Faraday did a whole series of lectures about a single candle, essentially covering a surprising amount of physics and chemistry. Super simple and fascinating: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474
There's a level where institutions are separate from the people that make them move. If your boss can get replaced without destroying your department, then that institutional layer exists.
What I have been thinking a lot about lately is that the focus should not be on the work. The focus should be on the handoff. If you build something, the goal is to have someone else use it. The work should focus on easing that transition. If it's a technology, what do you need to characterize so that the product people can work with it? If it's a product, how do you make it easy for your customers to get it? If it's an internal tool, what context and familiarity does the user group have?
'Gift' vs 'give' also rustles my jimmies. The phrase 'he gifted it to her' doesn't mean anything different from 'he gave it to her'. As a Calvinite, my stance is that 'verbing weirds language'.
60Hz is the 'flicker fusion rate', meaning if you were changing the frequency of a flashing, stationary LED, ~60Hz would be the frequency where perception transitions from visibly flickering to apparently continuous. It's a lower threshold for refresh rate in the human eye. When you have complex refreshing images (a 2d computer screen rather than a point-like LED, diverse motion, depth, etc), you are likely to notice flickering (or tearing, jittering, non-smooth motion) if the refresh rate is near this minimum.
Does this mean that startups are limited with regards to the level of innovation? I notice that a lot of startups don't really do anything new technology-wise, but have more of an emphasis on organization (for example, Uber reorganizes transportation, Bitcoin reorganizes money, but both use existing technology in the form of software languages). If I'm doing something really new (and I think I am because I sometimes have trouble convincing people that what I do is even possible), then the only recourse is to use the dated patent and licensing model with large established companies. If this is the case, then the startup model of innovation has failed at a fundamental level; ie the advantage of a small group doing something difficult only exists for an intermediate level of innovation, don't try to do something 'really' new. Would you agree?
What stage would be ideal for considering moving a project from research (at the graduate university level) to a startup? In this case I'm referring to a project that is based on custom nanoscale hardware components that rely on some pretty groovy physics. The applications are pretty immediate and the market already exists in the biotech/healthcare field.