If the status quo means having a place to live in what was your and your family's neighborhood (cultural and actual) for a long time, yours is not really an indictment.
Here's an edge.org answer that briefly touches on this - from the other end, by another great physicist, Anton Zeilinger[0]: http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25548
It's a great idea!
Not crazy about the busy background, but that might be an age thing. More importantly for me, having the "anonymous" label for posts is a bit of a distraction. Are the user names revealed only while logged in? If so, I'd hide that field from the unregistered masses, it doesn't inspire trust.
edit: I couldn't figure out why I was a little confused reading this, but it's because there is no one coherent answer in this article.
edit: I asked because the article doesn't answer that, aside from a small sampling. And the phase before this seems to be from only a couple of years ago ("Aaron Leitko wrote a 2011 Pitchfork feature about it called 'Positive Destruction'.") I don't know SF, but I've seen gentrification up close a few times in larger US cities, it usually takes longer. Hence my question.
There is a whole genre of educational documentaries that basically have no point of view (other than general, popular consensus). For me, the best documentaries are basically audio books with very good illustrations, and while audio books don't work for me at all, documentaries do. From watching hundreds of hours of them, I think the best ones actually lack an overarching story (seeng as how reality usually doesn't have an epic climax). Because the content is being delivered so fast, there's some latency involved here, but the medium lends itself well to repeat watching, listening, or both.
Something like BBC/PBS "Universe" stuff from the late 90's aged very well because they are snapshots of discoveries and problems that now are not nearly as exciting anymore, but they tell you a lot about the very recent history of the subject. This goes for a lot of other subjects, whether it's art, or math, or history. Documentaries can be historical documents in themselves, just check out "Civilization" from 1970 (I think), or "The Human Animal" from 1994.
Soundtrack, narration opening, editing, those all hold clues to trusting or not trusting the content, and it's pretty easy to establish credibility and historical context early on. But they can also be the equivalent of an amazing lecturer.
Edit: one obvious addition to the biography section would be "The Quest For Tannu Tuva", parts of an autobiographical interview with Feynman, on YouTube as well.
Edit 2: "The Strange Life and Death of Dr. Alan Turing" from 1992 as well.
There's an argument to be made for the negative connotations contributing to the term's longevity and adoption. In an environment where the myth of the genius is alive and kicking, taboos need to be broken to qualify for the label, though it's not always important what those taboos (social or otherwise) are as long as you have some worthy advocates.
A lot of this labeling is done in hindsight, unsurprisingly, and it's going to become more tame as the definition gets generalized and romanticized. Even the coding part is slowly becoming less important, as shown in some of the posts and links here. Eventually there will be some other club to place the exceptional in. We can pretend there's no value judgement in calling someone a "hacker" all we want, but that doesn't ring true. FWIW, my favorite hacker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netochka_Nezvanova_(author)
If only it would go away so easily. The PR strategy they have going on, if taken at face value, is a sure way to have stuff like this happen again; and every time they'll be the losers. Pissing off the same people who are trying to help you is childish at best.
