Stephen Wolfram's History of Not Playing Well with Others

The interview, discussion, involving Eric Weinstein and Wolfram was insightful in regards to how Wolfram dismisses and treats others.<p>&quot;Stephen Wolfram &amp; Eric Weinstein: The Nature of Mathematical Reality&quot; - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=OI0AZ4Y4Ip4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=OI0AZ4Y4Ip4</a>

If like to turn it around and ask for examples of wildly people who DO okay well with others.

Wolfram is underrated I think. He&#x27;s got a small army working on CA and the implications. He&#x27;s also been working on CA for a long time! I believe that CA are interesting and underrated. Just as we underestimated neural networks and I think CA have fallen into a similar categorization. CAs are an array of cells (that are finite state machines) whose neighbors determine it&#x27;s output. Sounds similar to a deep neural network to me!

Obligatory: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;outline.com&#x2F;RfpK9k" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;outline.com&#x2F;RfpK9k</a><p>&gt; &quot;You won&#x27;t enjoy administrating people because you won&#x27;t succeed in it. You don&#x27;t understand &quot;ordinary people&quot;. To you they are &quot;stupid fools&quot;--so you will not tolerate them or treat their foibles with tolerance or patience--but will drive yourself wild (or they will drive you wild) trying to deal with them in an effective way.Find a way to do you own research with as little contact with non-technical people as possible&quot;<p>Feynman&#x27;s gift really was understanding things and then being able to communication the concept to people in a succinct and understandable way. This is a rare example of peer-to-peer advice where he understood his own foible.