• @thrawn
    link
    27 months ago

    Curing diabetes would get it even if prizes were otherwise 100% based on who you know. A corrupt board would need to maintain the facade of legitimacy.

      • @thrawn
        link
        17 months ago

        Please elaborate. It’s difficult to imagine something better than a cure that would positively affect hundreds of millions of people and would have prevented countless deaths before.

          • @thrawn
            link
            17 months ago

            Yeah I’m not gonna get into that line of thinking when there are literally millions of diabetes attributed deaths every year [or two if you take the lower end stats]. Please just elaborate on these alleged superior inventions that did not receive a Nobel, that’s all I was asking.

              • @thrawn
                link
                17 months ago

                It’s okay, I obviously didn’t expect you to be able to answer that. The og comment gave off old reddit vibes, and the classic redditor wouldn’t be able to name a Nobel winning invention. I also expect you didn’t really think the Nobel committee was particularly corrupt, either you applied your worldview to it automatically or heard it somewhere unsourced and just kept repeating it without checking (possibly from a prof tho). Probably the former.

                This was one of the interactions I enjoyed on old reddit before from-the-hip-bullshitting started getting buried, deleted, or too well written to be noticed. Tangentially, I wonder if reddit’s now too full of convincingly written AI bullshit for real users to bother commenting on.