I also know 2-3 people who are very smart AND don't have anxiety/executive problems, but they have social issues. They tend to burn out themselves and the people around them because they think their intelligence and work ethic is the base-line and the rest of the world is just dumb and/or lazy.
p.15 has a summary of what they propose, e.g., density of p21+ chondrocytes, as an inhibitor:
"Because we found that the extent of compensatory proliferation does not linearly correlate with cell density—but it does with the proportion of p21+ chondrocytes — we posit that density plays a permissive rather than an instructive role and that stress signals emanating from p21+ chondrocytes are needed as well."
"Atherosclerosis was common in four preindustrial populations including preagricultural hunter-gatherers. Although commonly assumed to be a modern disease, the presence of atherosclerosis in premodern human beings raises the possibility of a more basic predisposition to the disease.
While I am skeptical of attributing personality changes due to cell memory from organ transplanting, is it possible for a cell or a cell collective to have information (memory) embedded as a dynamical system? Theoretically, it may be possible to embed memory into a dynamical system [1].
Early on, Langley (and the Smithsonian Institute), who opposed the Wright brothers, was funded by the military early on failed flights whereas the Wright brothers were unable to secure funding even though they had a working prototype. Considering such opposition, it seems only natural that they would be careful about the licensing of their patents. Wright brothers certainly weren't patent trolls, since trolls typically don't even have a working prototype and are uninterested in commercializing the technology.
I may be mistaken, but I don't think they ever sought "funding". In fact, they had been offered this by Octave Chanute but declined because they did not want to quit their regular business of selling bicycles. They actually tried to sell units of their fully-developed machine.
What was the point of that link? It shows that even the government assumed they were asking for funding but they were trying to sell fully-developed machines, as I said.
> If the latter features are of interest to our Government, we shall be pleased to take up the matter either on a basis of providing machines of agreed specification, at a contract price, or, of furnishing all the scientific and practical information we have accumulated in these years of experience, together with a license to use our patents; thus putting the Government in a position to operate on its own account.
I took this to mean that they were inquiring whether the government would be interested in a system manufactured according to specifications agreed to by both parties (or just providing the IP according to a license agreement), not necessarily for a pre-existing system. Necessary modifications to a system do not make for a fully developed machine.
If you're implying that the Wright brothers are not looking for R&D funding like Langley, I agree. They made that explicit in a later letter to the government. It's too bad that the government gave funding to Langley yet somehow rejected contracts to complete a working system with the Wright brothers, despite their initial successes.
I was not implying they were not looking for funding, I explicitly stated so. They were principally interested in selling units, or, as in your cited text, the means to build them. Again this is clearly not funding for development. The qualitative difference is that, unlike contemporaries, the Wrights were out to provide what they had (or were easily capable of), not what they were yet to have if given money.
If you know how to formulate the problem well (which is typically half the problem anyway), Mathematica is great for providing closed-form solutions, if there is one. In CS graduate school, it would provide general closed-form solutions that I'd never have thought of. Most everyone else brute-forced a solution numerically or simplified the problem to specific cases, which is fine but you get so much more insight from the general analytical solution, if one exists.
You could use GRE test scores to compare across subject majors. There may be saturation at the top where further differentiation between majors could be possible if the exam material were sufficiently more difficult.
> In short, we over-reward those at the top and dismiss the rest. It’s an unhelpful and unnecessary bias that facilitates hero worship, undermines the goal of nurturing creativity and discourages valuable contributions to communities, worthy causes and scientific projects.
This happens in every research community. The hero worship also tends to over-fund certain areas because of how the agenda is effectively set by a few researchers.
One way that may help fix this is if there's a way to generate a crowd-sourced network of links whose purpose is to plot as a graph the current gaps and challenges of the field. It's perhaps easier in fields with clear subject boundaries like physics.
We could then observe how individual knowledge contributions have helped (are helping) progress the growing knowledge "surface." Young researchers could also observe areas of neglect and attack those instead of going where everyone else is. Reward people who grow the knowledge surface, irrespective of their background.
