Here’s to the Misfits(blog.alexmaccaw.com)
blog.alexmaccaw.com
Here’s to the Misfits
http://blog.alexmaccaw.com/heres-to-the-misfits
76 comments
> Gosh I feel snarky today :)!
No, your post is pretty on point. I think everyone here feels this way to an extent.
Don't be sated by your dreams; reality feels better.
No, your post is pretty on point. I think everyone here feels this way to an extent.
Don't be sated by your dreams; reality feels better.
why do misfits have to do things or change the world? Just be a misfit for the sake of being a misfit. Just be yourself.
You're trying to fit misfits into the same type of homogenous box that school systems put kids in.
You're trying to fit misfits into the same type of homogenous box that school systems put kids in.
> Just be a misfit for the sake of being a misfit
Please don't do that. The world has enough people trying to be unique and quirky for the sake of it.
> Just be yourself.
Yes, do this.
Please don't do that. The world has enough people trying to be unique and quirky for the sake of it.
> Just be yourself.
Yes, do this.
When I say misfit, I mean genuinely different. Being unique and quirky because that is currently what is the 'in' thing isn't unique, different or being a misfit at all.
> Just be yourself
Good luck with that.
http://threekeywords.com/quotes/category/author/tocqueville/
Good luck with that.
http://threekeywords.com/quotes/category/author/tocqueville/
I think the challenge is to be your real self, not the pretend self you present to the world. For most of us that means confronting a lot of fears.
There is no real or false self. There is only you.
"Be your realself" bears the same psychological paradoxes and pressure than "be yourself". Check http://beyondgrowth.net/identity/be-yourself-but-not-because... for a casual approach.
"Be your realself" bears the same psychological paradoxes and pressure than "be yourself". Check http://beyondgrowth.net/identity/be-yourself-but-not-because... for a casual approach.
When you were a child you were mostly driven by emotion. As you got older you learned to control your emotions. But for many people they over-control their emotions. That is, they worry too much what other people think about them instead of expressing their authentic desires.
Now that I'm in my forties, I definitely feel like I am more myself than I was in my twenties.
Now that I'm in my forties, I definitely feel like I am more myself than I was in my twenties.
> That is, they worry too much what other people think about them instead of expressing their authentic desires.
You make it sound like it's mutually exclusive. You don't need to express your authentic desires or to fulfill them to be a psychological healthy person.
I stand by my point that we are always ourselves, wether we want to hide what we call ourselves or not. And hiding it isn't a problem in itself. Reality boundaries are healthy to our desires of "total desires".
It's normal to be stressed out by the limites life impose on our desires.
You make it sound like it's mutually exclusive. You don't need to express your authentic desires or to fulfill them to be a psychological healthy person.
I stand by my point that we are always ourselves, wether we want to hide what we call ourselves or not. And hiding it isn't a problem in itself. Reality boundaries are healthy to our desires of "total desires".
It's normal to be stressed out by the limites life impose on our desires.
here here. Fear is the enemy. Not coincidentally fear is what a lot of genuine misfits feel in primary school.
[deleted]
It wasn't pointing out that certain people are more "different/intelligent", the idea was that everyone is different (and correspondingly intelligent) and should pursue that.
[deleted]
Having met Alex and chatted with him over dinner a couple weeks ago, I'd say he does NOT see himself as a troublemaker, he just wants to DO (and DOES) a lot of stuff. I'd normally advise everyone to at least try a year of college before giving up on studies altogether, but if you are going to drop out during high school, please do it with the passion, energy and focus of this guy.
Funny that the US immigration system actively repels the misfits of this kind (dropoffs). If you don't have MS degree, good luck getting the green card (it takes many years vs. 1 year or less for MS). I believe this will be Alex's problem too (he's British, right?).
I recall him mentioning he's on an O-1 Visa. I assume having a published book, many other projects presented as technical publications, and lots of high profile people ready to vouch for his talent, helped overcome his lack of academic qualifications.
O-1 is a work visa, and it's temporary. If he's here to stay, then he needs a green card. O-1 in green card world is called EB-1 (National Interest) and it's a PAIN to prove. EB-2 (Advanced degree, essentially an MS) is much easier, any immigration lawyer can do it for you for a few grand and if they're quick to submit you can have your GC in 9-10 months.
Here's to the Misfits?
Here's to the people who fit in. Here's to the people who try really hard but never quite get there. Here's to the people who don't fit in but always wanted to. Here's to the people who do the dirty jobs cos they they pay the bills and no-one else wants to. Here's to the underdog. Here's to the loser. Here's to the person who actually finishes their degree. Here's to the 50 year old who's still innovating. Here's to the 25 year old who isn't.
Different people are different. Let's celebrate all of them not just the chosen few from the subgroup we've marked out as "special" this year.
Here's to the people who fit in. Here's to the people who try really hard but never quite get there. Here's to the people who don't fit in but always wanted to. Here's to the people who do the dirty jobs cos they they pay the bills and no-one else wants to. Here's to the underdog. Here's to the loser. Here's to the person who actually finishes their degree. Here's to the 50 year old who's still innovating. Here's to the 25 year old who isn't.
Different people are different. Let's celebrate all of them not just the chosen few from the subgroup we've marked out as "special" this year.
I'm not cut out to be a misfit. And that's okay.
Hearing this now makes me cringe.
Apple is so, so, so far at the opposite end of the spectrum than what the commercial championed.
Apple is so, so, so far at the opposite end of the spectrum than what the commercial championed.
How? Because they have a large market share in certain product categories?
I see that kind of out of the box thinking and pure passion in many of their most recent designs. The iPhone is a perfect example. Look at where that paradigm shifting product has taken them, and think about how that device is only 5 years old. I see the same transformative execution and design in their iPad, and now the rest of the OEMs are desperately trying to catch up instead of having delivered. Intel had to invent a new product category just to first describe, and then compete with the Macbook Air.
When I try to imagine what that quote means for Apple, I always thought it meant designing the absolute best products for people, no matter what, -no compromises. That they have delivered beyond what anybody could have possibly expected is a realization of that quote, not a negation to me. But maybe you take it to mean something else? They've certainly changed the world...
I see that kind of out of the box thinking and pure passion in many of their most recent designs. The iPhone is a perfect example. Look at where that paradigm shifting product has taken them, and think about how that device is only 5 years old. I see the same transformative execution and design in their iPad, and now the rest of the OEMs are desperately trying to catch up instead of having delivered. Intel had to invent a new product category just to first describe, and then compete with the Macbook Air.
When I try to imagine what that quote means for Apple, I always thought it meant designing the absolute best products for people, no matter what, -no compromises. That they have delivered beyond what anybody could have possibly expected is a realization of that quote, not a negation to me. But maybe you take it to mean something else? They've certainly changed the world...
Because they are trying to use a broken patent system to corner the market, instead of trying to compete.
They are the most aggressive in IT doing this, so in a way they are misfits.
They are the most aggressive in IT doing this, so in a way they are misfits.
Can you cite that?
I was under the impression that Apple only litigated on patents they legitimately held and did not want to licence. This in contrast to some of their opponents who are litigating against Apple on FRAND patents.
I think your problem is with patent law itself (which would be legitimate). Apple is much better than the large players suing on FRAND or the active patent troll firms imo. You can't bring a butter knife to a gun fight, and as much as you might like any given company to take a principled stand and not protect their IP while other companies are aggressively doing so, for them to do so would actually be beyond naive.
I was under the impression that Apple only litigated on patents they legitimately held and did not want to licence. This in contrast to some of their opponents who are litigating against Apple on FRAND patents.
I think your problem is with patent law itself (which would be legitimate). Apple is much better than the large players suing on FRAND or the active patent troll firms imo. You can't bring a butter knife to a gun fight, and as much as you might like any given company to take a principled stand and not protect their IP while other companies are aggressively doing so, for them to do so would actually be beyond naive.
For the cite see above.
Yes, my main problem is the patent system itself and that it allows basic patents to be used to ban competing products. Notice that a patent itself is not bad, only the holder decides whether to use it destructively or defensively.
Apple was sued originally by Nokia for the iPhone and they had to pay some money as a result. However, in the case of Android Apple sued first and has been continuing to be the aggressor. All the FRAND lawsuits were only brought later, although they were in response to years of Apple not paying any royalties as demanded by FRAND, the only vendor to do so.
Now don't get me wrong: All other smartphone companies aren't saints either. Nokia wanted to protect their market share and the FRAND guys probably also didn't press for their royalties at first, thinking Apple might get into a cross-licensing agreement with regards to their patents. But Apple has been the lone company not willing to license their patents at all. As a customer, ask yourself: do you want to be dependent on just Apple for continued innovation? If you think they cannot do any wrong ask the early adoptors of Mountain Lion (especially power users).
Yes, my main problem is the patent system itself and that it allows basic patents to be used to ban competing products. Notice that a patent itself is not bad, only the holder decides whether to use it destructively or defensively.
Apple was sued originally by Nokia for the iPhone and they had to pay some money as a result. However, in the case of Android Apple sued first and has been continuing to be the aggressor. All the FRAND lawsuits were only brought later, although they were in response to years of Apple not paying any royalties as demanded by FRAND, the only vendor to do so.
Now don't get me wrong: All other smartphone companies aren't saints either. Nokia wanted to protect their market share and the FRAND guys probably also didn't press for their royalties at first, thinking Apple might get into a cross-licensing agreement with regards to their patents. But Apple has been the lone company not willing to license their patents at all. As a customer, ask yourself: do you want to be dependent on just Apple for continued innovation? If you think they cannot do any wrong ask the early adoptors of Mountain Lion (especially power users).
Not this is on the topic of the article, but there are no early adopters of Mountain Lion. There are developers using beta software and people who aren't developers that want to use beta software. To be honest I hate the term "power user". There are users and there are people who consider their needs to be more than the rest. Aside from changing the way that spaces work (linear as opposed to grid shaped), changing expose (power users are all about the keyboard aren't they?) and a few other cosmetic changes at the hands of some features being hidden I'm not sure what else could bother you. Sure some of it is unnecessary for people, but we already know what the features are, its not a surprise. So go ahead and down vote or comment and call me an idiot or whatever.
>However, in the case of Android Apple sued first and has been continuing to be the aggressor.
I'll just note that depending on your point of view, it is effortless to argue that the entity stealing the IP could be viewed as the aggressor, and suing to stop said aggression would be defense.
I'll just note that depending on your point of view, it is effortless to argue that the entity stealing the IP could be viewed as the aggressor, and suing to stop said aggression would be defense.
Sure, you could also argue that what banks are doing is useful to society since the government, which is elected by the people, tolerates it.
But I will continue to argue that companies have leeway in how they use patents, and exploiting a broken patent system is not in the interest of society.
But I will continue to argue that companies have leeway in how they use patents, and exploiting a broken patent system is not in the interest of society.
You do realize that the patent system was designed for the express purpose of granting individuals and companies a legal monopoly on technology that they can exploit in the marketplace, with the goal of using that carrot to encourage innovation in pursuit of that monopoly power, right?
What you are labeling as 'abuse' is much closer to 'using the system precisely as it was intended'. You may not like the system. You may disagree with the goals of it, or you may think (as I do) that the goals are worthwhile but the system is actually a hindrance to the goals in many cases, but it is clear that Apple is litigating to protect it's IP in direct accordance with the intent of patent law. They aren't using litigation as a revenue stream like patent-troll shell firms, they aren't using litigation for retribution on FRAND, they are protecting specific designs and technologies for which they have been awarded patents and they choose (as is their right) not to lisence.
Abusing a system != using a broken system expressly as it was designed.
What you are labeling as 'abuse' is much closer to 'using the system precisely as it was intended'. You may not like the system. You may disagree with the goals of it, or you may think (as I do) that the goals are worthwhile but the system is actually a hindrance to the goals in many cases, but it is clear that Apple is litigating to protect it's IP in direct accordance with the intent of patent law. They aren't using litigation as a revenue stream like patent-troll shell firms, they aren't using litigation for retribution on FRAND, they are protecting specific designs and technologies for which they have been awarded patents and they choose (as is their right) not to lisence.
Abusing a system != using a broken system expressly as it was designed.
It was designed to prevent companies from keeping new inventions to themselves as trade secrets.
However, with the patent office basically accepting everything as an invention, it has now turned into the opposite. The simple algorithm I could have come up on my own _without_ consulting any patent is now illegal for me to use. Without the patent society would have been much better off since many, many programmers would be able to independently come up with the same solution given the same requirements.
However, with the patent office basically accepting everything as an invention, it has now turned into the opposite. The simple algorithm I could have come up on my own _without_ consulting any patent is now illegal for me to use. Without the patent society would have been much better off since many, many programmers would be able to independently come up with the same solution given the same requirements.
>It was designed to prevent companies from keeping new inventions to themselves as trade secrets.
That is one interpretation of the intent of patent law. In the USA, our Constitution spells out the intent pretty clearly:
>"to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
It's worth pointing out however, that Apple is acting in complete accordance of your version of intent though (patent law's purpose = disclosure of technology). All of the patents they are litigating on have been disclosed and readily available. It doesn't change the substance of the fact that they are not wielding patent law abusively.
>However, with the patent office basically accepting everything as an invention, it has now turned into the opposite. The simple algorithm I could have come up on my own _without_ consulting any patent is now illegal for me to use. Without the patent society would have been much better off since many, many programmers would be able to independently come up with the same solution given the same requirements.
Again, this is different, and has zero to do with Apple and everything to do with the how patent law is designed. I agree with you whole-heartedly. But as long as we focus the blame on companies exercising their rights in absolutely mundane ways in accordance with the law instead of the law itself, I'm afraid not much is going to change. It really misses the point. And I'll stress it again, of all of the disputes on the patent landscape, Apple seems to be one of the least abusive litigants, in stark contrast to FRAND litigators and patent troll firms.
That is one interpretation of the intent of patent law. In the USA, our Constitution spells out the intent pretty clearly:
>"to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
It's worth pointing out however, that Apple is acting in complete accordance of your version of intent though (patent law's purpose = disclosure of technology). All of the patents they are litigating on have been disclosed and readily available. It doesn't change the substance of the fact that they are not wielding patent law abusively.
>However, with the patent office basically accepting everything as an invention, it has now turned into the opposite. The simple algorithm I could have come up on my own _without_ consulting any patent is now illegal for me to use. Without the patent society would have been much better off since many, many programmers would be able to independently come up with the same solution given the same requirements.
Again, this is different, and has zero to do with Apple and everything to do with the how patent law is designed. I agree with you whole-heartedly. But as long as we focus the blame on companies exercising their rights in absolutely mundane ways in accordance with the law instead of the law itself, I'm afraid not much is going to change. It really misses the point. And I'll stress it again, of all of the disputes on the patent landscape, Apple seems to be one of the least abusive litigants, in stark contrast to FRAND litigators and patent troll firms.
The definition from the constitution just underscores my point. Progress is not promoted but blocked.
Companies may act according to law, but laws can be unjust. As a customer you have the power to punish companies for their wrongdoing, and that is one reason I will not buy Apple products. Just sitting there passively and saying they are not breaking any laws while they are laughing in your face is not an option.
Companies may act according to law, but laws can be unjust. As a customer you have the power to punish companies for their wrongdoing, and that is one reason I will not buy Apple products. Just sitting there passively and saying they are not breaking any laws while they are laughing in your face is not an option.
Did you even read that? Tell me what method is prescribed to promote that progress. It's written right there. I think you've had enough to eat.
> They are the most aggressive in IT doing this
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/132050-patents-werent...
"Apple, which has been one of the most aggressive players in patent litigation..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation
"Apple is known for and promotes itself as an active and aggressive pursuer of enforcement of its intellectual property interests."
"Apple, which has been one of the most aggressive players in patent litigation..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation
"Apple is known for and promotes itself as an active and aggressive pursuer of enforcement of its intellectual property interests."
A citation is not backing up your fact-free assertion by pointing at other people's equally fact-free assertions. A citation is where you point at some, y'know, facts that back up your assertion.
Like, and I'm just brainstorming here, number of litigation events per patent held, or offensive suits vs defensive countersuits, or really, anything other than "well extremetech said so and that's good enough for government work!".
As it is your assertion doesn't seem to pass the smell test. Surely if we count shell companies, Intellectual Ventures is far and away the biggest litigant in the IT space. And if we're ruling them out, you'd be hard-pressed to beat the major baseband companies.
Like, and I'm just brainstorming here, number of litigation events per patent held, or offensive suits vs defensive countersuits, or really, anything other than "well extremetech said so and that's good enough for government work!".
As it is your assertion doesn't seem to pass the smell test. Surely if we count shell companies, Intellectual Ventures is far and away the biggest litigant in the IT space. And if we're ruling them out, you'd be hard-pressed to beat the major baseband companies.
I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where either of the links you provided demonstrated that Apple is "abusing" the patent system lieu of competing like you claimed, unless you define competing as letting your competitors help themselves to your IP while you look the other way.
Yes the patent system is broken, but a company choosing not to enforce or license their IP isn't the definition of abuse. Violating your own FRAND terms and suing someone for Frand is clearly abuse of it though. Nor are Motorala, Nokia, Google and others "abusing" the patent system when they protect their IP that they choose not to license. They are using the system for the exact purpose for which it is designed.
If we don't like that, it's on us to change the system appropriately.
Yes the patent system is broken, but a company choosing not to enforce or license their IP isn't the definition of abuse. Violating your own FRAND terms and suing someone for Frand is clearly abuse of it though. Nor are Motorala, Nokia, Google and others "abusing" the patent system when they protect their IP that they choose not to license. They are using the system for the exact purpose for which it is designed.
If we don't like that, it's on us to change the system appropriately.
Did you really just cite other people's opinions?
As always during this particular debate, there comes a time when perhaps a distinction between Apple Legal and Apple R&D would enrich the discussion.
Every rose has its thorns.
Every rose has its thorns.
> Every rose has its thorns.
Every rose has to have thorns. Especially in a Mutually Assured Litigation game.
Every rose has to have thorns. Especially in a Mutually Assured Litigation game.
So when is the wall/curtain going to come down?
> instead of trying to compete.
The first iPhone was released in the beginning of 2007. The first litigation against Htc was 3 years later. I consider the original phone an innovation but since then Apple has not done much, and to the bystander it looks like they can only compete through the courts nowadays.
It may seem to a casual onlooker that there hasn't been much going on since the first iPhone but if you'd compare the original and 4S, it's not even funny. It'd be the same saying that the Motorola's original brick phone was an innovation, the RAZR was just a small improvement and they've been coasting since the 80s.
Whereas in reality those products they have managed to get rulings against were basically already dead anyway. Apple is using the patent system to kick people when they're already down, that's why it seems so unnecessary, but in reality their legal successes have had insignificant impact on the overall market.
So all of Apple's success is due to patent litigation? Really? They're just doing that instead of competing?
But that's their image. That's why they can get away with charging what they do. Their design is still considered, "rogue/maverick"...
Oddly enough -- that was also Microsoft's self-image for many, many years.
The were the maverick to IBM's stodgy conformist.
Not that I saw them that way.
The were the maverick to IBM's stodgy conformist.
Not that I saw them that way.
I don't think anyone outside Microsoft saw it that way later than 1990 or so.
From talking to microsofties, though, they had the underdog/maverick image internally at least until 2005. All the techies I knew left MS long ago, and all the business people I know at MS joined in the last 3-5 years and never bought into the "underdog" image.
From talking to microsofties, though, they had the underdog/maverick image internally at least until 2005. All the techies I knew left MS long ago, and all the business people I know at MS joined in the last 3-5 years and never bought into the "underdog" image.
I don't know about "rogue/maverick," but I'll take "good" in a world of companies still rehashing 20 year-old laptop designs.
[deleted]
I know its hip to declare oneself a misfit and throw away the shackles of traditional academia, but what's the point of this post?
Being your 'weird self' means, by definition, that you have to be a misfit? Doesn't this imply than anyone who enjoyed or benefited from high school/college isn't being genuine? Am I missing something, or is this a puff piece for being offbeat?
Being your 'weird self' means, by definition, that you have to be a misfit? Doesn't this imply than anyone who enjoyed or benefited from high school/college isn't being genuine? Am I missing something, or is this a puff piece for being offbeat?
The point depends on how you want to take it.
You could think of it as the author's attempt to rationalize away his own society-perceived negative aspects (some real, some imagined) of being a misfit.
You could also think of it as a motivational post for others who feel like they don't fit in who might find a little inspiration in his words and in the story he related. Sometimes a few good words can be the difference between someone committing suicide vs turning things around and facing life head on.
You could think of it as the author's attempt to rationalize away his own society-perceived negative aspects (some real, some imagined) of being a misfit.
You could also think of it as a motivational post for others who feel like they don't fit in who might find a little inspiration in his words and in the story he related. Sometimes a few good words can be the difference between someone committing suicide vs turning things around and facing life head on.
When I look back at the younger people I've helped hire, the biggest success factor was not necessarily whether he/she had been dedicated to school, per se. It was more important that they had dedicated themselves to something. A good grade from a good school is a nice indicator of that dedication, but it isn't the only indicator. It doesn't matter if a person is a misfit in one or two areas, but someone that dropped out of everything they tried generally didn't perform well for us, either. Looking back, I suppose it meant that those people were still casting about for their true calling.
ATTN all those self-identifying as misfits at early stages of their career:
The reason you are not fitting properly may just be because you are being an asshole. Please be constantly aware of this fact as you go around imposing your special snowflakeness on everyone else.
The reason you are not fitting properly may just be because you are being an asshole. Please be constantly aware of this fact as you go around imposing your special snowflakeness on everyone else.
For some of us 'not fitting properly' is an internal struggal and has nothing to do with our interactions with others. You can be a misfit and be well liked by your peers. I suggest you take your own advice.
All I asked was awareness :) They key word in that sentence was "may."
Although for those of us struggling internally in social situations, more self-doubt is probably not what is needed.
Although for those of us struggling internally in social situations, more self-doubt is probably not what is needed.
I cannot for the life of me find a source which puts John Cleese and John le Carré in the same school.
Maccman, not a huge deal, but when you said "A different doctor might have put her on medication and told her to calm down." you're quoting Robinson.
It's unfortunate that whenever someone mentions the word "TED, I immediately tune out and discredit.
It's just TV. I let other people figure out what's worth watching. (Very little.) Collaborative filtering is great.
Dang, not a tribute to Danzig and Company.
My thoughts exactly, this was the most exciting link on the front page for about 3 seconds, then it was the most disappointing.
The capitalization of 'Misfits' in the title looks like a proper noun.
Anyway, to make up for this, I will tribute the Misfits:
Hey, HN! I raped your mother today! And it doesn't matter much to me, as long as she spread!
The capitalization of 'Misfits' in the title looks like a proper noun.
Anyway, to make up for this, I will tribute the Misfits:
Hey, HN! I raped your mother today! And it doesn't matter much to me, as long as she spread!
if we were to follow the trend in software engineering/computer programming/technology companies, we want more doctors who drop out from medical school to be surgeons.
Wrong analogy. It assumes that the human body have the same degree of complexity as, say, coffeescript. In no way. To properly (without killing the patient) and reliably open and then stitch the human body requires years of study and practice. While coding JS in vim requires, like 3 months, of which 10 weeks is studying vim :-)
I'm not speaking about why you're going to open the body (diagnosis) or what do you code, that's a different story.
Just the plain barrier to entry.
Just the plain barrier to entry.
Knuth's code has bugs. NASA's code had bugs. Programming as we conceive it is so close to impossible that it takes years of study and diligence to aspire to only being pretty bad at it. We're just reaching the quicksilver and bloodletting phase of our discipline's evolution, and someday our successors will look back and cringe just as doctors do.
[deleted]
> What the school didn’t tell admiring visitors though, is that the vast majority of those famous alumni had been expelled.
Would love to see a citation for that. From what I can see of the two examples given, one (Cleese) wasn't expelled and one (Le Carré) didn't go to the school that I presume he's talking about (Clifton College)?
Would love to see a citation for that. From what I can see of the two examples given, one (Cleese) wasn't expelled and one (Le Carré) didn't go to the school that I presume he's talking about (Clifton College)?
Love that video, but I fault it because it doesn't include our own living legend Nelson Rohlihlahla Mandela. :( A true misfit who refused to accept the status quo.
And, in case you don't know, Rohlihlala in fact means "he who shakes the tree"! A name given to him at birth.
Talk about destiny!
And, in case you don't know, Rohlihlala in fact means "he who shakes the tree"! A name given to him at birth.
Talk about destiny!
Because they change the world.
Whether or not Einstein was a misfit, the physics establishment considered his ideas crazy (see Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). By definition, a misfit is one that doesn't fit into the mainstream.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -George Bernard Shaw
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -George Bernard Shaw
By definition, a misfit is one that doesn't fit into the
mainstream.
Concerning that quote by Shaw: I believe taking that literally is mistaking a funny quip to make you think for a deeply profound eternal truth. Shaw does not seriously intend to say that e.g. Churchill was not a reasonable man.
I actually own a copy of Kuhn's book. I found it very enlightening. He's not a misfit either.
Shaw does not seriously intend to say that e.g. Churchill
was not a reasonable man.
Instant karma article.
Here on HN we have one of these articles every week. I think that all of the "misfits" should acknowledge one thing: school is not for YOU it's for everybody to have "similar" chances in life.
Yes, yes you're all beautiful trouble makers with a mission to change the world. Now do things please.
Gosh I feel snarky today :)!