineering, and building a life based around
making sacrifices for the benefit of his family -- comparing this to my own
life, which has been free of these hardships ('cept full time school in
engineering, of course!) largely due to his efforts, I can't help but be
inspired.

Thanks dad.

------
derwiki
Craig Newmark for being truly a nerd, yet having an enormous impact on
society. He spoke at my undergrad commencement (also his alma mater), and what
really hit me from his speech was, wow, you WERE an engineering nerd just like
all the rest of us.

He inspires me because through his great success, he's remained extremely
humble and down to earth. It really seems like he just wants to keep his site
going as a public service. They donate a large portion of their income to
charity as is.. if only all public services could be run as well that they
GIVE extra money away!

------
smhinsey
Richard Feynman, because he showed me through his writing that we all, no
matter our backgrounds, can be enthralled by the mysteries that surround us.

~~~
araneae
And that through charisma, you can become more famous than physicists that do
better physics than you.

~~~
adharmad
Any examples?

~~~
araneae
Murray Gell-Mann

~~~
jballanc
Yeah, but I wonder how much of Gell-Mann's fame comes from his sometimes
derogatory comments about Feynman

------
replicatorblog
Walt Disney doesn't get the credit he deserves as an innovator and
entrepreneur. His legacy has been tarnished a bit my the hyper-consumerism
that the Disney company is famous for. That said he:

1\. Invented the feature length animated movie. A multi-billion dollar
business that paved the way for Pixar, Aardman, and all the other great
creators we admire in that industry.

2\. Invented the modern theme park. The "Second Life" of 1955! This is another
massive multi-billion dollar business. It is also impressive in its technical
scope employing physicists, pyrotechnic folks, and a bunch of roboticists who
work on the audio-animatronic robots.

3\. The Disney "Imagineering" crew is probably one of the most interesting
interdisciplinary groups around combining nearly every kind of engineer with
every kind of artist to create amazing things on an ongoing basis.

4\. Before he died he was applying his ideas on art and technology to urban
planning. Not in the way you would expect (e.g. No mouse ears), but marrying
ideas of "New Urbanism" with technological futurism to rethink how we live and
work.

His story is also a classic one of entrepreneurial striving, failure, and an
unwillingness to give up. Check out this book for more inspiration:

[http://www.amazon.com/Walt-Disney-Triumph-American-
Imaginati...](http://www.amazon.com/Walt-Disney-Triumph-American-
Imagination/dp/0679757473/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254997213&sr=8-1)

------
termie
the unsung heroes who don't make time for brown-nosing and fame-whoring

~~~
PStamatiou
is this the same termie from back in the flock day?
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/foolswisdom/43145184/>

~~~
termie
No, I recently resurrected this handle from my 80s BBS days.

------
slyn
David Chappelle

I hate that he has faded so much from the public eye. If you've never seen
Dave Chappelle's Block Party get it and watch it, whether you enjoy hip-hop or
not. If you've seen that and are otherwise interested his Inside the Actors
Studio interview is pretty solid too.

He is basically the type of role model I wish I could be someday.

~~~
vinutheraj
I like Chris Rock, I like it that he is frank and forthcoming and always
thinks a lot about what he says, whatever he says is logical and makes sense,
sometimes you get inspired by watching his shows, especially with all the
crowd !

Try _Bigger and Blacker_ and _Bring the Pain_ , two of the funniest shows I
have ever seen !

------
abi
Steve Jobs. (1) He has amazing taste. (2) He did it twice.

~~~
jorgeortiz85
Thrice. Twice at Apple, once at Pixar. (I'm counting NeXT as the second time
at Apple. Though perhaps they should count separately.)

------
MikeCapone
A few off the top of my head (most are self-explanatory):

Charles Darwin, Richard P. Feynman, J. Robert Oppenheimer, John Von Neuman,
Paul Erdos, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Richard Dawkins,
Carl Sagan, Thomas Jefferson, Aubrey de Grey, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Douglas R.
Hofstadter

~~~
araneae
Aubrey de Grey? You mean the crazy dude that tells people we're going to live
forever without any evidence to support his claims?

And Hofstadter, the guy who wrote that really dumb book? (Here I admit that I
only read the introduction before being disgusted by his treatment with
concept of things which are self referential. It's kind of a noob outlook to
find something mind boogling about the fact that a mind can contemplate
itself.)

Pity, because the rest of your list is pretty damn classy. Those two are
pretty weird additions.

~~~
dfranke
I find it a little odd that you think Aubrey de Grey is crazy but Eliezer
Yudkowsky isn't, given that EY is a vocal supporter of de Grey's research and
claims that we'll live forever for considerably more speculative reasons than
any that de Grey asserts. Any explanation of the distinction other than that
EY is probably reading this comment and that de Grey probably isn't?

~~~
araneae
The answer to your query is that I confess a blazing ignorance of EY.
Basically, the only people that buy the whole load of nonsense are folks that
desperately want to live forever, like my ex (who regularly makes donations to
fund longevity research).

Aging isn't a disease, because lifespan is something which is subject to
evolutionary pressure. Our lifespans are what they are because they _evolved_
to be that way. It's a little unintuitive, but consider the tarantula. The
female tarantula lives 8 years; the male tarantula only about 2. This is
because it's advantageous for females to live longer. For the males, it's more
advantageous to live for shorter periods, so they age and die earlier.

You're not going to be able to _treat_ aging because it's programmed in. The
only solution is to fix the source code.

~~~
MikeCapone
> Aging isn't a disease, because lifespan is something which is subject to
> evolutionary pressure. Our lifespans are what they are because they evolved
> to be that way.

That's incorrect. Our genes don't care if they carry on by reproduction or by
living longer in a single individual, but we care. How a body ages after
reproductive age is in an evolutionary blind spot. Individuals with mutations
that promote longer life aren't passing those genes on so the selective
pressure if very small.

We don't have a clock that runs out of time. We just keep accumulating long-
lived damage (misfolded proteins, advanced glycation endproducts, etc) until
its enough to cause pathologies, from which we eventually die.

You are not the cells that you were a few years ago. Most have been replaced.
But there are certain types of damage that your body can't fix, which is where
an engineering approach could come in (for example, say we could have a
vaccine that would make your body target beta amyloids in your brain, so you'd
clear those misfolded proteins before they accumulate enough to give you
alzheimer's).

~~~
araneae
It's true that individuals that live a little bit longer but have the _same_
end of their reproductive period do no better in the gene pool. However, if it
_were_ advantageous to live longer, and those folks had a slightly longer
reproductive period, then we would expect the lifespan-while-fertile to
increase. Presumably this would also increase the overall lifespan as well,
but really that's irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes, we keep accumulating damage. But we have mechanisms to control that
damage. And clearly there's not a set limit on it. Tarantulas that only live 2
years are not constrained by cell damage. Cell damage is _allowed_ to happen.

~~~
dfranke
Through your own argument, you've conceded that aging happens when the body
doesn't invest enough resources in controlling damge, and that the amount of
investment made can vary widely between species and even within a species. So
then what in the world leads you to believe that, provided with appropriate
medical support, the body can't be made to invest far more?

~~~
araneae
I conceded nothing. You're confusing investment on an evolutionary timescale
with investment on an individual timescale. A male spider couldn't
spontaneously decide to live another 6 years- it would take hundreds of
thousands of years of evolution to achieve that.

On a physiological level, increasing investment in the individual is difficult
because so much about how we are built is developmentally fixed. You can't
cure a kid with Down's Syndrome by taking out every extra third chromosome in
every cell.

However, we know what genotype would produce a non Down's baby. In the near
future, we might be able to clone a trisomy 21 person and produce a non Down's
syndrome clone. But we can't produce a clone of that person that won't age.

We have no idea which genes contribute to aging, and how, and even how many.
In all likelihood a simply astronomical number of genes would have to be
altered to extend life.

~~~
MikeCapone
Here's you've just shown that you have no idea what Aubrey and SENS are
proposing. Maybe, like with Hofstadter's book, you've just "read the
introduction" and then stopped?

>We have no idea which genes contribute to aging, and how, and even how many.
In all likelihood a simply astronomical number of genes would have to be
altered to extend life.

The whole point of SENS is that it DOESN'T try to fiddle with metabolism (our
genes). All of the genetic diseases you mention are different from the
diseases of aging, so they're a bad example.

SENS is all about maintenance and periodical repair (like with an antique car,
for example). Every, say, 10 years you go in and they remove accumulated
damage (which can only be present in a limited number of long-lived molecules)
BEFORE it causes pathologies. Most of this can probably be done with your own
immune system (you train it to recognize some molecules), and some of it will
have to be done other ways (gene therapy to make your body produce certain
enzymes, etc).

~~~
MikeCapone
> I know exactly what he's proposing. What I am saying is that it won't work,
> because aging has to do with developmentally fixed processes.

No you don't know "exactly" what he's proposing, and you don't understand what
senescence is, as you've made clear many times here. I'm starting to feel this
isn't very productive so we should probably stop this conversation.

> Sure, you can replace blood cells, but do you really think we can replace
> all your cells, including your neurons? If you want to go in for a complete
> brain transplant, be my guest.

Here you show again that you have no idea what SENS is proposing and you are
making up strawmen. If you want to criticize something, please learn about it
first.

------
nopassrecover
Thomas Jefferson.

A man who saw the world as it could be and did everything he could to get it
there.

~~~
Ras_
Alexander Hamilton: The Man who enabled Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase with
his shrewd policies (like debt assumption - cool economic hack) as Secretary
of the Treasury. Federalist Papers are/were invaluable too.

Bonus point for not having a mausoleum, library or any other grand memorial as
a monument to him.

~~~
jballanc
...though he does have an entire Manhattan neighborhood named after him!

------
byrneseyeview
Benjamin Graham, Claude Hopkins. Both wandered into fields full of failed
artists and wild gamblers, and turned them into something closer to a science.
_The Intelligent Investor_ and _Scientific Advertising_ are the only two books
I know of that can give the same person the same epiphany twice.

------
bokonist
Deng Xiaoping. In the pure utilitarian sense, he may have had the greatest
positive impact of any person in the 20th century. In a century wracked by war
between the ideologies, his philosophy was just the tonic the world needed:
"Who cares if the mouse is black or white, as long it catches the mouse".

~~~
cowmoo
"Don't care if the cat is a black cat or a white cat, as long as it catches
the mouse, it's a good cat."

Basically for those who are interested in the background of the quote, Deng
arose to power at the end of the Cultural Revolution, at the height of Chinese
communism ideology when the government was so communist that they broke away
from the Soviet's and accused of USSR as "revisionist"; destroyed all of the
Buddhist temples in China as "backwards and Confucius," imprisoned the sons
and daughters of former capitalists (because there were no current one's left)
for being "Western corrupution," and stripped intellectual's of their post in
Universities and forced them to "country-side re-education camps" for being
"radical leftists against communism." Before he rose to power, Deng himself
was denounced and stripped of his political post, and sent down for "re-
education."

In little as four or five years, in that kind of environment, Deng has
reformed the former Chinese market-command economy to become more
capitalistic. Liberalized the political and free-speech in China, that allowed
for media/film/journalism criticize the Chinese Communist party which
eventually led to the Tienanmen Incident. Deng, confronted tremendous
criticism and resistance from the hardliners of the Community party when he
tried enact his reform. He used this quote about "black cat" or "white cat" in
a speech he delivered to the political cadres to persuade them to be a bit
more pragmatic and less ideological about their communism, after 43 million
people have died from Great Leap Forward and the Culture Revolution. It was
also Deng who eventually issued the order to strike down the student
protesters in Tienanmen.

This ambivalent character of Deng, of balancing liberalization versus
stability has become a hallmark quality of the Chinese government. See how the
Chinese government encourages citizens towards private asset ownership and
entrepreneurship, but not towards democratic representation. See how the
Chinese government agrees in principle to a Korea/Iran nuke disarmament, but
they are more so wary of the stability of Korea/Iran region in the event of a
international escalation - that they block the UN Security Council sanctions.
Whether the current Chinese/Russian model of free markets but central strong
political oligarchy without an ideological emphasis, versus the American model
of free markets and free democracy with a strong ideology (leader of the free
world), the viability of either models remains to be seem.

~~~
chrischen
> he viability of either models remains to be seem.

I think it's safe to say that any model which encourages individual freedoms
would be superior. And the reason relates to my beliefs in self-education vs
school education. It's more efficient if people do _what they want._ So even
an oligarchy with an emphasis on practical results will still be less
efficient than individual people managing themselves freely.

~~~
johnnybgoode
> _And the reason relates to my beliefs in self-education vs school education.
> It's more efficient if people do what they want. So even an oligarchy with
> an emphasis on practical results will still be less efficient than
> individual people managing themselves freely._

I actually completely agree with this, but regarding your first sentence:

> _I think it's safe to say that any model which encourages individual
> freedoms would be superior._

I agree with this, too, but neither of the two models being discussed here
actually does this. Perhaps the question, then, is which of the two models
does a _relatively_ better job, and the answer is not so obvious. There are
some who would argue that the Chinese model does a better job of it, and they
are _not_ completely nuts.

Edit: I wanted to add that your post deserves praise, because you have made an
essential connection that few people have. It _is_ more efficient when people
do what they want, this does indeed apply to schools/education as well as
large-scale economic organization, and _in no way is this a coincidence!_

~~~
chrischen
I agree, people who praise China's system isn't _completely_ nuts. I have
lived in China though, and I have a bunch of relatives there. I also visit
regularly. But the fact is that the general consensus among Chinese youth
(both from those I've encountered and from sentiments I've read on the web) is
that even they _don't_ like their current system. Even older generations
acknowledge the fact that their standard of living is lower, and that China is
basically unstable, and hostile to free individual thought. My dad grew up in
in China (grew up poor might I add) and does not believe in the Chinese
system.

What does China have right now? Authoritarian style government. It's not near
pure communism, just as America is not near pure capitalism. But the main
difference between China and America is that China is authoritarian and
America (and all the developed world) is democratic.

I agree mob rule is bad. Can democracy work for China? Maybe. Democracy
depends on the population to be educated in order to work ideally. Obviously
40 years ago many Chinese were uneducated and poor. Today many are still poor,
but there is a growing middle class. More people are educated now and that
number is continuously increasing. And as evident in the development of a
society: as the standard of living and education of the population rises, they
tend to convert to democracy. This is probably why all developed nations are
democratic.

Obviously uneducated poor populations cannot govern themselves. One bad idea
from one uneducated person will be echoed by 100 uneducated if democratic rule
would take place. Therefore it is up to the few in that society who _are_
educated to take charge. So in such situations an authoritarian style may be
more effective. But when there is less of an education gap, it not only
becomes more fair to adopt a democratic process, but more effective since
there is inherent risk in granting power to select few in a more equal
society. Of course the same risk is present in a society with a large
education gap, but the benefits of having the smart making the decisions
outweighs that risk. In the United States there is less of an education gap
and people are more equal. Therefore the risk in having the smartest and best
govern is not worth the fewer benefits (because an authoritarian regime can
definitely be more effective if done right than a slow democratic system).

The risk I am talking about is of course having someone corrupt step into
power. Democracy is slow and ineffective by design _for this very reason_.

Establishing country is analogous to a startup (I love startup analogies). You
start with a startup and few people have complete and utter control. These few
people mean less checks on bad decisions. Why? Because if it fails, there is
very little to lose, and if it succeeds, very much to gain. This is analogous
to the authoritarian phase of a society where it is much more ideal to take
big risks since everyone's life is already _shit_ (excuse my language). Of
course once your company hits it big and has lots more to lose if a bad
decision is made, your company has to be very careful. This is analogous to
the democratic phase of a society where incremental benefits in management or
efficiency no longer outweigh the risks which could topple the established
welfare of said society/company.

So the question now is what stage is China at? Are the citizens of China smart
enough to make their own decisions now?

~~~
johnnybgoode
> _But the main difference between China and America is that China is
> authoritarian and America (and all the developed world) is democratic._

The problem is that "democratic" is not the opposite of "authoritarian". China
and the US both have authoritarian governments, although they do of course
differ in certain ways.

> _And as evident in the development of a society: as the standard of living
> and education of the population rises, they tend to convert to democracy.
> This is probably why all developed nations are democratic._

I don't think this is what has happened at all. Your suggestion that

> _the few in that society who are educated...take charge_

is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most
modern democracies. Take the US, for example. It is run by a massive,
_permanent_ bureaucracy. In practice, a democracy always grants power to a
select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense.

> _Democracy is slow and ineffective by design for this very reason._

The key question when it comes to political systems is, _who is making the
decisions?_ Let's take education, a subject I think we're both interested in.

In Country A, the decision of how a person is to be educated is made by a
large, government bureaucracy, supposedly filled with experts. The decision is
_not_ made by the person in question or even his/her parents. They have no
choice but to pay for the government schools.

Meanwhile, in Country B, a student and/or his/her parents have full control
over their own education and what is spent on it. In this case, they are
making the decisions.

I would call Country A "authoritarian" and Country B "free". My question is,
which is the US, and which is China?

~~~
chrischen
> The problem is that "democratic" is not the opposite of "authoritarian".

Sorry bad choice of word I guess. What I meant is that China's government is
authoritarian but it is also closed, whereas the US government, although it
has authority, it is responsible to the people, even though indirectly.

> is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most
> modern democracies.

The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to
rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm
saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are
enough people to fill in that _ruling class_ naturally.

> In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is
> inherently unequal in this sense.

Democracy's advantage is not in _equality_ , but in allowing those fit to have
more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on
average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to
rule.

As for your education point, China has restrictions on information, and it has
a similar style of education as the US, but with an even more mechanistic
approach.

So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less
ideal, but in the US you at least have freedom of information, which permits
and promotes anyone to self educate if he or she wants to.

~~~
johnnybgoode
> _What I meant is that China's government is authoritarian but it is also
> closed, whereas the US government, although it has authority, it is
> responsible to the people, even though indirectly._

Every government answers to the people in some sense, because no government
really wants all of its people to be against it. That would cause problems.
This is one reason both the Chinese and US governments expend so many
resources on propagandizing their populations.

> _The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to
> rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm
> saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there
> are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally._

I have to disagree with you here. As you pointed out, it's more efficient when
people are generally left to do as they wish, including in the area of
education, for example. Yet, the ruling classes in both countries have decided
against this and are enforcing their views. In fact, your idea, fully applied,
precludes the existence of a ruling class.

> _Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have
> more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on
> average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people
> to rule._

This paragraph would honestly make more sense if you replaced "democracy" with
"aristocracy". In fact, many proponents of aristocracy make essentially the
same argument you just did.

> _So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less
> ideal,_

I agree, China's education system is even worse. But my main point is that
we're talking about two bad options now, not one good option and one bad
option.

~~~
chrischen
Yes every government has to satisfy it's people, or it will be overthrown. The
question is which typed of government is _designed_ to satisfy the people.
Whether or not it satisfies the people is up to reality to determine and
enforce. The idealogies of the governments may not necessarily account. I
think the current gov't in china, an authoratative oligarchy, is designed so
that the majority of people are kept from weighing in on the decision making.
This is again because of the assumption that the majority is uneducated and
therefore unfit to rule. The democratic style in the US is by design meant to
give people more power, and make the government _more_ accountable to the
public. It does his because of it's design of seperation of powers, so that no
one entity can take over _all_ governmental bureaucracies. This also makes it
_easier_ for dissenting groups to introduce disruptions to the government,
which is so slow, ineffective, divided, and powerless. Since everyone is
striving for power, and it's so easy to disrupt power if any one entity gains
too much power, the government never becomes a _single_ ruling class or entity
that may significantly alter the status quo for better, but more horrifyingly,
for worse. So it introduces stability. Of course this gets into the other
topic about conformists killing society. But in a democracy nonconformist
still have more freedom to thrive.

For your second point, I have to say while the US has a formalized education
system, the very concept of freedom of speech information is freely accesible
and propogated outside of the education system, independent of government
control. Compare this to China where the government has the final say on
information on top of control of he education system. Also not everyone has to
attend government schools in he US. So ultimately in the US you definitely
have more freedoms in terms of doing what you want.

For the third paragraph, I am not talking about rule based on hereditary
titles or class. In fact I am talking about the exact opposite. The US system
promotes a smart business man to run a business because he will have the best
practical results, and a smart person to run a state, presidency, etc. This is
what I mean those fit to rule will rule. The democratic process naturally
weeds out those who suck so that those deserving, by merit, will come out on
top.

In terms of efficiency, the American system may not be that great, but it is
stable, and this stability means any attempt to radically improve it's system
will be tough since there is always the risk it could fail miserably.
Democracy is the stage for when people are comfortable, and stability is
needed.

Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think
democracy is heading in the right direction.

~~~
johnnybgoode
> _the government never becomes a single ruling class or entity that may
> significantly alter the status quo for better, but more horrifyingly, for
> worse._

This has already happened to a greater degree than most people realize.
"Separation of powers" has been a complete failure. Just take the present time
as an example. All three branches are currently controlled by the same
faction.

> _So ultimately in the US you definitely have more freedoms in terms of doing
> what you want._

I agree, but it is not very difficult to beat China in this respect.

> _The democratic process naturally weeds out those who suck so that those
> deserving, by merit, will come out on top._

This is not what actually happens. In practice, the US is an oligarchy.

> _Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think
> democracy is heading in the right direction._

Unfortunately it isn't heading in the right direction at all. Parents in many
states are having to fight government officials just for the ability to opt
out of the govt. school system. Govts. are trying to make it harder and harder
to do this. If you look at who is actually causing all of this, democracy has
to take the blame.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I hate to be jingoistic or defensive here, but you guys are way out there.

 _In practice, the US is an oligarchy_

Let's review the last 30 years or so of U.S. political history, shall we?

We had a president that was tossed out of office by his own party when he
covered up a political crime. We had a peanut farmer with little political
clout become president. We had an actor who was on a TV show with a monkey
become president. We had another president impeached for lying in court.
During this same time, we've had expansionist foreign policies, realistic
policies, conservative policies. We've had all sorts of financial policies.
Our court system has swung both left and right.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a ruling class of bureaucrats and rich
politicians in key roles, but the government has effectively changed up
policies, executives, and legal theory in surprisingly quick order.

With all due respect, China just doesn't compare here at all. They're great
people and all, but if they have that kind of flexibility in governance I
haven't seen it.

~~~
johnnybgoode
The reason you see us as "way out there" is because if you limit your vision
to a fairly small area, the relatively minor policy changes you mention appear
to be far more important than they actually are.

The office of President and the scope of presidential power have changed
little even as the person holding the office has changed. Foreign policy has
not changed as much as it seems, either. The US has been consistently running
an empire for decades now. Take a look at what the State Dept. does. The
financial system is a particularly bad example, as core financial policies
have not changed at all.

For whatever reason, you're focusing on flexibility in governance, but are you
really suggesting the Chinese government has been less flexible than the US on
policy changes in the last 30 years? If there is any giant government that has
been making rather sudden and extreme changes in short order, for better or
worse, it's China's.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
So your argument consists of -- my points don't matter?

That's all you got?

The neat thing about such arguments about systems is: time will tell. When
China is at 250 years with the same system, we can compare notes! (grin). But
throwing away each others' points is not exactly a good way to continue a
conversation. I'm of the opinion that real changes occurred, in all areas of
policy. You are not. No amount of my explaining the changes is going to
convince you, I'm afraid. You already know what you believe and no amount of
discussion is going to persuade you otherwise.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree. I'm not going to play advocate of everything
the U.S. does, and if you want to play that role for China you would be a fool
as well (which I hope not).

Meanwhile I'll work on "expanding my vision." I commented because I thought
you might help in this area. It appears not, though.

~~~
johnnybgoode
Please don't be offended. You did start by saying we were "way out there," and
I don't think you meant in a good way. I think that does imply that you are
"zoomed in" on a smaller range of policy options and that does make small
changes look big.

I'm not sure if you thought I was advocating everything that China does, or
that I was somehow taking China's side in a US vs. China debate. That wouldn't
be the case at all. If you read my other posts in this thread, I criticize
both the US and China.

I'm also not sure if I misunderstood what you said about flexibility of
governance. Whether or not you support the changes, I don't see how the
Chinese government can be seen to have changed policies less in the entire
Deng era than the US in the same time period.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Not offended. Nothing to worry about.

You were having a conversation with a lot of hidden assumptions and
definitions that were not clear to me -- to me, that's "out there". I was
unable to gather anything useful from your stream, and that always interests
me. It's a chance to either prove or disprove my own assumptions and
definitions.

If you say things are not big, and I provide examples of where they are big,
and then you throw away my examples, we're done. I can't well argue with
myself, and unless you put forward a working definition of what "big" is we
don't have anywhere to go.

I see the change in China as very incremental, done under duress, and done to
the least amount possible in order to maintain control. Perhaps that's
uncharitable of me but that's my current viewpoint. In the U.S., on the other
hand, we seem willing and able to make change on a whim. We get tired of one
set of philosophies and switch off to another every so often.

Now you can certainly argue that the underlying drivers of the U.S/,
commercialism, haven't changed any, and that this lack of change means an
underlying common theme in governance. But I think that begins to dilute the
conversation so much as to make it meaningless -- and once again, you have me
arguing with myself.

~~~
johnnybgoode
It's true, my views are not mainstream, but I think even mainstream observers
would disagree with you here. In the last 50 years China has seen the Great
Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the transition to a corporatist
economy in the Deng era.

What was the last change in the US approaching this magnitude? Possibly the
New Deal, but even that is quite a stretch. It does not really compare to
going from the deadly Great Leap Forward (20-43 million dead, 53% poverty rate
under Mao) to the current corporatism (around 6% poverty rate) in less than
half a century.

That being said, I'm not sure if or why you're using flexibility in governance
as a metric for good government. The government having the ability to change
policies quickly is not necessarily a good thing all the time. It seems to me
the actual policies themselves matter more.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_It seems to me the actual policies themselves matter more._

Not at all.

Look at it this way: what do you want, to be able to get the answer exactly
right the first time, or to have a bunch of iterations optimizing each time?

Societies are complex chaotic systems. There probably is no "right" answer.
Instead, it's important for there to be a dance between policy and
marketplace. The dance is much more important than the policy itself. [insert
long economics discussion here]

~~~
johnnybgoode
To clarify, I don't mean the actual policies just at any one time.

------
maxharris
Ayn Rand, for her development of Aristotelian philosophy (normative ethics,
hierarchical nature of knowledge, theory of concept formation)

~~~
philwelch
From the guidelines:

"Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something
genuinely new to say about them."

~~~
maxharris
The question was "Whom do you admire most?", which I answered honestly.

------
elbenshira
Jesus, because the world would be a better place if we were more like him.

~~~
bokonist
Hmmm. So imagine tomorrow everyone in the world started acting like Jesus. We
all throw away our possessions, and wander around preaching to whoever would
listen about being nice to each other. How long before everyone starved?

~~~
diN0bot
at least we could turn the whole red sea into red wine!

------
theashworld
Gandhi. For being fearless _and_ inspiring an entire country to be fearless
without a single weapon in hand. Think about it, it's nothing short of a
miracle.

~~~
bokonist
Gandhi is not the man you think he is: <http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-
nobody-knows.txt>

~~~
grandalf
I'm sure the authors put as much effort into the conspiracy theory as they did
the spelling of his name.

~~~
ajju
I am unsure of what you mean. I have no love lost for the author of that
article: parts of that article are true but he seems clearly biased to the
point of having included outright fabrications in other parts.

But, Gandhi is correctly spelt Gandhi in the article and not Ghandy or Ghandi
as others often do.

Edit: Ah I see, the link spells it Ghandi. The article, however, gets it
right.

~~~
bokonist
What are the outright fabrications?

~~~
ajju
The implication that Gandhi supported Bose and his Indian National Army, as I
mentioned in my comment below.

~~~
bokonist
The article did not make any "outright fabrications" with regards to Bose, see
my comment below.

------
donaq
Joss Whedon.

Because damn, Buffy was a brilliant show.

~~~
clofresh
don't forget about Firefly

~~~
araneae
and Dr. Horrible

------
bayareaguy
The folks who've lead the development and improvement of Unix over the years:
dmr, bwk, jkh, tdr, cgd, ...

~~~
basugasubaku
Who are the last three and did you intentionally omit Ken Thompson?

~~~
bayareaguy
The last are a few folks behind *BSD (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD) whose
logins/monikers I happened to recall. I only omitted Ken (and others too
numerous to mention) mainly because I've not had the pleasure of corresponding
with him.

------
nsoonhui
Albert Einstein. The greatest scientist ever lived.

------
davidw
The guys who did the moon landings. What an amazing display of engineering and
courage.

~~~
MikeHawk
They don't make guys like that anymore...

~~~
Eliezer
[Citation needed.]

------
platshaw
Ian MacKaye - he lives his life completely on his own terms; maintains a
purity about what he is doing; is able to see straight through roadblocks; and
creates great music. I want to be an entrepreneur like Ian is a musician.

------
bootload
people like _"shooter"_ who stay positive & contribute even in the face of
adversity ~ <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=868325> &
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=867623>

------
brg
In the 20th Century, John VonNeumann. He was a hacker through and through.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann>

------
hop
Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Carnegie, Phil Knight, Steve Fosset...

The founders - Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Washington - the world owes
them a debt of gratitude.

Ernest Shackleton, Pat Tillman, Chuck Darwin, (politics aside)Barack Obama,
Samuel Clemens, Einstein, Micheal Jordan, Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Emerson, Jon
Stuart, Ron Paul, MacGyver, Elon Musk, Hugh Hefner, Tiger Woods, Feynman,
Socrates, Lewis & Clark, my mother. (don't mind the order)

Funny, I think all of these people, except my mother, are athiest/agnostic,
goes to show you...

~~~
jibiki
> Funny, I think all of these people are athiest/agnostic, goes to show you...

Why do you think that? Dylan famously converted to Christianity, BHO is a long
time churchgoer, and Ron Paul is supposedly a creationist Christian. I don't
really know about the others (obviously Einstein had a lot to say about god
and dice and so on, but that hardly makes him a believer...)

~~~
hop
Oh yes, overlooked Ron Paul, Obama too, as religious people. Jury is out on
Einstein, hes has made comments both ways. I'm probably wrong about a few
others too.

And for some reason I wrote Steve Fossett when I meant Richard Branson.

Long day. Thanks.

------
chanux
The Woz for being the hacker he is and being different from other Steve.(I'm
not sure. Few people came in mind, RMS, Linus, My friend geekaholic, But Woz
was strong.)

------
edw519
My grandfathers.

Both left eastern Europe, alone, as teenagers, to come to the U.S., knowing
that they would never see their birthplace again, and that they probably would
never see most of their relatives again. They did this because they knew they
had much better chance for a better life, for themselves and for their unknown
children and grandchildren.

Every time things get tough, I remind myself, "They came here for me," and
then my challenges seem awfully small.

------
nahumfarchi
Leonardo da Vinci because he didn't limit himself to the art/science divide.

------
pfedor
I admire Carl Djerassi. He created the first oral contraceptive and made a lot
of money off of it, and then as a chemistry professor he did first-class
research in organic chemistry for many years (according to my dad who is a
chemistry professor, Djerassi's contribution can totally be considered Nobel-
prize-worthy.)

But that's not what I admire him for the most. What really gets to me is that
at the age of sixty five, he said, hey, let's try something new, and started
writing fiction. He wrote several books, and they are really good and a
pleasure to read, and if you took one in a bookstore and started reading it
you would say it's a very fine novel even if you didn't know the first thing
about the author. Why don't you give it a shot:
[http://www.amazon.com/Cantors-Dilemma-Novel-Carl-
Djerassi/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Cantors-Dilemma-Novel-Carl-
Djerassi/dp/0140143599/)

Think about it. He was sixty five. What will you be doing that age.

~~~
cowmoo
When I'm sixty five, I'll be playing WoW and listening to the nostalgic
popular records of my day, from fine artists such as Soulja Boy Tell 'Em and
T-Pain.

------
crystalis
pg, because this is a cult. ;)

~~~
seiji
Google Suggest always wants to autocomplete my searches for
"site:news.ycombinator.com" as "site news.ycombinator.com pg cult." (try it
yourself)

Do people actually search for the term "pg cult?"

~~~
MikeCapone
I wasn't sure if you were kidding so I tried it. It's true!

------
jonnyrotten
Carl Sagan.

~~~
evanreyn
If you wish to make a hero from scratch, you must first invent the universe.

------
DanielBMarkham
This reminds me of George Washington's words: Whatever you do, please don't
build a monument for me. I'm happy just serving.

So what did they do? Built a huge freaking stone phallus in the middle of the
nation's capital.

I admire a lot of people. Too many to try to narrow it down. The difficult
part about choosing one is that you're always looking at _relative_ progress.
At the end of the day, doing something admirable means measuring the delta
between what most people like you accomplished and what you accomplished. That
means that famous president with a big monument probably isn't as impressive
as poor, uneducated grandfather who did something to make a lot of people's
lives' better.

But I think you measure greatness in making people's lives better in the long
run. So if I don't have candidates, I definitely have the metric.

------
snitko
I like George Carlin, but I do not admire him. I called that name here,
because _currently_ he gets a lot of my attention (haven't seen all of his
performances yet). I find Carlin views very close to mine and admire
professionalism and desire to work hard on his job.

But I don't think we should admire people, especially for a long time in our
lives. I guess, it's like "liking -> falling in love -> peaceful loving or
forgetting (if it didn't work)". I think it's healthy to find things you don't
like in the person you admire and enjoy accepting them as is and gain
understanding of your own views this way. I guess this would be the way you
build your own personality.

------
ojbyrne
Isaac Newton - Newton's Laws, Theory of Gravity _and_ Calculus.

and

William Shakespeare - basically invented modern english.

------
tjmc
Burt Rutan - the Ruth/Gretzky/Bradman of aviation engineering

------
jlees
Emmeline Pankhurst, because without her activities, and their effect on
society, I would never have had the chance to achieve what I have. Also my
grandmother; entrepreneur, politician and pillar of her local society.

(I felt this list needed more oestrogen, though both of the above are
completely genuine. I'd add Thatcher, but I don't think I could survive the
pitchforks - nevertheless, I _do_ admire what she achieved.)

------
r11t
Fravia for creating <http://searchlores.org/> and inspiring me and I bet
countless other seekers/hackers/reverse engineers. His website has articles on
everything from "reality cracking" to searching the deeper web. His recent
death saddened me deeply but I hope that his website will hopefully taken over
by someone who will continue updating it.

------
uuilly
Winston Churchill. Saved western civilization.

~~~
gloob
_Saved western civilization._

From western civilization.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.

~~~
uuilly
I admire him for saving it. Whether he saved it from a rouge element of fringe
western civilization (most of Germany not being part of the Roman Empire,) or
the Muffin Man doesn't take away from his accomplishment.

------
hegemonicon
Marcus Aurelius - relentless in his quest for self perfection even while
ruling one of the most powerful empires in the world.

------
ismarc
Immanuel Kant, if nothing more than realizing he was wrong and spending over
10 years trying to discover what may be right.

------
cromulent
Teddy Roosevelt. They don't make presidents like that anymore, in any country.

Also my buddy, who, whilst being induced into the Catholic confirmation
process whilst in primary school, refused, saying that "I'm not convinced. It
sounds like some sort of cult". I wish I had been so self-confident (not that
being confirmed hurt me).

------
jmtame
Yukichi Fukuzawa anyone?

~~~
bokonist
His biography has been sitting on my shelf for a while, I really need to find
time to read it.

~~~
jmtame
my favorite book to date

------
covercash
Dean Kamen. So much more than the Segway.

------
eam
John Resig.

~~~
harto
In what way does he inspire you, though?

~~~
eam
In so many ways. Starting with the dedication he has for his work.

------
chrischen
Albert Einstein - for being different and being the smartest _person_ who ever
lived.

------
fuzzmeister
Elon Musk, a man who tries to change the world through his businesses.

------
netsp
Literary:

    
    
        george orwell
        douglas adams 
        leonard cohen

------
maxklein
Arnold Schwarzenneger. The dedication required to make it as an immigrant from
nothing to the stage he currently is at is nothing short of amazing.

------
abrahamsen
Doug McIlroy

<http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~sinclair/doug/?doug=mcilroy>

------
keeptrying
Richard Feynman. For his boundless curiosity and his ability to convey that
love of finding things out and making things to others.

------
FraaJad
Benjamin Franklin.

------
sdave
My Dad. because of the person he is & i want to be. Steve Wozniak.because of
the engineer he is & i want to be.

------
jjs
I admire the amazing people I know, the ones who make me think, if I try just
a little harder, I can be like them.

------
jacquesm
Eckart Wintzen

<http://extent.nl/about-eckart/>

Unfortunately he's no longer.

------
xor_
Donald Knuth needs no introductions.

------
ajju
Feynman, Einstein, Jiddu Krishnamoorthy, Sardar Patel, Steve Jobs, Benjamin
Franklin..

------
spectre
Edmund Hillary. For using his fame only to help people, and always being
humble.

------
dylanz
Bill Mollison. Hilarious, Intelligent, and a Revolutionary (in my mind).

------
fjabre
Elon Musk

------
nick007
Ralph Nader... he's one of the great American patriots

------
gritzko
Carl Gustaf Emil von Mannerheim; the guy who rocked

------
pplante
Billy Mays because he was a brilliant salesman.

------
david927
Alan Kay, for constantly inventing the future.

------
nsfx
Henry Rollins.

Creative, productive, knowledgeable, and funny.

~~~
psawaya
...and kind of a jerk, in his early days.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_3g4QPojMc>

------
rv77ax
homer simpsons. i know, i know, his totally a jerk, but i wish i could spend
just one day with him.

------
MikeHawk
Noam Chomksy.

------
drawkbox
Nikola Tesla

~~~
adi_muresan
Indeed, the guy was really a genius. He pushed the whole of humanity towards
using alternate current and it saddens me to see that he didn't (and still
doesn't) get the credit he deserves. In my mind he's the only true genius.

~~~
drawkbox
He was one in at least 20 billion.

------
tomjen2
George Washington.

The one of two people in all of history I know of who truely didn't want
power.

After the war the British Monarch asked what Washington wanted to do; he was
then informed that he planed to return to his farm (which he did) upon which
the king commented that if he did that he would be the greatest man in the
world.

You have to be some person to get your greatest enemy to say that you are the
greatest man in the world.

~~~
seanstickle
The other person being, presumably, Cincinnatus?

~~~
tomjen2
Yes.

------
niks
George Foreman....because without him I'd have to use my barbecue ALL the time

