I saw the talk live and the nerdism, physicians humor and the transfered knowledge was really mind blowing. It's an awesome insight into the foundation and building of a really large human made machine. Watch!
I have a friend who worked on the construction of the CMS at CERN. Calibration, actually.
He has a similar ability to very clearly explain the technology and what it is trying to accomplish. And an innate curiosity or interest that causes him to learn that -- beyond just his specific technical area.
In other words, some engineers are very effective networkers and communicators.
When I stop to think about it, they have to be, to ever succeed in building such a large and complex device -- in the company and at the behest of so many other disciplines, both practical and theoretical.
P.S. I should add that he does this with everything that really interests him and/or that he is doing. It's not confined to one topic or things he formally works on.
P.P.S. This may be a "Captain Obvious" comment; nonetheless, the presentation reminded me of him.
And of how some comment science stereotypes really are far from the mark.
It depends... Dirac is a counterexample, while Bohr is a supporting example. It may just be that experimentalist who can explain their ideas with clarity and passion are the ones we notice first/most?
Dirac and Bohr were both theorists, not experimentalists! But you're right that it varies within disciplines.
I'm an experimental physics Ph.D. student working on LIGO, and I have also found that experimental physicists are often very good at motivating engineering from top to bottom. I think having depth of knowledge is part of it. My advisor has told me that some of the best experimentalists have sufficient depth of expertise to be theorists. I can't comment on how this compares to other fields (since I haven't worked outside of academia) but I have been very satisfied with how eloquent and deeply informed experimental physicists usually are.
Not sure how the parent would respond, but early on, while discussing Rosalind Franklin's DNA diffraction findings, he makes an unnecessary comment about the Nobel prize going to "the two white men." It seemed out of place compared to the rest of his talk.
I didn't feel like the talk gave off an overtly political tone.
The New England Journal of Medicine on the other hand...cancelled my subscription due to how political it has become. Still has very good review articles, though.
the snubbing of rosalind franklin seems pretty apolitical to me - she had died, and there are no posthumous nobels. still a damn shame she isn't more of a household name, though.
What sort of political commentary on nejm are you referring to? I usually only read articles if I find them elsewhere, so I don't know much other than that it is a well respected journal in the medical community.
He has a similar ability to very clearly explain the technology and what it is trying to accomplish. And an innate curiosity or interest that causes him to learn that -- beyond just his specific technical area.
In other words, some engineers are very effective networkers and communicators.
When I stop to think about it, they have to be, to ever succeed in building such a large and complex device -- in the company and at the behest of so many other disciplines, both practical and theoretical.
P.S. I should add that he does this with everything that really interests him and/or that he is doing. It's not confined to one topic or things he formally works on.
P.P.S. This may be a "Captain Obvious" comment; nonetheless, the presentation reminded me of him.
And of how some comment science stereotypes really are far from the mark.