When I read the article, I didn't know it was written be Stephen Wolfram. It sounded like any other math/tech blogger. He'd played with these things when he was younger, similar to what many programmers have done. And he was excited to find something familiar on a public building. It sounded completely non-arrogant to me. I used to play with fractals and would be just as excited to see my familiar toy on a public building, even though I didn't discover them.

He didn't claim to have invented it, or that the building was designed in his honor. I think you have to be expecting arrogance to see it in this article.

No, he does. He even calls his cataloging of different runs of CA permutations his "discovery" as in "when I discovered".

I took that as talking about the moment he discovered rule 30 (just like I discovered it myself at one point in my life). It doesn't sound like he's claiming the be "the discoverer" of it.

On the other hand, he might very well be the actual discoverer, anyway.

He was the first to describe this form of CA and systematically investigate the results of the different rule sets.

You are afflicted with Wolfram Derangement Syndrome: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10978871

There is a way out. I believe in you!

The problem with dang's wish stated in the linked thread is that the goal is most likely unattainable.

While the community as a whole has a collective memory, that does not mean that every participant has the sum of all that experience and knowledge, because individuals constantly join and leave the community.

This means that for some parts of the community, every new post (in this case by Wolfram) is one of "The first few times this came up" when it was "worth noting (and I confess to laughing at the same parodies that everyone else did)".

Because of the nature of Hacker News (the focus on individual stories (links)) the only way for new members of the community to be "nudged in the right direction", as it were, is to come upon one of these comment sections and either see the problem for themselves or see it called out (as here).

The fun thing about that discussion is note in the first reply:

"[When there is a single Official Wolfram Ego Bitching subhthread in every thread discussing Wolfram], then everyone can enjoy complaining about Wolfram's ego there, without it taking over the rest of the discussion. (This would work better if HN offered a way to "collapse" subthreads.)"

And now we actually have collapsable subthreads!

* proceeds to collapse grandparent

The deranged Wolfram story I find most delightful is about the pains he took micromanaging the illustrations in his book, and how hard he is to work for. He required a photo of a leopard, to illustrate how its spots were similar to a reaction diffusion system. But he rejected the first leopard photo and demanded it be replaced by another, because he didn't like its facial expression.

Doesn't sound weird at all. If I would be writing a book, I would like to direct what kind of photos it includes.

Oh yes, I think it's charming how aesthetically picky he was about which cat pictures to use in his book. It's not enough for the science and mathematics behind the gigantic book to be ground breaking, revolutionary, earth shattering and astounding -- but also the leopard's smirk can't give readers the wrong impression.

Ok, point taken, it's a dead horse. Is there an argument that ignoring social pathology and carrying on is dangerous in the long run though?

The alternative is to register the pathology as known, considered, addressed, and ... not of particular interest in the current context.

dang's post attempts to do this. HN has poor tools for surfacing such actions and intentions (it has poor tools in a large number of ways, but the very tool paucity also creates, at times, some useful positive dynamics).

Sometimes you want low friction, sometimes you want high friction.

A wheel, particularly in the flanged steel-on-rail or rubber tyre-on-road varieties, is a device for offering exceptionally low friction and resistance in one dimension, and very high resistance in another. Among the results of such a dynamic is the property, literally, of keeping a vehicle on track.

I think HN's quirks of high- and low-affordance capabilties operate somewhat in this nature.

The argument is that going on about it in every single Wolfram thread is just as quickly "repetitive and boring" and worse, makes it impossible to actually talk about whatever it is that Wolfram is writing about. It's hardly ignoring if everyone already knows about it and the chances of anyone saying anything new and interesting on the topic is just about nil.

There's an argument, sure, but you're basically arguing against the entire concepts of politics and perspective.

I dunno, if people weren't so bored of fact checkers pointing out lies, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.

I think we're all forgetting that the prime reason Wolfram has a blog IS to expound on his ideas, and showcase the versatile uses of his Mathematica software, in the same way Google, Microsoft or ordinary developers have their own blogs.

But for some reason, people expect his posts to be general commentaries about science, math or computing, like a Scientific American Blog post - perhaps it's due to his reputation as a 'genius', which makes people forget he is also a CEO.

Wolfram reminds me of Richard Feynman, in that sense.

The first time I tried to read "Surely You're Joking" as a kid I had to put it down -- the incessant "ME! ME! ME!" dripping from every page was a little too much.

I've since mellowed down and can read Feynman or Wolfram without any issues. I even enjoy that style now :-)

What were you expecting from a biography?

Some humility mixed in with his bragging? Seems like a fair ask.

You're not the only one, Murray Gell-Mann regarded Feynman as self-aggrandising.

I still liked "Surely You're Joking" though. A lot, even though I've come to regard Feynman as somewhat flawed.

The first time I tried to read a Feynman Diagram as a kid I had to put it down -- the incessant "ME! ME! ME!" dripping from every subatomic particle was a little too much.

Okay now you're just being contrary. Everyone knows that subatomic particles are all, like, "YOU! YOU! YOU!" ..

4/3 I's per paragraph

It's pretty ceaseless, too, down to the names he gives everything (his name).

At least this was relatively to the point, whenever I've read something from him in the past it's more like a 72 page treatise on cellular automata followed by the two line grilled cheese sandwich review the title promised.

I read the article and didn't feel the same way, what stood out to you specifically?

Wolfram's writing style is a known thing; I suspect that GP is currently hypersensitive to it, and sees lots of false positives.

"I know Woflram has ego issues in his writings, therefore this perfectly neutral sentence must be in fact Wolfram congratulating himself!".

Here's a start: "Here’s a website (made in a couple of minutes with a tiny piece of Wolfram Language code)". He's bragging about his coding prowess, selling his product and basking in the pleasure of writing his own name, all at once. :)

This intrigues me because I never see the self-aggrandizement.

> bragging

I got that he was saying how easy it was for anyone, not just him. Not bragging.

> selling his product

To be fair it wouldn't show a lot of confidence if he never used it

> writing his own name

It's the name of the language. What do you want him to say, "a certain language who's name I will not disclose"? :)

The issue is why bring up the language at all? Why even mention that it was written "in a few lines of Wolfram", rather than just pointing people to the source? Because that's how advertisers speak. They don't say "this coffee is delicious" they say "This single-source Starbucks coffee is delicious."

You can speak the truth and be informative while still maintaining your dignity and respecting other people's right to objectivity. He's not doing that. He's asking you to sacrifice your objectivity because it serves him. The self-aggrandizing tone he takes is an affront to the objective simplicity of truth -- that even if he wasn't here to do the things he does, they would still be doable. He writes as though this is not true.

He doesn't just say "Rule 30 is one of those rules that has an 'organic' feel to it." He says something like "This Rule 30 that I discovered, is what I call a 'class 4' rule -- one that has an organic feel." It's like he has a compulsive inability to separate plain facts from his own brand. He has to constantly remind you that he is the god who made these things possible.

If I had a language that could do a cool microsite in just few lines of my language code I'd be pretty proud of it too.

I wouldn't say so -- for a professional programmer, rule 30 is pretty fucking easy to implement in a few minutes, especially in Wolfram Language. It's trivial, not rocket science, nor much to brag about. But if you take him as bragging about implementing Mathematica / Alpha / Wolfram Language itself, well at least that's something worth bragging about.

I agree, it does get old fairly quickly. I also don't think cellular automata has made the giant "new kind of science" impact that he proposed that it would.

On closer inspection, it's not arrogance. It the sort of literary solipsism that companies use in their PR communications.