When You Win a Nobel and They Can't Reach You at Home(twitter.com)
twitter.com
When You Win a Nobel and They Can't Reach You at Home
https://twitter.com/Stanford/status/1315631500080148480
240 comments
Jokes aside, why is it so important that they reach him at 2:15 AM and can't wait until the next morning?
Basically, the announcement is a secret until it happens. It happens at a specific time, in Sweden, and they attempt to contact the winners at that time with a personal call (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/themes/the-nobel-call/).
My cynical side suggests it's done mostly to generate PR. See also: https://worldneurologyonline.com/article/receiving-the-call-... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/04/science/where...
Most scientists joke they wouldn't mind receiving a 2:30AM call informing them they won the prize because then at least they could go to work in the morning, have some champagne and relax because getting grants was going to get a lot easier...
My cynical side suggests it's done mostly to generate PR. See also: https://worldneurologyonline.com/article/receiving-the-call-... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/04/science/where...
Most scientists joke they wouldn't mind receiving a 2:30AM call informing them they won the prize because then at least they could go to work in the morning, have some champagne and relax because getting grants was going to get a lot easier...
I think also due to their preference on making personal contact: the news will hit the PR landscape in short time afterwards and no soon-to-be-Nobel-laureate wants to find out in some news article
> no soon-to-be-Nobel-laureate wants to find out in some news article
I understand saying that's a problem, but realistically, that's a problem very few people would be unhappy to have. Yes, it could be horribly inconvenient to stumble through a bunch of congratulatory communications before you could confirm you've actually won, but compared to wining a Nobel, it's a trifle.
I understand saying that's a problem, but realistically, that's a problem very few people would be unhappy to have. Yes, it could be horribly inconvenient to stumble through a bunch of congratulatory communications before you could confirm you've actually won, but compared to wining a Nobel, it's a trifle.
Exactly same argument can be made for being woken up by a call at 2AM.
Yea, in the unlikely case I were to be considered for a Nobel prize, I think I'd be ambivalent between being woken up and being inundated with congratulations and requests for comment without being able to confirm.
I put my phone in airplane mode at night. Don't a lot of people do that? What are they thinking?
I don't. I considered it, but I decided that the remote risk of there being a real emergency outweighs the even more remote risk that I'll get an unimportant call in the middle of the night.
(If I ever did get an unimportant call in the middle of the night, the person on the other end would get an earful.)
(If I ever did get an unimportant call in the middle of the night, the person on the other end would get an earful.)
The iPhone has an option to let phone calls ring if called twice in a row. I've told everyone that might possibly be calling me in an emergency to do so if they really need to get through. You can alternatively create an emergency list of numbers and let them ring through on the 1st attempt. I assume Android has something similar.
You can choose to let contacts through. The potential fail is calls coming from an emergency service like the police or a hospital who don't try a second time. I choose to use Do Not Disturb anyway but reasonable people can disagree on the most appropriate thing to do. (And it may depend on individual circumstances.)
The GP or so was talking about airplane mode though. I assume nothing gets through in that case. Personally I'd use DND rather than airplane mode.
The GP or so was talking about airplane mode though. I assume nothing gets through in that case. Personally I'd use DND rather than airplane mode.
DND with contacts excepted is good, but it has another failure mode: food delivery. They do tend to call twice, but the whole thing is more pleasant when disabling DND at time of ordering. Naturally, reenabling DND tends to happen only after the next spam call.
Yeah you can always disable it for a short time when you're expecting food, not a big deal. Just write a script that allows you to disable for 30 minutes and it auto-reenables after that.
Spammers have learned this and will call twice. This got REALLY annoying when I was in work meetings and my phone would start ringing to tell me about my car's extended warranty.
I have numbers not in my contact list sent to voicemail but I have noticed I commonly see two calls in a row, never put that together before
They never seem to call me twice... I would hang up if they did.
Yes, Android also has a DND-mode with configurable exceptions: what type of message/call gets through, who gets through right away, or after how many repeat calls.
Further, you can schedule it or even trigger by certain calendar events. Very convenient if you have small children and don't want the random calls from grandparents or old friends checking in at inconvenient times (apparently if they don't have children but working a lot they don't consider 9pm to be "a bad time" - how should they?).
We used Airplane mode at nights before (even before we had kids), but were stressed about missed emergencies from relatives and stopped doing that.
Disclaimer: I get approx. 2 calls per week, and this is mostly businesses calling back, etc. I still don't want to miss emergencies though.
Further, you can schedule it or even trigger by certain calendar events. Very convenient if you have small children and don't want the random calls from grandparents or old friends checking in at inconvenient times (apparently if they don't have children but working a lot they don't consider 9pm to be "a bad time" - how should they?).
We used Airplane mode at nights before (even before we had kids), but were stressed about missed emergencies from relatives and stopped doing that.
Disclaimer: I get approx. 2 calls per week, and this is mostly businesses calling back, etc. I still don't want to miss emergencies though.
We've been trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty.
Oh yeah, try that and I'm dropping any business relationship with you that I have the next morning. Or if I don't, then I'll pay a visit to the local office of our Office of Competition and Customer Protection.
Ah - you're in Europe. In the US that's a very common spam call to receive. It may come from a different number every time and the FCC and FTC (the relevant authorities) can't or won't stop it. I've had it in the middle of the night a couple of times, though I think that's not as common. It's the reason my phone is always on Do Not Disturb now.
I'm in the US and I get an incredible amount of spam calls, as well as (before) calls from coworkers about non-urgent things.
I since just have my phone block all calls except those pre-made appointments on my Google calendar, and the number by which people can reach me changes depending on the scheduled hour, all programmed via Twilio.
I have a couple of whitelisted incoming numbers for family/SO and that's it. Everyone else has to make an appointment, or send me an email or instant message which I will usually see within a few hours. I generally tell people that email is the fastest and most reliable way to reach me.
I since just have my phone block all calls except those pre-made appointments on my Google calendar, and the number by which people can reach me changes depending on the scheduled hour, all programmed via Twilio.
I have a couple of whitelisted incoming numbers for family/SO and that's it. Everyone else has to make an appointment, or send me an email or instant message which I will usually see within a few hours. I generally tell people that email is the fastest and most reliable way to reach me.
I tried to get a company name or mailing address out of them once, but they're pretty cagey.
They were definitely using a soundboard, they'd repeat phrases that were approximate answers to my questions.
I eventually got a Google voice number in a different area code than where I have ever lived, so it's just really easy to see them coming now.
Automatic call screening is another solution. Or the authentication protocols that are rolling out way too slowly. Or just using OTT services. We never fully fix any old communication systems we just make new ones anyway.
They were definitely using a soundboard, they'd repeat phrases that were approximate answers to my questions.
I eventually got a Google voice number in a different area code than where I have ever lived, so it's just really easy to see them coming now.
Automatic call screening is another solution. Or the authentication protocols that are rolling out way too slowly. Or just using OTT services. We never fully fix any old communication systems we just make new ones anyway.
Europe is not that serene as you may think. I get plenty of spam calls from entities I'm in a relationship with - like my mobile operator or my bank[0]. It's one of the reasons my phone is on silent during the day[1]. The problem with those is the usual fake "market choice": every mobile operator and bank is pulling this crap, so I don't abandon mine, because alternatives are no better.
Then there are occasional random scams calling in - most common recently is "your number has been randomly selected as a winner and you're eligible for ${insert useless reward that's just a bait for scam here}". But none of them, ever, tried to call late at night. If they did, I'd file a complaint.
--
[0] - The most annoying spam call from a bank was an upsell that happened last year. I was doing the usual checkup on my account balances via their web page, and out of curiosity decided to check out what they have on the "offers" tab. I clicked to the tab, skimmed the list of loan and investment offers, and got back to managing my money. The next day, a marketer calls, trying to upsell me some credit. When pressed, he straight up admitted that I got flagged in the system because I clicked on the "offers" tab and didn't buy anything. As you can imagine, the next time the bank called to take a "quality of service" survey, I said a lot of words about what I don't like about their service.
[1] - I have a smartwatch that vibrates when I get a call, giving me an unobtrusive way to look at the number and reject it without taking the phone out.
Then there are occasional random scams calling in - most common recently is "your number has been randomly selected as a winner and you're eligible for ${insert useless reward that's just a bait for scam here}". But none of them, ever, tried to call late at night. If they did, I'd file a complaint.
--
[0] - The most annoying spam call from a bank was an upsell that happened last year. I was doing the usual checkup on my account balances via their web page, and out of curiosity decided to check out what they have on the "offers" tab. I clicked to the tab, skimmed the list of loan and investment offers, and got back to managing my money. The next day, a marketer calls, trying to upsell me some credit. When pressed, he straight up admitted that I got flagged in the system because I clicked on the "offers" tab and didn't buy anything. As you can imagine, the next time the bank called to take a "quality of service" survey, I said a lot of words about what I don't like about their service.
[1] - I have a smartwatch that vibrates when I get a call, giving me an unobtrusive way to look at the number and reject it without taking the phone out.
> mobile operator or my bank
Yeah no, these companies should NEVER be calling people, period. It's way to easy to phish people for information by calling them and claiming to be their bank. Too many people will fall for it:
"Hi, this is SomeDude from Bank of America, and we noticed some suspicious activity on your account. Before we go further I would just like to confirm your identity. Could you please provide your name? Your address? Your mother's maiden name? The last four digits of your SSN?"
Banks should adopt a policy of only interacting with customers physically, via their web interface with a login, official mobile app, or by the user calling the bank's official, publicized number. Never by calling the user.
That way they can post big signs saying "We will never call you, if someone calls you claiming to be us, it's fake" and people will get it.
Yeah no, these companies should NEVER be calling people, period. It's way to easy to phish people for information by calling them and claiming to be their bank. Too many people will fall for it:
"Hi, this is SomeDude from Bank of America, and we noticed some suspicious activity on your account. Before we go further I would just like to confirm your identity. Could you please provide your name? Your address? Your mother's maiden name? The last four digits of your SSN?"
Banks should adopt a policy of only interacting with customers physically, via their web interface with a login, official mobile app, or by the user calling the bank's official, publicized number. Never by calling the user.
That way they can post big signs saying "We will never call you, if someone calls you claiming to be us, it's fake" and people will get it.
I've had my bank call me, wanting to talk about something important (I think it was loan payment that didn't go through or something of that sort) and the first thing they said was: "This is Bank XYZ and I'm calling to inform you of something. But before we do that you have to prove your identity. Can you tell me what your account number is?"
I said: "I'd be happy to, but first can you prove your identity to me? After all, you're the one that called me"
What followed was a hilarious discussion where they were unable to prove anything to me (for example, telling me something about my account that only I would know) because they're not allowed to tell anything to me until I proved who I am.
Finally I told them that I'd be happy to call them back and I asked them where I can find the number to call. I was obviously not going call a number the person would give me. They didn't know how to find the number to the customer service, so I found it myself and called back.
When they answered, I explained the situation but obviously there was no way to actually get in touch with the person with whom I had spoken earlier, and the person that I did speak to didn't know what the topic was. I asked them to call me back.
Well, they did eventually called me back, but what was the fist thing they asked after they did? "We need you prove your identity, can you tell me XXXX?"
They've stopped doing this now, and the mest recent thing they called me to inform me about something they just went to the point right away. I wonder if I've been flagged as someone who doesn't need verification or if they changed their policy.
I said: "I'd be happy to, but first can you prove your identity to me? After all, you're the one that called me"
What followed was a hilarious discussion where they were unable to prove anything to me (for example, telling me something about my account that only I would know) because they're not allowed to tell anything to me until I proved who I am.
Finally I told them that I'd be happy to call them back and I asked them where I can find the number to call. I was obviously not going call a number the person would give me. They didn't know how to find the number to the customer service, so I found it myself and called back.
When they answered, I explained the situation but obviously there was no way to actually get in touch with the person with whom I had spoken earlier, and the person that I did speak to didn't know what the topic was. I asked them to call me back.
Well, they did eventually called me back, but what was the fist thing they asked after they did? "We need you prove your identity, can you tell me XXXX?"
They've stopped doing this now, and the mest recent thing they called me to inform me about something they just went to the point right away. I wonder if I've been flagged as someone who doesn't need verification or if they changed their policy.
For my bank they just send a verification request to the app (or web page using your one time code book if you prefer that) to verify who you are. So basically the same process as logging into the bank and/or verifying payments.
It is possible to make it secure. "Hi, this is SomeDude from Bank of America, and we noticed some suspicious activity on your account. Please go to the Bank of America website and find the number labeled 'Customer callback number' and call us there. That way, you can confirm you're talking to us, at which point we will confirm your identity, and then work with you on the issue."
I've seen this proposed. I don't know if anyone is actually doing it.
I've seen this proposed. I don't know if anyone is actually doing it.
Yeah no
Which is it?
Banks should adopt a policy of only interacting with customers physically, via their web interface with a login, official mobile app, or by the user calling the bank's official, publicized number. Never by calling the user.
You either don't travel, don't travel for very long, or don't travel anywhere interesting.
I've had several experiences over the years where using a credit card in a country I didn't expect to be in got a call from the bank to verify it was me.
You may tell your bank you're traveling in Germany, Italy, and Switzerland for a week, but on night three of your trip, when you get invited to a party in the Czech Republic by your friend's pretty sister, you get on the train and keep talking. You don't say, "Hold your hormones for a sec, I need to tell my bank I'm going out of bounds."
Which is it?
Banks should adopt a policy of only interacting with customers physically, via their web interface with a login, official mobile app, or by the user calling the bank's official, publicized number. Never by calling the user.
You either don't travel, don't travel for very long, or don't travel anywhere interesting.
I've had several experiences over the years where using a credit card in a country I didn't expect to be in got a call from the bank to verify it was me.
You may tell your bank you're traveling in Germany, Italy, and Switzerland for a week, but on night three of your trip, when you get invited to a party in the Czech Republic by your friend's pretty sister, you get on the train and keep talking. You don't say, "Hold your hormones for a sec, I need to tell my bank I'm going out of bounds."
> Which is it?
1 * 0 = 0
> You either don't travel, don't travel for very long, or don't travel anywhere interesting.
I would prefer you didn't make assumptions.
I travel to lots of interesting places, and I have had my credit card disabled several times. Once because my idiot geography-illiterate bank didn't know that Bulgaria was a part of Europe. Good thing I had a stack of cash with me. For less prepared travellers, the bank is doing nothing but stranding their own customers cashless in unfamiliar places.
In any case, my point still stands that they really shouldn't be calling to verify it is me when I don't even have my home country's SIM card in my phone.
They should be e-mailing me instead, which is the only reliable way to reach me while travelling and SIM swapping. Most people are more reachable easily by e-mail than by phone when travelling for the exact same reason.
1 * 0 = 0
> You either don't travel, don't travel for very long, or don't travel anywhere interesting.
I would prefer you didn't make assumptions.
I travel to lots of interesting places, and I have had my credit card disabled several times. Once because my idiot geography-illiterate bank didn't know that Bulgaria was a part of Europe. Good thing I had a stack of cash with me. For less prepared travellers, the bank is doing nothing but stranding their own customers cashless in unfamiliar places.
In any case, my point still stands that they really shouldn't be calling to verify it is me when I don't even have my home country's SIM card in my phone.
They should be e-mailing me instead, which is the only reliable way to reach me while travelling and SIM swapping. Most people are more reachable easily by e-mail than by phone when travelling for the exact same reason.
> I've had several experiences over the years where using a credit card in a country I didn't expect to be in got a call from the bank to verify it was me.
Me too. My bank sent me a message telling me to call them using the number on the back of my card. That is an easy solution to the problem.
Me too. My bank sent me a message telling me to call them using the number on the back of my card. That is an easy solution to the problem.
Maybe things are different where you travel but I've travelled to many countries and I don't think my SIM card from the previous country has ever worked in the next one. Even if it did, I wouldn't dare talk to anyone on it in case of some exorbitant roaming charge.
Well. You sir seem to have interesting banking stories to tell.
It is serene compared to the US where it's common to receive 30 robocalls a day.
Yes my phone was always on silent as well - until you have your kid in daycare and are supposed to really answer your calls as they arrive.
What business relationship? The car warranty spammers aren't working for your car manufacturer.
I’m reminded of my favorite Simpsons moment, when Homer gets a robo-dialer. It calls everyone in Springfield.
It keeps waking up Flanders and his wife. After, like, the third time he picks it up, his wife says, “why don’t you just unplug the phone!?”
And Flanders yells, “it could be my mother!!”
To which Homer shouts from next door, “would you shut up!? People are trying to sleep!”
It keeps waking up Flanders and his wife. After, like, the third time he picks it up, his wife says, “why don’t you just unplug the phone!?”
And Flanders yells, “it could be my mother!!”
To which Homer shouts from next door, “would you shut up!? People are trying to sleep!”
I have a friend who calls me at 3am (or something equally ridiculous). I always answer in case he is in trouble, when he's just pissed I'm grateful it isn't anything serious and chat away with him.
"Pissed" meaning inebriated and not angry.
you are a good friend to have.
I can think of 0 times in my 15 years of owning a cellphone when I received a call that was worth losing sleep to.
Aeroplane mode has two advantages for me: I don't receive calls or notifications for the night, and I aren't tempted to immediately go to my cellphone to check whether I got a notification when I wake up.
Aeroplane mode has two advantages for me: I don't receive calls or notifications for the night, and I aren't tempted to immediately go to my cellphone to check whether I got a notification when I wake up.
A lot of phone behavior has changed since this tradition got started. When it did, people typically had a landline in their bedroom, which seldom rang at night.
This is a big part of the answer IMO. While cultural norms may have shifted past unscheduled phone calls for nearly any reason at all, some things are still best delivered over the phone and I think it's actually quite nice.
I would only do that if I had no friends or family, all alone in the world. Or maybe if I was 20 and my parents and friends were young and in great health. Instead, I turn on do not disturb with friends and family going through and repeated calls also go through.
Have you ever been called in the middle of the night that prompted this behavior? I have only been woken by my phone twice and both times I'm glad I was.
Just join a WhatsApp group with some friends in a different timezone.
Or have e-mail on your phone, making a sound whenever you receive an e-mail.
Or get an SMS from your cell provider when you run out of data, even if you somehow run out of data at 4am.
(Of course, I know I wouldn't be anyone's first phone call in an emergency)
Or have e-mail on your phone, making a sound whenever you receive an e-mail.
Or get an SMS from your cell provider when you run out of data, even if you somehow run out of data at 4am.
(Of course, I know I wouldn't be anyone's first phone call in an emergency)
> Or have e-mail on your phone, making a sound whenever you receive an e-mail.
Why on Earth would any sane person set their phone up to do this?
Why on Earth would any sane person set their phone up to do this?
[deleted]
Don’t iPhones put themselves into do not disturb mode at night? I hope the Nobel folks call twice in 3 minutes!
I think that only works for Favorites. Do you have the Nobel committee in your favorites? ;-)
Those are optional settings.
I don't. That sounds like an anti-solution, i.e., something that seems to solve a problem, doesn't, but does create new ones. Is there a real problem that it does solve? Is there a geographic/cultural aspect to it?
Interrupted sleep, and sleeping next to an EM radiation source. I don't care what they say, cell phones haven't been around long enough for us to know whether or not there are long term effects.
Also I tend to charge my phone during the daytime so at night I just put it in airplane mode to conserve batteries and make sure it can pull itself through the night to be able to sound the alarm in the morning. The charging port on my phone is busted and the cable needs to be jiggled every now and then, so it's not feasible to charge it reliably at night. Thanks, USB-C, for your horrible, non-rugged design that can't get through 3 years of use.
Also I tend to charge my phone during the daytime so at night I just put it in airplane mode to conserve batteries and make sure it can pull itself through the night to be able to sound the alarm in the morning. The charging port on my phone is busted and the cable needs to be jiggled every now and then, so it's not feasible to charge it reliably at night. Thanks, USB-C, for your horrible, non-rugged design that can't get through 3 years of use.
Because EM radiation follows the inverse square law, placing your phone 3-6 feet away from your bed should decrease the radiation enough to make such concerns moot.
And if you place it on airplane mode and then turn on WiFi (assuming you have WiFi calling), then you both save battery and make radiation insignificant.
And if you place it on airplane mode and then turn on WiFi (assuming you have WiFi calling), then you both save battery and make radiation insignificant.
> Because EM radiation follows the inverse square law
Unfortunately sound follows the inverse square law as well, and alarms don't wake me up when they are 6 feet away.
Unfortunately sound follows the inverse square law as well, and alarms don't wake me up when they are 6 feet away.
There should be no concern with your phone being 1 meter or less away from you. Even at full wattage, a phone transceiver will give off around 100mW, in most realistic scenarios it will be less than a tenth of that.
Even if you used the maximum band power of 1 watt, that isn't really enough to do anything. At rest your body will produce about 80 Watts of heat energy, which is a much higher frequency than what your phone gives off and hence has much more energy per quanta. Also keep in mind that 1 Watt is going in all directions, at best you cover half the hemisphere and even assuming phone manufacturers aren't optimizing for phones to radiate away because that gives better reception at lower power, you'd be getting half a watt of energy from a device going maximum transmit power. A standard phone will likely give you less than 5mW of energy dosage.
The most that your phone can do is warm up your ear a bit if you put it under your pillow. By an amount that is likely to be not measurable with modern equipment.
And before noting about ionizing radiation; phones aren't high enough frequency or power to really do that at any appreciable level. Only high frequencies are capable of ionizing since it requires an atom receiving a certain amount of energy per quantum, and the energy per quantum is only related to the frequency, not the transmit power.
Even if you used the maximum band power of 1 watt, that isn't really enough to do anything. At rest your body will produce about 80 Watts of heat energy, which is a much higher frequency than what your phone gives off and hence has much more energy per quanta. Also keep in mind that 1 Watt is going in all directions, at best you cover half the hemisphere and even assuming phone manufacturers aren't optimizing for phones to radiate away because that gives better reception at lower power, you'd be getting half a watt of energy from a device going maximum transmit power. A standard phone will likely give you less than 5mW of energy dosage.
The most that your phone can do is warm up your ear a bit if you put it under your pillow. By an amount that is likely to be not measurable with modern equipment.
And before noting about ionizing radiation; phones aren't high enough frequency or power to really do that at any appreciable level. Only high frequencies are capable of ionizing since it requires an atom receiving a certain amount of energy per quantum, and the energy per quantum is only related to the frequency, not the transmit power.
That and does GP have a WiFi router a few meters from the bedroom, which they always unplug at night (disclaimer: I used to do that). And the clock next to the bed? Battery or socket?
You also cannot unplug all of your neighbours routers, TVs and other devices.
It is very easy to get paranoid about specific wireless technologies, it is almost impossible nowadays to avoid "electrosmog" or particularly wireless emitters entirely though.
You also cannot unplug all of your neighbours routers, TVs and other devices.
It is very easy to get paranoid about specific wireless technologies, it is almost impossible nowadays to avoid "electrosmog" or particularly wireless emitters entirely though.
can you increase the volume of the alarm? it should be possible to make it loud enough so you can hear it across the room
[deleted]
I have absolutely gotten very late night calls in Europe when I've been traveling, mostly SPAM, some wrong numbers, but also idiot people at my company which could have been dealt with using a text or email. (Haven't actually gotten the latter for a while; people don't randomly call someone outside of specific circumstances at this point.)
My contacts go through, there's the call twice workaround, and honestly I'm from a period when you just couldn't always reach someone immediately and I'm fine with that.
My contacts go through, there's the call twice workaround, and honestly I'm from a period when you just couldn't always reach someone immediately and I'm fine with that.
> I'm from a period when you just couldn't always reach someone immediately
Sure, me too, but that's exactly where I'm coming from when I ask. It's the same set of sensibilities that says that if there's going to be a call in the middle of the night, it's probably for a good reason. I would think we'd have to fast forward from there to reach the place that views regularly taking the phone off the hook as the natural solution, due to e.g. jadedness/cynicism/etc.
Sure, me too, but that's exactly where I'm coming from when I ask. It's the same set of sensibilities that says that if there's going to be a call in the middle of the night, it's probably for a good reason. I would think we'd have to fast forward from there to reach the place that views regularly taking the phone off the hook as the natural solution, due to e.g. jadedness/cynicism/etc.
I'd definitely be open to an argument that it may be reasonable to DND my phone when I'm traveling to Europe/Asia but not otherwise especially given that I no longer have a landline. In fact, given that isn't happening anytime soon maybe I'll turn it off. (I have very few notifications on anyway.)
The real problem it's solving is people living different lifestyles and existing in different timezones, wanting to talk to each other on the phone, and not wanting their work or sleep interrupted.
Are you expecting to win a Nobel soon? Perhaps it is not a problem for you, but a high-profile scientist has to think about those things. That’s part if the minutiae of their existence.
Apparently people who are likely to win the prize tend to hear rumors beforehand and are mentally prepared for this (especially if they care)
I would assume they know they night the calls go out and take their phones off DND. I bet many don't even sleep that night in anticipation of the phone ringing.
I'm sure people like Sheldon Cooper has a calendar event and stays awake by phone when the awards are announced, hehe :)
[deleted]
They're thinking its a pretty cool phone call to get haha.
This is a very interesting article and I think it points to the main reason its so important to reach the winners:
> If, like Saul Perlmutter (Physics, 2011), you live in California and the call comes, unanswered, in the middle of the night, then it could be the television news vans outside your house that alert you of your prize.
> If, like Saul Perlmutter (Physics, 2011), you live in California and the call comes, unanswered, in the middle of the night, then it could be the television news vans outside your house that alert you of your prize.
> If you don’t pick up the phone, the ceremony continues without you. The public announcement comes at noon.
Why don't the Nobel people just wait until you've been successfully informed before telling anyone else? Where does this self-imposed deadline come from?
Why don't the Nobel people just wait until you've been successfully informed before telling anyone else? Where does this self-imposed deadline come from?
The real question is: why don't they try to contact the recipients during the 24hr period prior to the announcement, at that recipient's acceptable local time zone?
I don't think a Nobel recipient is going to spill the beans on the announcement.
I don't think a Nobel recipient is going to spill the beans on the announcement.
It's a bit unfair to ask someone to keep their mouth shut when they've received one of the most prestigious awards possible in the world. Given that, it's reasonable to assume they'll share with _someone_ during said embargo and once that cat is out of the bag you might as well assume the news will leak. Hence the curtesy call ahead of the general news breaking just a bit beforehand.
Because normally they have hundreds of journalists and scientists onsite a ceremony and don't want to make them wait.
> they have hundreds of journalists and scientists onsite a ceremony
Maybe they shouldn't have done that before checking if the person was ok with being awarded the prize?
Maybe they shouldn't have done that before checking if the person was ok with being awarded the prize?
Since when do you need someones consent to say a thing about them?
You don’t need someone’s consent to say a thing about them.
But they clearly want to tell them, so why are they trying to do it in the middle of the night in a hurry rather than doing it calmly?
Why this self-imposed rush?
But they clearly want to tell them, so why are they trying to do it in the middle of the night in a hurry rather than doing it calmly?
Why this self-imposed rush?
Nobel winners are all over the world, regardless of when you pick, there will always be a chance it's "the middle of the night" for someone. With the current time slot that happens to be for people in the US.
They could pick a slot that's during the day in the US, but then it'd be night for someone else. What justifies the US importance to make such a change? Using the timezone of the committee as they do now seems as reasonable a compromise as any...
They could pick a slot that's during the day in the US, but then it'd be night for someone else. What justifies the US importance to make such a change? Using the timezone of the committee as they do now seems as reasonable a compromise as any...
But why does it need to be done at a single moment? Why not take a day or week to make sure you’ve got in touch with people? There’s no rush except what they create for themselves.
> Basically, the announcement is a secret until it happens.
I too had thought that this was the case, but it appears the press does get at least some advance notice. Last Wednesday Jennifer Doudna found that she had won the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry in a phone call from a reporter. Ref: paragraph 7 of [1]:
> At a press briefing today, Doudna noted she was asleep and missed the initial calls from Sweden, only waking up to answer the phone finally when a Nature reporter called. "She wanted to know if I could comment on the Nobel and I said, Well, who won it? And she was shocked that she was the person to tell me."
[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/crispr-revolutionary...
I too had thought that this was the case, but it appears the press does get at least some advance notice. Last Wednesday Jennifer Doudna found that she had won the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry in a phone call from a reporter. Ref: paragraph 7 of [1]:
> At a press briefing today, Doudna noted she was asleep and missed the initial calls from Sweden, only waking up to answer the phone finally when a Nature reporter called. "She wanted to know if I could comment on the Nobel and I said, Well, who won it? And she was shocked that she was the person to tell me."
[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/crispr-revolutionary...
The announcement is given at a press conference, so the reporters learn it at that time. The link above says that they try to call the winners a few minutes before it is announced at the press conference, but like your quote says, Doudna missed that call because she was sleeping.
That doesn't contract it being a secret beforehand, though, or indicate journalists are given advance knowledge. It sounds like the timeline was:
1. They fail to contact Doudna to inform her she's a winner
2. They publicly announce she's a winner
3. Journalist calls to ask her about it
1. They fail to contact Doudna to inform her she's a winner
2. They publicly announce she's a winner
3. Journalist calls to ask her about it
Sounds like Doudna had her phone muted during the night. Apparently some phones do that.
My phone is set to Do Not Disturb from 10-7 or something like that. Although I think repeated calls (or calls from my contacts) go through. Otherwise, during normal times, I'd get woken up in the middle of the night with junk calls when traveling.
It’s not really “important” in any sense except everyone is extremely excited to share the news and his friends and family want to celebrate the ultimate capstone to his career as soon as possible.
If I wont the prize, I'd want to be awoken at 2:15am. Heck, they could drop a bucket of ice water on me and wake me up to tell me the good news.
It's the Nobel Prize. If I'd won the Nobel Prize with my buddy, I'd be right pissed if he waited till breakfast to celebrate. I'd be slightly bitter he came over at 2:15am without a bottle of bubbly. Are you really that dead inside?
Here's Doris Lessing being told she won the Nobel Prize for Literature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBODHFBZ8k
The committee hadn't managed to contact her. I can't be sure, but I'd bet she would have preferred the call.
The committee hadn't managed to contact her. I can't be sure, but I'd bet she would have preferred the call.
Most people want to know right away if they won the Nobel Prize. Besides Doris Lessing I can’t imagine any of them being too put out by the phone call.
I think they want to announce it to the press in Stockholm with as little risk of leaks as possible.
If you're a potential winner, you know to be reachable that night :)
If you're a potential winner, you know to be reachable that night :)
Because they have to make the announcement, and as soon as they do, the press start hounding the recipient.
> they have to make the announcement
But why?
Why not wait?
And what if they were planning to refuse it?
But why?
Why not wait?
And what if they were planning to refuse it?
Seemed to me the neighbor was far too excited to not wake him up, haha.
[deleted]
if i won it (like never), i want them to ring me at any time :))
The thread says:
The #NobelPrize committee couldn't reach Paul Milgrom to share the news that he won, so his fellow winner and neighbor Robert Wilson knocked on his door in the middle of the night. When Robert Wilson rang Paul Milgrom's doorbell at 2:15 this morning, Milgrom's wife, who's in Stockholm, received a security-camera notification on her phone. She got to watch live as Wilson told Milgrom he'd won the #NobelPrize.
The most funny comment on it, in my opinion is:
- Knock, knock
- Who’s there?
- Nobel
- Nobel who?
- No bell - that’s why I knocked.
The #NobelPrize committee couldn't reach Paul Milgrom to share the news that he won, so his fellow winner and neighbor Robert Wilson knocked on his door in the middle of the night. When Robert Wilson rang Paul Milgrom's doorbell at 2:15 this morning, Milgrom's wife, who's in Stockholm, received a security-camera notification on her phone. She got to watch live as Wilson told Milgrom he'd won the #NobelPrize.
The most funny comment on it, in my opinion is:
- Knock, knock
- Who’s there?
- Nobel
- Nobel who?
- No bell - that’s why I knocked.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, but I found this funny, just like the submission. There's sometimes an awful lot of po-faced folks on HN, even when the post is funny and heartwarming.
Some (quite misguided) people on Hacker News think the site shouldn't accept humor in any form.
That's why I wouldnt have a beer with 95% or so of this site. They wouldnt want it either, so it is fair, thank god.
We should allow rare exceptions, such as this instance.
Oh, we totally do. Usually these people are just killjoys or accustomed to humor not doing well on the site because it ends up in the bucket of being low-quality and is penalized as such.
I think humor should be less than 1% of the content on this site TBH. There are a lot of ways to get entertainment on the internet. I come to HN for serious conversation and insight.
I also think it should be like little gems sprinkled here and there to break the pattern. Any more and it desensitizes me - this is why I don't like going to Reddit.
I also think it should be like little gems sprinkled here and there to break the pattern. Any more and it desensitizes me - this is why I don't like going to Reddit.
Eh, what's the point in collecting karma if you're not occasionally going to spend it on a bad pun or a good joke? It's not like it buys anything else.
This could be cool, at least in theory. But after thinking it over, then we'd have people farming points, which would probably lead to lower quality of all forms of participation.
Maybe if it were to be spent on like adding notes about posts/comments or something purely fluff/sparkle. Different color schemes maybe?
Maybe if it were to be spent on like adding notes about posts/comments or something purely fluff/sparkle. Different color schemes maybe?
agreed, I pondered including that as a comment after my post, but figured that be tacky :)
also my second favorite comment was along the lines of: "apparently, the nobel now has a prize patrol".
Berkeley gives you a parking space if you work there and win a Nobel. They even have signs "Reserved for Nobel Laureate". As far as I know, Stanford does not.
Doesn't Google had the leaders in auction theory now?
Would someone please devise a way to run a stock market as a repeated clocked auction, so that prices change, say, once every 5 minutes and high frequency trading doesn't work.
Doesn't Google had the leaders in auction theory now?
Would someone please devise a way to run a stock market as a repeated clocked auction, so that prices change, say, once every 5 minutes and high frequency trading doesn't work.
Would someone please devise a way to run a stock market as a repeated clocked auction, so that prices change, say, once every 5 minutes and high frequency trading doesn't work.
Sure. The cost is that trades are slower, and people selling a large block of shares will have to settle with many others. Oh, and also trading will stop when there is excessive market volatility.
Still interested? Here is the mechanism. There is a priority queue for open buys and one for open sells. The sizes of the buys and sells is 1 share. Both are ordered by time the order was received, with oldest first. And the market has a price.
Whenever both queues have entries that can match at that price, they do. At the end of every X time, if one queue is empty and the other is not, the price moves 1 cent.
If a large order is received, trading effectively stops and it can only move the price slowly. Because the price only moves slowly, there are no sudden price shifts for HFT to take advantage of.
Interestingly even if this market has low volume, it can still take large orders successfully. Because even though HFT traders can't make money by playing this market, they can make money off of arbitrage between this market and others. Therefore until a large order finishes settling on this market it serves as a ceiling or floor of what gets traded on other markets. Which means that the HFT traders do the hard work of trading this on other markets.
But for anyone who wishes to trade with each other on this market, HFT can't make money from them.
Sure. The cost is that trades are slower, and people selling a large block of shares will have to settle with many others. Oh, and also trading will stop when there is excessive market volatility.
Still interested? Here is the mechanism. There is a priority queue for open buys and one for open sells. The sizes of the buys and sells is 1 share. Both are ordered by time the order was received, with oldest first. And the market has a price.
Whenever both queues have entries that can match at that price, they do. At the end of every X time, if one queue is empty and the other is not, the price moves 1 cent.
If a large order is received, trading effectively stops and it can only move the price slowly. Because the price only moves slowly, there are no sudden price shifts for HFT to take advantage of.
Interestingly even if this market has low volume, it can still take large orders successfully. Because even though HFT traders can't make money by playing this market, they can make money off of arbitrage between this market and others. Therefore until a large order finishes settling on this market it serves as a ceiling or floor of what gets traded on other markets. Which means that the HFT traders do the hard work of trading this on other markets.
But for anyone who wishes to trade with each other on this market, HFT can't make money from them.
> Berkeley gives you a parking space if you work there and win a Nobel.
The rich get richer. I remember filling out school and early job applications. I was struck by how my list of awards and recognitions was kind of a sham—most of them were each a consequence of some earlier achievement, and so on. It felt like getting a check and being able to cash it more than once.
The rich get richer. I remember filling out school and early job applications. I was struck by how my list of awards and recognitions was kind of a sham—most of them were each a consequence of some earlier achievement, and so on. It felt like getting a check and being able to cash it more than once.
> I was struck by how my list of awards and recognitions was kind of a sham—most of them were each a consequence of some earlier achievement, and so on.
Achievement and power are runaway positive feedback loops which means we need damping forces to have any reasonable level of fairness where "fair" means reward is proportional to the effort.
Achievement and power are runaway positive feedback loops which means we need damping forces to have any reasonable level of fairness where "fair" means reward is proportional to the effort.
On the other hand, we can afford to give a nice parking space each to Watson & Crick, even if they take it easy down the road. Celebrate the heroes of your field.
Maybe not the best example.
Yeah at least for Watson!! Ew.
It's possible that nature doesn't conform to your particular culture's ideology. Science hasn't actually shown him to be wrong.
What did Watson do?
Blasphemed against contemporary morality by taking the "wrong" side in the nature-vs-nurture debate. See his Wikipedia page for details.
Also he's just generally a jerk.
I don't see why reward should be proportional to effort... Rewards should be based on results and outcomes, regardless of the amount of effort involved.
This comment doesn't track the argument in the comment it's responding to. It happens by using a different reading of "proportional" than the one that was intended.
The results and outcomes alluded to in each comment, mine and the one you're responding to, are consequences of essentially begging the question. It's that part where the flaw lies—because it leads, as in your comment, to justifying things as rational and fit even when they are not equitable.
The results and outcomes alluded to in each comment, mine and the one you're responding to, are consequences of essentially begging the question. It's that part where the flaw lies—because it leads, as in your comment, to justifying things as rational and fit even when they are not equitable.
Scientific achievement is the actual value of science, not getting a prize. We certainly don't need any kind of damping forces to make scientists rewarded for their effort if that in any way impedes the most successful from pushing the boundaries forward. I think you're putting the cart before the horse in prioritizing fairness and personal awards over humanity-improving results.
I think you're overlooking the quote I was replying to. The situation the author describes is like this:
Scientist A and Scientist B both produce results X and Y respectively that are exactly equally valuable to the world. However, Scientist A happens to already be well-known for other work. What we observe is that A will get more accolades for X than B gets for Y. Not because X is more valuable, but solely because people assume that since famous scientist A did X, it must be worth more.
Scientist A and Scientist B both produce results X and Y respectively that are exactly equally valuable to the world. However, Scientist A happens to already be well-known for other work. What we observe is that A will get more accolades for X than B gets for Y. Not because X is more valuable, but solely because people assume that since famous scientist A did X, it must be worth more.
[deleted]
You were on the previous level and didn't stumble or make a complete mess, so it makes sense to invite you to the next one. See Peter Principle.
I have generally resisted further advancement, well aware of my level of competence. Also, the next level up is often not a level where the required skills are the same. Right now, I do stuff. At the next level up, I'd be required to do some stuff, but mostly coordinate other people's stuff, which is a very different skill set.
I regret bringing up the peter principle. I didn't mean to say anything except that you probably earned what you have more than you think :)
> Would someone please devise a way to run a stock market as a repeated clocked auction, so that prices change, say, once every 5 minutes and high frequency trading doesn't work.
I thought the 'penalties' associated with trading aged shares were pretty clever. Among the rules for the LTSE [1] is that you get increased voting weight for your shares as they age (IIRC). I've no idea whether any of those will really help in practice. But it sounds like it's worth a try.
[1] https://ltse.com/
I thought the 'penalties' associated with trading aged shares were pretty clever. Among the rules for the LTSE [1] is that you get increased voting weight for your shares as they age (IIRC). I've no idea whether any of those will really help in practice. But it sounds like it's worth a try.
[1] https://ltse.com/
What’s the value in making HFT not work? What harm is it causing?
HFT can increase market volatility and exagerate trends. They are not beholden to and can run counter to the idea of an "affirmative obligation" to help keep the market operating orderly. Hence the occasional flash crash or more minor blips.
eh, there's not much evidence that HFT increases volatility. I work in HFT and in general, HFT decreases volatility. Of course the flash crash is a notable exception, but that would never happen today.
There's plenty of evidence that HFT increases volatility [0][1][2].
Flash crashes still happen [3] and there were multiple rapid crashes triggering limit down circuit breakers in 2020. The circuit breakers stopped things from getting worse, but didn't stop the crash itself.
[0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1691679
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2573677
[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2573677
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/25/what-happened-during-the-aug...
Flash crashes still happen [3] and there were multiple rapid crashes triggering limit down circuit breakers in 2020. The circuit breakers stopped things from getting worse, but didn't stop the crash itself.
[0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1691679
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2573677
[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2573677
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/25/what-happened-during-the-aug...
Fairness maybe? People rent server racks right next to the exchange to get a leg up responding to market forces. Lots of others won't be able to compete with that foresight.
Whether you think that's a good or bad thing though I guess can be up for debate.
Whether you think that's a good or bad thing though I guess can be up for debate.
> of others won't be able to compete with that foresight.
Those who can’t compete aren’t even going to try, nobody loses here.
Those who can’t compete aren’t even going to try, nobody loses here.
It is hundreds of millions of dollars that are being spent for an activity that is a tax on investors. The fact that it is better than what existed before doesn't change the fact that we can do better yet.
In general, HFT charges a lot less tax than the market makers of old. And for retail investors, HFT helps them a lot.
What part of The fact that it is better than what existed before doesn't change the fact that we can do better yet. did you fail to understand?
Yes, HFT manages to do better than the old market makers that had humans doing the same job that HFT does now in the same way with bigger margins. But that doesn't change the fact that for retail investors, I believe that my suggestion in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24760841 would help them even more.
Yes, HFT manages to do better than the old market makers that had humans doing the same job that HFT does now in the same way with bigger margins. But that doesn't change the fact that for retail investors, I believe that my suggestion in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24760841 would help them even more.
How do HFT help retail investors? While I understand that HFT are not technically front running, it seems to me (as someone who is not that involved with finance) that functionally it's more or less the same outcome?
Smaller spreads. Plus I imagine that most retail investors don't make orders large enough that they need to be fulfilled at multiple exchanges, so HFT won't have the chance to get in front of retail.
Actually, HFT is willing to pay retail brokerages like Robinhood to get access to orders from retail investors BEFORE they hit the exchanges. This is how trades are offered for free.
Why? Because they know that they can buy those shares at some reported price then trade them on their own books then sell them at a price sufficiently different from the reported price that they make a profit.
This means that HFT is explicitly getting "in front of retail" and is actually trading at a price different from what retail hears about. That difference goes where? Oh right. Right into the pockets of HFT and out of the pockets of retail investors.
Why? Because they know that they can buy those shares at some reported price then trade them on their own books then sell them at a price sufficiently different from the reported price that they make a profit.
This means that HFT is explicitly getting "in front of retail" and is actually trading at a price different from what retail hears about. That difference goes where? Oh right. Right into the pockets of HFT and out of the pockets of retail investors.
Matt Levine claims that payment for order flow still benefits the retail trader: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-16/carl-i....
I'm not willing to pay Bloomberg to read that.
But on a reasonable assumption what he is arguing is that the competition in the marketplace means that they are paying competitive prices for that order flow. They are making money but not much considering what they are doing. And it is massively better than what used to exist.
I know this and agree with it. But as I said above, "The fact that it is better than what existed before doesn't change the fact that we can do better yet."
The first point is that Robinhood is the one that they negotiate with. So the extra profits go there, and not directly to consumers. Secondly the HFT middlemen are still playing market makers, which means that they still are being paid for. There are cheaper ways to make a market work than HFT, and I outlined one above. Third, automated algorithms as market makers have the potential for some pretty dramatic events - such as the flash crash. Alternatives can avoid that.
But on a reasonable assumption what he is arguing is that the competition in the marketplace means that they are paying competitive prices for that order flow. They are making money but not much considering what they are doing. And it is massively better than what used to exist.
I know this and agree with it. But as I said above, "The fact that it is better than what existed before doesn't change the fact that we can do better yet."
The first point is that Robinhood is the one that they negotiate with. So the extra profits go there, and not directly to consumers. Secondly the HFT middlemen are still playing market makers, which means that they still are being paid for. There are cheaper ways to make a market work than HFT, and I outlined one above. Third, automated algorithms as market makers have the potential for some pretty dramatic events - such as the flash crash. Alternatives can avoid that.
Berkeley has a denser campus therefore parking spots are probably more valuable there.
> They even have signs "Reserved for Nobel Laureate".
Assuming they work in the same building, now is Stanford's chance. The bigger flex is to have two or more adjacent parking spaces with signage that says "Reserved for Nobel Laureates" (plural).
Assuming they work in the same building, now is Stanford's chance. The bigger flex is to have two or more adjacent parking spaces with signage that says "Reserved for Nobel Laureates" (plural).
Berkeley has a lot more laureates than Stanford. It would be a weak flex. :)
Berkeley already has rows of NL parking.
Berkeley already has rows of NL parking.
Wow did I grossly mis-guesstimate the total number of living Nobel laureates.
I assumed there were so few that even world-class, elite universities would have in the low single digits, so that adding two would rocket Stanford (or any university) to near the top.
But there are some universities that have 50 or even over 100 depending how you count.
I assumed there were so few that even world-class, elite universities would have in the low single digits, so that adding two would rocket Stanford (or any university) to near the top.
But there are some universities that have 50 or even over 100 depending how you count.
[deleted]
I have seen similar parking spaces (more than one) at Strasbourg University.
I work in HFT and was wondering what you had against market makers?
Huh. Hacker News normally shows only the domain of the submission in parentheses. For Twitter it looks like it now shows (twitter.com/user).
Maybe a custom format for twitter (and even github: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=github.com)
Yeah, it seems like this is a feature that was added for a few domains this week including Medium, GitHub and Twitter.
IMO it would be pretty useful for Reddit too: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=reddit.com
This should also be added for Forbes if it isn't.
I think this changed a few days ago. That's at least when I noticed it for the first time.
I am happy to see some humor at the top of hn, the bar is high though.
That's how we like it in here. If you want to joke on HN, you have to put in some work :).
Gatekeeping
Sure thing :)
I guess you won't be able to do deep work that would lead you to a Nobel if people can reach you easily. :)
I love how many people here and in Twitter are complaining about being woken up at 2am, to be told you've won the Nobel prize, incredible.
Try having children, sleeping till 2 will be a blessing!
Try having children, sleeping till 2 will be a blessing!
when you win "Not a Nobel Prize" ...
https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/economic-sciences/
https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/economic-sciences/
Somebody always comes up with this thinking that nobody else knows it.
The Nobel price in economics has much more prestige than two of the 'real' prices (Peace price and Literature price). Unlike committees for those prices, Riksbank pretty much always selects someone deserving the price.
The Nobel price in economics has much more prestige than two of the 'real' prices (Peace price and Literature price). Unlike committees for those prices, Riksbank pretty much always selects someone deserving the price.
>The Nobel price in economics has much more prestige than two of the 'real' prices (Peace price and Literature price)
Prestige is of course somewhat subjective (as is definitely the very last part of your comment) but I would strongly disagree. Those two prizes are highly regarded and their announcements are widely reported. I can for example tell you both laureates of those prizes for this year from the top of my head but I can't name any other prize holder from the other categories. I guess you are projecting your own biases here and there is no real pecking order.
Prestige is of course somewhat subjective (as is definitely the very last part of your comment) but I would strongly disagree. Those two prizes are highly regarded and their announcements are widely reported. I can for example tell you both laureates of those prizes for this year from the top of my head but I can't name any other prize holder from the other categories. I guess you are projecting your own biases here and there is no real pecking order.
Would peer evaluation suffice?
There is one peace prize winner criticized by other peace prize peers for her role in genocide.
Then there is the nomination of President Obama less than two weeks in office. He received it after less than nine months in the office. The prize was seen more as criticism of Bush administration than awarding Obama.
I nominate Samatha Power (Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights under Obama, then 28th United States Ambassador to the United Nations) and Cass Sustein (United States Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) to judge Obama's Peace price.
Experts from the book: "The Education of an Idealist: A Memoir" by Samatha Power
>In October of 2009, I awoke to a very different form of bad news: Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Less than a year into his presidency, Obama was receiving an award previously bestowed on Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>When I relayed the news to Cass, he looked stricken, as if I had told him someone we knew had fallen ill. The choice seemed wildly premature,
[...]
>Jon Favreau and Ben Rhodes, Obama’s two gifted speechwriters, took on the difficult task of drafting the Nobel address. I popped into Jon’s tiny office on the first floor of the West Wing, and he told me that the President had decided to directly confront the awkwardness of receiving the prize so early in his presidency.
I mean, 60% of American did not understand why Obama received the award. Obama himself was not happy and felt awkward. People he worked with felt it was not deserved.
There is one peace prize winner criticized by other peace prize peers for her role in genocide.
Then there is the nomination of President Obama less than two weeks in office. He received it after less than nine months in the office. The prize was seen more as criticism of Bush administration than awarding Obama.
I nominate Samatha Power (Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights under Obama, then 28th United States Ambassador to the United Nations) and Cass Sustein (United States Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) to judge Obama's Peace price.
Experts from the book: "The Education of an Idealist: A Memoir" by Samatha Power
>In October of 2009, I awoke to a very different form of bad news: Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Less than a year into his presidency, Obama was receiving an award previously bestowed on Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>When I relayed the news to Cass, he looked stricken, as if I had told him someone we knew had fallen ill. The choice seemed wildly premature,
[...]
>Jon Favreau and Ben Rhodes, Obama’s two gifted speechwriters, took on the difficult task of drafting the Nobel address. I popped into Jon’s tiny office on the first floor of the West Wing, and he told me that the President had decided to directly confront the awkwardness of receiving the prize so early in his presidency.
I mean, 60% of American did not understand why Obama received the award. Obama himself was not happy and felt awkward. People he worked with felt it was not deserved.
Doesn't the premature nature and the ensuing criticism of the Obama peace prize show exactly how highly regarded the peace prize is? If the prize wasn't very prestigious people wouldn't care.
Now you could argue that those "wrong" nominations in the last year's have tarnished the peace prize "brand" so much that is no longer valuable. I would say that is in itself somewhat premature and since it's the most political prize there will always be controversy attached.
Now you could argue that those "wrong" nominations in the last year's have tarnished the peace prize "brand" so much that is no longer valuable. I would say that is in itself somewhat premature and since it's the most political prize there will always be controversy attached.
Maybe, chki and nabla9, you two had a different idea in mind when using the word prestige
It’s awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, not by Riksbank. Riksbank just created the endowment that funds it.
It is the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for the physics, chemistry, and economics prizes, the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet for the medicine prize, the Swedish Academy for the literature prize, and a committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament for the peace prize.
It is the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for the physics, chemistry, and economics prizes, the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet for the medicine prize, the Swedish Academy for the literature prize, and a committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament for the peace prize.
I still think that CRISPR and Hep-C is even more prestigious. There’s just enough money in auction theory anyways that it wouldn’t get neglected however important it is, while CRISPR was basic research that wasn’t funded by drug companies until it was known how important it is for curing diseases.
Prize
Really? In my mind the Peace Prize gets the top billing.
If I knew someone had a Nobel prize in economics, I would think they were really smart, and really deep into economics. If I knew someone had a Nobel Peace prize, it's almost certain that they did something of extreme first hand importance to the lives of many.
If I knew someone had a Nobel prize in economics, I would think they were really smart, and really deep into economics. If I knew someone had a Nobel Peace prize, it's almost certain that they did something of extreme first hand importance to the lives of many.
Publicity is different from prestige and reputation. The Peace prize has received publicity from controversies.
Peace prize has been given people who don't deserve it. President Obama was nominated less than two weeks in office and received it after less than nine months in the office. The prize was seen more as criticism of Bush administration than awarding Obama.
Peace prize has been given people who don't deserve it. President Obama was nominated less than two weeks in office and received it after less than nine months in the office. The prize was seen more as criticism of Bush administration than awarding Obama.
Obama said he didn't deserve the prize, and everyone agrees. It's more fair to look at the long history of recipients (MLK, Mandela, Mother Teresa) than to judge the prize on one or two errors. Otherwise, almost all prizes are meaningless.
Personally, I wouldn't include Mother Teresa in a list of examples of people who deserved it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
on one or two errors?
Kissinger, Moniz, Briand, Obama, Mother Theresa, Kim Dae-jung.
Kissinger, Moniz, Briand, Obama, Mother Theresa, Kim Dae-jung.
To save others the confusion, Moniz didn't win Peace but the "Physiology or Medicine" prize for inventing lobotomies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies
[deleted]
When you and your neighbor both win Nobel. I mean I'd love to have such a neighbor instead of the single mother that lost control of her 5 yo boy who screams atop of his lungs.
If you earn a lot of money, you can move into a gentrified city like Stanford. The city approves a small fraction of the new housing that is needed to keep up with demand, so prices are inflated 500%. Single mothers and young people cannot afford to live nearby and must commute 3 hours a day to their jobs. Enjoy your old rich neighbors and traffic.
Yeah they both live in housing on the Stanford campus that is only available for faculty.
The zoning restrictions are mainly due to Palo Alto (the neighboring city) and Santa Clara (the county) AFAIK. Stanford is an unincorporated area. But otherwise you point stands :-) It’s too damn expensive.
Does one know one is a runner up for this prize? If you knew you might win wouldn't you stay up and stay near your phone and just take the next day off?
A Nobel prize is often rewarded for work that was done a decade or more ago. That alone makes it difficult to anticipate winning it. Also, there will usually be many worthy candidates. On top of that, the list of nominees is kept secret. So no, I guess that most Nobel laureates did not expect the prize when they got it.
This really makes me wonder - what if you win a Nobel prize and they actually can't reach you? What if you're on a secret mission to save the world and didn't bring your cellphone?
Reminds me of https://yts.mx/movies/a-beautiful-mind-2001
[deleted]
The probability of my ever receiving a Nobel Prize is pretty much ZERO. Coincidentally, that is almost the same probability of anyone being able to reach me at 2:15AM, unless they come pounding on my door (and I still might not hear it).
I value my sleep and I have set all of my phones and devices to automatically go into DND mode sometime around 11PM.
If it were you, would you rather have a good night of sleep and be pleasantly surprised in the morning (before facing the press), or would you rather be a zombie?
If you had a friend, they might come over to tell you.
I'm usually pretty neurotic about getting enough sleep, but if I just won the Nobel Prize I certainly would want to be woken. That's gotta be the moment of a lifetime.
I don't see the point though. Either you get woken at 2am, get all excited, then have to sit with it alone and wait until 8am to talk to anyone about it or celebrate.
Or, you can get a good nights sleep, wake up to good news, immediately tell people, celebrate with a nice breakfast, etc.
Or, you can get a good nights sleep, wake up to good news, immediately tell people, celebrate with a nice breakfast, etc.
I would want to waken up so I could party
[deleted]
This is not uncommon -- these stories appear every year. I think the three prize committees do it to generate press.
High class problem to have ...
That's funny!
[deleted]
cute
Neighbors? I wonder if they both live in the subsidized Stanford campus estate. (Star professors get a housing deal as part of their recruitment package.)
There is no Nobel prize in Economics
There's the Comic Book Guy I knew would show up to condescend to an otherwise kinda funny story.
Technically, it's the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Totally not the Nobel prize. Never forget that. (rolls eyes)
Technically, it's the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Totally not the Nobel prize. Never forget that. (rolls eyes)
People like human rights lawyer Peter Nobel (family of) are such comic book guys indeed.
https://www.thelocal.se/20050928/2173
https://www.thelocal.se/20050928/2173
The story was about two friends sharing a funny moment, which just happened to include a prize. But, thanks, Comic Book Guy #2, for continuing #1's efforts to drain any and all joy out of it. Never let happiness win when there's a minor detail to be obsessed over!
The sad reality is that this would have normally been obtained by the local news and these two people would been blasted as criminals. If it were Ring, Amazon would have already used it in a commercial.
The other sad reality is that everyone looks like a criminal in these videos. Scum web sites and news media rely on this. Nextdoor, where you at?
The other sad reality is that everyone looks like a criminal in these videos. Scum web sites and news media rely on this. Nextdoor, where you at?
this kind of reads like an astroturfed advertisement for "ring" / "nest" type doorbells and security cameras.
I'm sure that's unintentional - don't blame the university, but I'm sure Nest and Ring anticipated their network of cameras worldwide to generate enough notable videos of unusual or funny antics that would be shared, so they shove their logo on their videos.
Some people claim you can have the watermarked logo removed but you have to contact Google/Nest directly. I'm going to do that right now (I have 5 cameras... which I bought a week before Google announced they were locking-down the Nest ecosystem and web-service, so I now refuse to buy any more Nest products and I recommend Ubiqiti gear instead now - Ubiqiti have everything Nest does except a thermostat and smoke detector (but they do have a temperature sensor product ("mFI-THS") - and an adapter to bridge any RS-232 connected device ("mPort"), so you could attach an RS-232 controllable thermostat that way - it just wouldn't be as sexy as Nest's giant metal knob).
Some people claim you can have the watermarked logo removed but you have to contact Google/Nest directly. I'm going to do that right now (I have 5 cameras... which I bought a week before Google announced they were locking-down the Nest ecosystem and web-service, so I now refuse to buy any more Nest products and I recommend Ubiqiti gear instead now - Ubiqiti have everything Nest does except a thermostat and smoke detector (but they do have a temperature sensor product ("mFI-THS") - and an adapter to bridge any RS-232 connected device ("mPort"), so you could attach an RS-232 controllable thermostat that way - it just wouldn't be as sexy as Nest's giant metal knob).
this reminds me somewhat of the camera software on low-end android phones sold in the developing world which watermarks every photo with "shot on... (blah blah trademark name)", because they trust that 90% of users won't know to look in the settings to toggle off the option. Or don't care. But hey, free advertising right?
https://www.google.com/search?q=android+phone+shot+on+redmi+...
https://www.google.com/search?q=android+phone+shot+on+redmi+...
You call it a low end phone, but to some of the users it is very much a high end phone compared to their peers.
They want the watermark on in the same way people had "Sent from my iPhone" as an email footer for far too many years after the iPhone came out...
They want the watermark on in the same way people had "Sent from my iPhone" as an email footer for far too many years after the iPhone came out...
I should make my signature "Sent from my Lappy 486"...
Wouldn’t surprise me
Yes, it would surprise me if Stanford and the Nobel committee were being paid by Nest to perform low-key brand advertising.
Old boys' clubs patting one another on the back. The Nobel Prize is an embarrassment to our species.
Awarding a prize for a great scientific achievement is an embarrassment to the species? I'm keen on hearing what you would prefer.
The twitter blue checkmark is the modern day version.
Did you just assume my species?
I disagree with GP, but, I beg of you, _please_ find a new joke.
Sure, I'm always looking.
Anyway, I don't recall using this one before. Maybe it happened once sometime. I honestly don't recall seeing this joke anywhere before, so it's kind of surprising that's so thoroughly played out.
After googling: apparently, it's a thing. Not really in my circles, but at least now I know.
Anyway, I don't recall using this one before. Maybe it happened once sometime. I honestly don't recall seeing this joke anywhere before, so it's kind of surprising that's so thoroughly played out.
After googling: apparently, it's a thing. Not really in my circles, but at least now I know.
Asides from being tired, it's also problematic for the same reason that "I identify as an attack helicopter" is problematic. Assuming that all programmers/gamers/whatever are male is an actual problem, and the humor in "did you just assume my X" jokes are that people who get mad about the issue are annoying or wrong or a symptom of PC culture run amok. The joke can come across as transphobic. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but it's worth keeping in mind.
Well, not just for boys, the two winners in Chemistry this year were female.
Two things:
1. At 6% women—and, therefore, 94% men—I would say the winners' pool is egregiously sexist.
2. An "old boys' club" is an idiomatic expression referring to exclusive, undemocratic and even unmeritocratic social circles. Not, necessarily, literal "boys."
So, in light of those two premises, I don't feel your objections carry any legitimate weight.
1. At 6% women—and, therefore, 94% men—I would say the winners' pool is egregiously sexist.
2. An "old boys' club" is an idiomatic expression referring to exclusive, undemocratic and even unmeritocratic social circles. Not, necessarily, literal "boys."
So, in light of those two premises, I don't feel your objections carry any legitimate weight.
I would say that the noble price has been given out for a long time, if recent rule changes lead to more female winners, then this would not be visible in absolute percentages of all winners. By the definition of "more men than women/nb won the price" it would continue to be sexist even if the exclusively nominated women for several years in a row.
History is horrifying.
Maybe they should start a female only Nobel prize kind of like they have female sports?
Maybe they should start a female only Nobel prize kind of like they have female sports?
> History is horrifying.
History is not over, yet.
History is not over, yet.
“No! The committee is using a poorly designed auction system to disburse the awards and if we don’t both accept the award in the next 70 minutes it will go to Piketty!”