For those interested in searching for more here's a Hebrew search string you can use: "פרופסור מיכאל רבין הרצאה" interesting enough Google and YT search yield results in English and Hebrew but possibly different ones than just searching in English.
The story that I remember going around is that they each made some millions of dollars. That was a lot of money at the time for academics. I audited a cryptography course given by Adi Shamir in the early 90's and you couldn't tell he was rich though.
I think you're vastly underplaying the importance of RSA to cryptography. Personally it was the first time I was exposed to the concept of public key cryptography (in the 1980's). "would have been delayed by some years" is very dismissive. The same thing can be said of many inventions. Yet someone is/was the inventor.
RSA were the first to provide a practical and easy to understand implementation and that had a huge impact in practice.
That's not to downplay Rabin's or others contribution. That RSA pursued a certain commercial strategy that you may or may not like is not really relevant.
Agree it's good. I used to program with these tools because that's all I had and when I had better tools I moved onto to them. We also used to build our own better tooling.
When I built my first guitar I had very few tools so I used what I had since I'm cheap ;) Then I bought better tools and it made my life a lot easier. But I got some lessons from the experience. Mostly though it was a pain that's solved by better tooling.
It's fun and you do get a dopamine rush when LLM does something cool for you. I'm certainly feeling it as a user. Perhaps you can get the same from other tools. I would vote for yes- addictive.
There's no "free speech" at work [-places] in the USA. That's not what free speech means anyways. You can and will be absolutely be fired for saying things at work that are incompatible with your employer's opinions. I can't think of a faster way to get fired anywhere than insulting the person running the company you work for, private or public company, definitely in public.
Let's bring this close to home. You hire someone to mow your lawn. They come in every week and mow your lawn. And you pay them. One day you walk by and they're talking with your neighbor and you overhear them saying you're a rich a-hole and a jerk, and an idiot. I mean not appropriate workplace behavior. Are they going to still have a job or would you prefer that someone else mows your lawn? I mean they just said nasty things about you- nbd. not something that should affect their status as your "employee".
Several things severely wrong with this example. The employee didn't talk to an outsider, they didn't talk to someone the CEO would be likely to have known personally, and they're so far removed from the CEO nobody thinks they'd know them on a personal level.
You just can't talk about a CEO as if they're a person interacting and hiring people individually because they just don't.
In a small company a CEO may approve all hiring. In a larger company they delegate that. But they run the company. Everyone in the company including those hiring reports directly or indirectly to them.
When an employee communicates broadly inside a company, even if it's not directly to outsiders, that is essentially public. As we can see in this thread some random person chimed in with the details. But s/neighbor/your wife/ if that helps the analogy and insider vs. outsider is the issue. It's an imperfect one as they all tend to be.
This is why for example quarterly results are not generally communicated to all insiders in a company before they are released, because they are going to leak.
I think my analogy, though imperfect, demonstrates that when you have some sort of employment or other relationship, "bad mouthing" the other party, either in public or in private, is expected to be damaging to this relationship. The CEO of your company is the closest thing to the single person employing you. He runs the entity that employs you.
Yes, which proves the point, no? In Q1 of 1979 the real median wages were 335. In Q3 of 2014 they were 336. Which means that from 1979 to 2014 workers did not see any increase in their salary. In that same period, GDP per capita (and thus the economic output of the country and thus the economic output of its workers) almost doubled. The country became richer, workers became more efficient, but they did not get any part of the gains.
The point was > but wages were dropping in real terms throughout that period
> And the people in this article are born in the 1960s and 1970s, in the decades that followed, America was booming
There are economic cycles but the trend is clearly up. Funny enough, the 80's and the 90's which I think many people recall as great times were maybe more flat overall and the last 15 years feel worse. To be honest we also need to look at unemployment and perhaps other metrics. But the story that real wages were dropping is not supported by the data.
Cryptography and Preventing Collusion in Second Price (Vickery) Auctions - Michael Rabin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cmCBVrVQqc
No chalkboard but more lectures
https://youtu.be/nbePExzSTQ0?si=KkTbwfwj5rMtQUhD&t=681 - פלאי תורת ההצפנות ויישומיה לתהליכים פיננסיים (The wonders of cryptography and financial applications)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_LG5Hcc8mM - Lecture 7 - Zero Knowledge Proofs and Applications Michael Rabin
For those interested in searching for more here's a Hebrew search string you can use: "פרופסור מיכאל רבין הרצאה" interesting enough Google and YT search yield results in English and Hebrew but possibly different ones than just searching in English.
EDIT: One more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30wkb46BE1k
reply