top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 101 points 1 year ago

Can I pick 2 and have them talk to each other instead? Would love to watch Hawking get Newton up to speed on some stuff.

  • source
  • [–] 68 points 1 year ago

    To make it fair you should get extra time with hawking

  • source
  • [–] 62 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "So, did you ever have any plans to build that helicopter thing you drew?"

    "Chi sei? Dove sono? Come sono arrivato qui?"

    "Sorry, what?"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    None. I give my spot to someone who wouldn't waste it.

    I can't speak on their level, and I'm okay with that. I've worked around some absolutely amazing geniuses in my career and I'm happy to be the worker bees in the arrangement. I'm no slouch, and I've done my own share of really cool stuff, but I wouldn't waste such an opportunity on me.

    Give it to the Steve Baumels, the Tomas Bartas and the Jeff Linds of the world, the unsung bright spots in our tech march forward.

    I'll save everyone a spot at lunch and try to get in on the group photo.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This was my first thought as well, sadly I'm probably not clever enough to fully appreciate and understand any of these people. If I'm not allowed to transfer my place then at least I can have some fun telling Da Vinci about planes and stuff

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I spoke with Mr Baumel, socially for instance, on a few occasions.

    He carries on two conversations actively, about completely unrelated subjects, and can speak with authority on any of them in turn. And he's listening to another conversation so if economics of late Sumeria or gauges of railways in Europe vs China get boring to him, he can ditch one and talk about artwork of early Iceland as vikings adapted their style with the change in local materials; or something.

    It's dizzying to hear. He's just not on our level.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 95 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Are they time traveling to see me, or am I time traveling to see them?

    Because if it's the latter, Hawking on June 28, 2009.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Feynman, mainly because he was an amazing professor and knows how to talk to people.

    Einstein and Newton disliked people, so they would be terrible conversationslists outside their areas of expertise. I think that was true of Leonardo as well. Edison is also out because he was a dick.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I was going to say Feynman for the same reason. Outside his classes it sounds like the guy was a lot of fun to be around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah I was just reading a book that mentioned something Feynman said and it’s something I feel is true for me as well.

    Don’t remember word for word but it was something like “Any subject is interesting if you look deep enough.”

    I feel like Feynman and I could have a riveting conversation about knitting for 3 hours even though neither of us are passionate about it.

    Those are the people I want to talk to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Feynman's way overrated, though. Sure, he was a smart enough guy to land a job on Manhattan project and university prof afterwards, but the only reason people know him are the books written by batshit crazy groupies (he didn't write any) and based on his elderly ramblings, so none of the stories in those are even remotely true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Tesla. I feel there's so much we don't know, let alone understand, about his ideas. Have we overly sane/crazy washed him?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Apparently he didn't trust patents etc. He would come up with fanciful ideas, that sounded vaguely plausible, as cover for what he was actually working on.

    At this point picking apart the Good, the bad and the cover is an ...interesting exercise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Edison but instead of talking to him, I Rick Roll him for three hours.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I would need like a decade of prep to have any meaningful discussion with any of them 😅

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Hawking was probably way more familiar with the works, achievements and maybe even personal anecdotes of everyone in this post than I could ever hope to be. Thus, sitting down with him feels like the best deal.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    He could give lectures, but the computer massively slowed conversations. He also apparently had a bit of a temper. Some of his colleagues took to wearing steel toe cap shoes because of him (electric wheelchairs are heavy).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Exactly what I was thinking. Plus he seemed to have a good sense of humor too. But on the other hand, it would take him much longer to respond to questions on the spot (usually he'd prepare answers ahead of time for interviews and such).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Einstein.

    He was a generally great guy and had very progressive social views, so it would be fun to talk to him about the current state of the world.

    Also a lot of his theories around relativity and theories of quantum physics have been proven recently. It would be amazing to see his mind be blown when he realises both sides were right and what that means for how a theory of everything needs to look like.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    To say he was a generally great guy really overlooks how awful he was to women. He was no doubt brilliant, but he had some very serious character flaws. And unfortunately, he had an echo chamber of peers and a rockstar celebrity status that only worked to reinforce his shitty behavior and backwards views. It's not super uncommon for brilliant people to be absolutely nightmares on a personal level. Imagine being an absolutely brilliant scientist that gets married only to be completely forbidden from science and the things you love, and then reduced to being a maid for a madman with tons of insanely particular demands.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah I'd love to discuss just the world and life with him.

    Curie would be fun too.

    Keep Newton away from me. And wasn't hawking on the epstein island?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    As far as ones who actually did things there I'm not sure that Hawking would have even been physically capable at a point where he was famous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Hawking left his wife for his much younger nurse. Then, 20 years later, he left her for another much younger nurse. Proving that not only does nature abhor a vacuum, but that some people are only happy when someone else is doing the sucking.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    With Marie Curie but perhaps via zoom.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Davinci for sure because of the breadth of genius and imagination seems more approachable to a casual conversation, plus history has less on him.

    Other's have so much depth in their fields that I wouldn't be able to converse intelligently on anything they are famous for. Having a chat with Feynman would be my second choice because his talks to laymen audiences are quite good.

    A pint or five with either would be fun.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I don't speak medieval Italian so sadly he's off my list

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Presumably if we figured out how to bring back the dead and thoroughly decomposed, we could solve the language barrier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Babel fish, you say?

    But actually I intended to indicate something more here... Almost all of these will have spoken English and it's a bit slanted y'know? I'd take Aristotle lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I thought about him, but IIRC he was a bit of a jerk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah but imagine if he were personally a jerk to you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Alan Turing, the father of modern computer science. I'd also probably s his d because he's technically a dilf. 🫦

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Seeing your answer made me go "oh damn, yeah, I can't believe I didn't say Turing in my answer (I chose Einstein), because he would definitely be my choice. I must've missed that he was on there. After going back up to check the image, I conclude that you cheated, because Turing wasn't an option :P

    I'll allow it though, because it's a good answer

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Consent?

    As if any of these people want to talk to ME for 3 hours?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Edison. For 3 hours, in a padded room, where no-one can hear his screams.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Bohr, for sure.
    I've read Feynman's biography, which, for the record, I would not recommend to everyone.
    But he's witnessed Einstein and all of these early physics luminaries, and by his memorable account, everybody was in awe of Bohr, and Bohr only.
    So I'd like to hear what the ruckus was about.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Leonardo to blow his mind and maybe make a time paradox

    Tesla to explain to him that he really needs to take some financial advice because it's not about him, it's about people using his techniques.

    Edison to punch in the face repeatedly for an hour

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Tesla. Gotta know about the death ray.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Tell me more about this pigeon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    As a biologist, I'm offended that there isn't Darwin, nor Mayr, nor Lesquereux, nor Jay Gould nor Margulis.

    So I take Leonardo. I also like to draw and paint. I would like to say Marie, but unfortunately I'm not immune to radiation.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Curie looks tired. If I'm gonna embarrass myself with anyone anyway, I'll invite her and we'll have a relaxing cup of herb tea at least.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    God, I literally cannot choose. That list is probably my perfect list of scientific figures in history. Aside from Edison, he can burn in hell.

    The only ones I might add would be Goodenough and Gauss.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Probably Einstein, because he seems like an interesting dude beyond his physics. He liked philosophy, for example, and is one of the examples that I invoke when I argue that university level science education should involve more philosophy — Einstein wasn't an anomaly in this respect, but a good symbol for discussing how the practice of scientists doing philosophy seems to have waned over the 20th century.

    He was also pro-socialism, and had sensible takes about how science isn't a universal solution to stuff, but a specialised tool that is good for some problems but not for others.

    Related: those who enjoy long video essays may enjoy this one from an awesome ex-astrophysicist: Einstein Was a Socialist; Should We Care? (1h16m)

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    pro-socialism

    Some people really can't say the C-word.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I mean, Socialism and Communism are different things. Regardless of one's own personal perspective on the matter, it's certainly plausible that someone could be in favour of socialism, but not communism (I can't speak to Einstein's views on communism specifically, given that much of what I know of his political views in this vein comes from his essay "Why Socialism?". He may well have been a raging commie, but chose Socialism because he was aiming his piece at a particular audience.)

    Edit: forgot to close my parentheses

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    (I can’t speak to Einstein’s views on communism specifically, given that much of what I know of his political views in this vein comes from his essay “Why Socialism?”. He may well have been a raging commie, but chose Socialism because he was aiming his piece at a particular audience.)

    He already had to leave one country before, it's probably more him being careful.

    The FBI had opened its file on Einstein in 1932, , when he was seeking to immigrate to the United States, with a long report by the Woman Patriot Corporation (WPC), which in its extreme anti-Communism, claimed that Einstein was inadmissible to the country. “Not even Stalin himself,” the WPC charged, “is affiliated with so many anarcho-communist international groups to promote…world revolution and ultimate anarchy, as ALBERT EINSTEIN.”3 The FBI continued to collect everything it could on Einstein’s numerous socialist connections for the remainder of his life.

    Couldn't work on the atomic bomb bcs the military considered him a security risk.
    Nobody is going to out themselves as communist in those circumstances

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    In order to properly comment, I think I'd need to learn more about the differences between socialism and communism as understood when Einstein wrote his essay. I have a good sense of how we understand and use those terms nowadays, but a lot has changed since then in terms of the development of political theories, but also the wider cultural context.

    What is clear though is that the essay was a ballsy move, even if Socialism was regarded as less dangerous than communism

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago

    Probably Edison but only to tell him how much of a fuckhead he will be remembered as.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Feel like I would just disappoint 3 different people. What a cruel thing to bring someone back from the dead for.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    I'll take Richard Feynman for nine hours please.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'd go for Leonardo. The others - while I understand things at a basic level - I'd likely not be able to understand most of their fields.

    Maybe Tesla but I'm not sure if the conversation would end up centered around some of the neat science stuff I could grasp or pigeons with laser-eyes ...

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    while I understand things at a basic level

    ... including Italian, right? Otherwise it could be a brief chat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Ok... well we are discussing the fictive ability to speak with somebody who is dead. I'm assuming that whatever necromancy/chronomancy is involved included some sort of translation.

    Hell, if it's necromancy then the only thing we might get out of poor Leo is a "cerveeeeeeelli" before he lunges across the table :-)

  • source
  • parent
  • Seems like it will be a one sided conversation. They're all dead.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›