| > Completely contradictory to my personal experience as well as to my observations in society. Irrelevant. These observations are coloured by selection bias. > successful enterprises while our competitors floundered What about all the visionaries that failed? What about the non-visionaries that succeeded? > Without them, we would have been mediocre like our competitors. Presumption that competitors would not have done what you had done given enough time. Presumption also that your success makes you not mediocre - when in fact it merely indicates success. > If Steve Jobs had not returned to Apple Some other company would've released a mp3 player, a tablet and a smart phone. Your not that special - it is foolish to be arrogant enough to think that you deserve what you get and that because your sole reason for success is your own work. This is a fundamental attribution error. > They failed and almost drove the company out of business Jobs came back in 1997 correct? After Windows reached its dominance correct? So the cash stops bleeding just after Windows has dominated and there is really nothing left to do but join up with them. > He made it look easy. Maybe because it was. > Citation for successful analogues to DNA driving multi-cellular life Well how do you know DNA was unique and special? Because it succeeded? That does not follow. What if the environment changed - such that it favoured DNA molecules over another just through randomness - well then the other molecules get wiped out. It is foolhardy to assume that DNA could be the only useful substrate for multi-cellular life. But we can't rerun the damn test because - wait for it - EXTREME PATH DEPENDENCE. I end this conversation. |
I guess it shouldn't really matter since someone else equivalent to both of us will step in to continue it. I mean, if Albert Einstein is easily replaceable as you said, you and I can't be important for the continuation of anything.