comment by b

a thoughtful web.

Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!

comment by b_b

b_b · 4603 days ago · link · · parent · post: The Cost Of Creativity

This piece has potential to be interesting philosophy, but it is garbage science. Watts aren't a unit of energy, so most of his writing is fundamentally incorrect. This seems strange to me coming from what I gather is a science journalist who interviewed a physicist for the piece . This distinction matters; it isn't just semantics, nor is it trivial. Energy is power integrated over time. Saying we use higher wattage is only meaningful if we know the time spent using the power. Otherwise it is nonsense. It is a disgrace to not make this distinction in a piece about creativity. If you drive a truck that gets 15 mpg, and I drive a hybrid that gets 50 mpg, are you using more gas than me? Who knows? I may have a 40 mile drive to work, and you have a 1 mile drive. The same goes for energy an power. As a derived purely derived measurement, power cannot tell is much on its own. There is no such thing as 250 watts of energy. He may have something important or interesting to say, but its not clear from his writing. Is this average power? Peak power? What?

As an aside, the discussion sparked by this post was well more interesting and thoughtful that the piece itself.

markup tips · 0

mk · 4602 days ago · link ·

My impression was that he was using watts as J/s. -That this is the average power needed to run a particular lifestyle. Like a living American is equivalent to a 11000 watt bulb (turned on).

So, I guess that would be about 9.5 x 10^8 joules per day?

I agree that it's poor language choice to say 'needs x watts'. Maybe 'consumes energy at a rate of x watts'?

+discuss+discuss

–

b_b · 4602 days ago · link ·

The problem is that he never defines if we're talking about average power or peak power (we have to assume on or the other--and you what happens when you assume). When you're running the microwave and the air conditioner while your wife is drying her hair, that's not the same as at night when you're asleep and everything but the refrigerator is off; its probably orders of magnitude different. 11,000 watts is a hell of a lot of power (its a little less than 15 hp, for all you anglophiles). But even if 11,000 is our average power, its not really an issue--if we can extract energy from the sun efficiently. The amount of energy that falls on the Earth every day is essentially infinite compared to our usage. There is no reason why the sun can't support 7 billion blue whales.

Either way, there is no way a science journalist should make such a grievous error; it renders his article misleading to most of his readers, and nonsense to the rest.

+discuss+discuss

–

katakowsj · 4602 days ago · link ·

Sounds to me that a creative solution is truly in order. Our journalist did demonstrate the cost of his creative endeavour to expand our current understanding of the world. He also created a discussion that is interesting and personally relevant to me.

Due to several creative people I know and love, and a few more creative people that I've met, paths have been revealed to me that may likely enable me to beat a brain tumor that, left alone, will certainly end me. Creative solutions, ideas at first, were shared, imagined, revised, and acted on to instead give me, a 38 year-old, trained to teach middle school-aged students about math, science, and themselves, what I feel is the best chance at survival anyone in my place could possibly have.

Of course, the cost of this creativity will give me a nasty headache, some temporarily muddled thoughts, a small chance of reduced vision on my left side, but I will gladly accept the costs of this creativity. I also see some amazing possibilities for all people as we move forward as a society of people creatively trading problems, solutions, and agreeing on acceptable costs. Is that what this is really about?

I better get some sleep. It should help me negate some of the opportunity costs of tomorrow's initial decision.

Thanks again Mark.

Jeff

+discuss+discuss

–

mk · 4600 days ago · link ·

No thanks ever needed. I'm just happy that everything went as well as it did. Yes, the aches might have been much worse than anticipated, but no vision loss, and it's incredible that no deficits are apparent after such a resection!

It's absurd how distracted we get, and how this strips away what isn't substantial. That's one thing those costs are buying. I've been given a perspective that I didn't have, and won't soon forget. We definitely did get that out of this.

We are going forward, brother! We have more to create, and that is an awesome thing.

Thank you, Jeff.

+discuss+discuss

–

katakowsj · 4597 days ago · link ·

Brain tumors have an incredible way of getting a person's attention. It's hard to ignore seizures and other involuntary actions. Quite the opposite of creativity as we speak of it. It has though, spurred on some creative endeavours to continue my life and revealed a convergence of creative thinking than I would have previously not predicted to exist. The possiblilities of what I imagine can be accomplished within our lifetimes seems to have very few limits as far as those nasty glioma brain cells gone wrong are concerned. Nasty little bastards if you ask me. I expect they'll get what's due to them eventually. I look forward to contributing where I can.

Jeff