#3 is the old school hacker, "a high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die" :-)
If it was a school teacher people would surreptitiously dismiss it as "coping". People would dismiss it anyway, being it Woz or a teacher. Maybe people are somehow dismissing his opinion because it contradicts the entrepreneurial ethos that is glorified over here.
I don't know. It's like Frankenstein's monster reading The Sorrows of Young Werther. He could somewhat understand what the words meant, but he couldn't ever feel what was being described. Even if the monster could write about human feelings, it would be just as an observer, a reader, repeating and copying.
Sure, many scientists work for PR firms of the fossil fuel industry, or worse. But they rarely make a public fuss about how awesome that is and how there should be more of that, right? That is what societal power would mean IMO, having respect and attention -- not working on evil shit in the "basement" of a corporation you can only talk about in layers of rationalizations and jargon in public, if even that. They may rake in the cash and then get respect for the things that buys, but not directly for who they are and what they do.
Whereas scientists that are alarmed by things like biodiversity loss and climate change really are pounding at our door, and have societal power in some circles but not on the whole, not enough, which is made clear by the outcomes.
A scientist follows the scientific method, i.e. they advance testable hypotheses and compare their predictions with the data. A philosopher writes deep-sounding but ultimately meaningless drivel like this:
It's not lost on me that Tractatus was warmly received by philosophers, but Investigations got a frostier reception from the same group. I especially enjoyed Russell's snippy quote. Ol Ludwig struck a nerve, did he, Bert?
Lots of programmers get bored of writing simple line-of-business code and find ways to make it more interesting for themselves. It doesn't generally lead to a program that's better for the end user though.
I apologize for that news source. I used it because it was the only website covering this bit of news at the time of submission. Perhaps there are better sources now.
It really depends on the tone and context. If you are a tourist and say it in a joking manner, people are probably going to laugh. If you say it in anger to someone, they might not like it very much.
Similar to how a lot of swear words work in many languages.
It's interesting to see how what matters is not the word, but the intention behind it. At the end we are trying to communicate meaning, and words are just one of our tools to do it.
