It is a shame that Hamming didn't focus on Bardeen, who shared that Prize (it was for the transistor). Bardeen then went on to win a second prize (for superconductivity.)
Great article though.
BTW: It is worth pointing out that there is a great deal of his wisdom that was very much Bell-Labs culture. A fair amount of that simply does not translate to the startup world.
(Disclaimer: I recently wrote an essay arguing this same thing, for designers, for the upcoming issue 03 of Distance, which you can subscribe to at http://distance.cc/)
This essay was a turning point for me as a professional, when I found it, years ago. Entrepreneurs have the benefit of being able to look for and solve important problems in any field. And what makes a problem important? Here's how you adapt Hamming's essay on important pure science into important design work:
What makes a problem important? It’s not the end result: responsive web design provides a new way to build sites, but it’s not the only way. Rather, importance is a factor of solubility: important problems are answerable, if only you could connect the right dots. Important problems advance understanding. Marcotte figured out how to unify design rhetoric across many devices, but he probably didn’t know he was going to get there when he started in 2009: the iPad didn’t exist yet, and neither his articles nor his book mention “iPhone” or “mobile” or even just “phone” in a relevant context.
You can't know exactly what field to work in, but you can stay active in places where something might happen. Maybe these places are where the work is diligent rather than sexy – like documenting the history of interaction design, saving rare hardware, or preserving old books. Maybe they are social and cultural, like educating designers on the value of professional practices, designing supportive professional societies, and building tools for study. Or maybe the future will be built on defining best practices for future tools and their interactions. Wherever you see important problems, you’ll do great work by sharing your explorations with others.
I go on to give examples of important problems facing designers today. They're everything from how we design, to big data, to the internet of things, to natural user interfaces.
You can solve major problems in online payments, and then solve major problems in electric vehicles, and then solve major problems in space travel. You don't have to be limited by your field of academic research, and your lunch tables of chemists and mathematicians can be those of any industry in the world.
Working on important problems means your work will have long-term meaning.
Then I'm gonna bet that you never worked at Bell Labs.
> I think doing great work in the major problems in your field of choice are the exact heights that entrepreneurialism should strive for.
The time scale is vastly different. Entrepreneurs are not interested in starting programs that will yield results only after 10-20 years, and VCs have an even shorter attention span. Hell, funding events (which require showing progress) every two years are considered successful in the startup culture.
What about the SpaceX's of the world? Founded in 2002; docked with the ISS in 2012.
The folks Hamming mentioned did things and discovered things that had never been done before.
SpaceX docking with the ISS? You know that has already been proven out; so not exactly fertile new ground to win a Nobel Prize with.
My point was that, even at the 10-year mark, SpaceX is still working towards its goal -- a goal that may very well not yield its results until after the 20-year mark.
While I appreciate that Musk stands out partly as an exception to the rule, I think it's nevertheless reasonable to concede that not all entrepreneurs are focussed on 2-year goals.
Great! The string of Nobel Prizes from entrepreneurs will be a breath of fresh air. Do you think it will happen first in Physics, Chemistry or Medicine?
Hamming's essay isn't about inventing something no-one's come up with before.
Hamming's essay is about doing great work, solving important problems, and having significance.
He provides explicit definitions for what those things are in the essay, as I did in my response. As such, none of your flippant retorts make sense within the context of either the essay or my initial response to you.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Really? I wonder why the title is "You and your research"? You think he is talking about inventing things that someone has come up with before?
Let's look at wiki for research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
Research and experimental development is formal work undertaken systematically to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humanity, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications
> Hamming's essay is about doing great work, solving important problems, and having significance.
No, that is your essay.
"Why shouldn't you do significant things in this one life, however you define significant? I'm not going to define it - you know what I mean. I will talk mainly about science because that is what I have studied. But so far as I know, and I've been told by others, much of what I say applies to many fields. Outstanding work is characterized very much the same way in most fields, but I will confine myself to science."
> Intro: I have given a talk with this title many times, and it turns out from discussions after the talk I could have just as well have called it "You and Your Engineering Career," or even "You and Your Career." But I left the word "Research" in the title because that is what I have most studied"
> Entrepreneurs are not interested in starting programs that will yield results only after 10-20 years, and VCs have an even shorter attention span
I was responding to that (especially the assumption that entrepreneurs imply VC), not purely speculative bullshit about Nobel prize winners. At least keep track of your own arguments.
>I believe X. (Disclaimer: a recently wrote an essay arguing in favor of X).
That's not a disclaimer! It's just an aside. A disclaimer would be more like
>It will be to my advantage if you believe X.
Although even that doesn't exactly follow the dictionary definition of a disclaimer, people do seem to generally mean it as a disclosure.
I felt since I was quoting an essay in a future edition of a quarterly which you'd have to pay to read, it would, indirectly, be to my advantage, and, as such, warranted a disclaimer.