I won't say anything about it, because I don't want to spoil it for you.
Reminds me of:
"Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe." -Abraham Lincoln
Many years later,an empirical demonstration
showed that light from distant stars actually curved as
it passed through the gravitational force of our sun.
Einstein’s graduate students rushed to him as he was
walking through the Princeton campus and
exclaimed, “Dr. Einstein, light really does bend!”
Einstein looked at them quizzically and said, “Of
course!”He had come to this conclusion through
exploring the question in his own thought experiment years before.
I can't find "Dr. Einstein, light really does bend" online except in this article. I asked the questions Uh, wasn't that 1919? Was he in the US in 1919? (A: First visited 1922, moved there 1933). But the writing leaves you uncertain which experiment ("demonstration"?) they mean, or what ...
A lot of it has the same vague, unpindownable nature. There just seems something peculiarly dead and unreadable about the style of the article. It's hard to force my eyes to read it. Extremely boringly written, repellent. I found that the most fascinating thing about it - Q. How did they manage to create such an unattractive, uninviting style?
Today, I rarely spend much time pondering questions whose answer is in Wikipedia. I just look it up.
Pondering any question is good mental exercise for others. I wonder if the easy availability of answers to most questions makes it harder to tackle the truly unsolved ones.
These questions and practices are very relevant for startup teams and tech teams, such as for strategic project planning with limited resources, or issue postmortems using blameless retrospectives, or pitch deck presentations for choosing the big questions to tackle.
Corporations HATE disruptive questions. They destabilize the status quo and the large scale infrastructure that relies on it. They embarrass executives who can't answer them with a platitude or deflective business-speak. And they leave stockholders less confident that the company is on track to predictably increase share value next quarter.
Universities dislike revolutionary questions because professors are just as dependent on status quo as corporate executives are. Revolutionary ideas dispose of all that hard earned expertise you developed in the past decades and force you to start over, reduced in rank from being a renowned expert to just another student. Worse still, such questions require rethinking and replacing too many models and theories, consuming much too much development time to ship yet another incremental research paper in time for the gauntlet of conferences, thereby letting your academic life's blood. They also tend to irritate and/or confuse others who do peer review and/or approve funding.
No. Powerful questions can't be too powerful. Consider Galileo or Darwin or Einstein. If the three had depended on the support of their peers to sustain their careers, then after asking their Magnum Opii, all would have perished.