from the world's big
10 people who got famous from the grave
Really puts the whole "don't give up until you're dead" thing to shame.
- It's been said that "You can be a king or a street sweeper, but everybody dances with the grim reaper."
- These ten folks made huge advances in their field... but never lived long enough to see the fruits of their labors.
- Can you think of someone alive today who might make the list in the future?
Depending on who you believe, life is either just a ride or a series of endless possibilities, like, say, a highway. But for these 10 people, life got a little bit better for them after it ended. How is that possible, you ask? Well, they got successful—with their ideas or inventions or art—from beyond the grave. In no particular order, here's 10 people who got famous or successful posthumously.
Mendel pioneered genetics back in 1865... but nobody took it seriously until 1915, some 30 years after his death in 1884. His experiments with pea plants established the basic rules of heredity. One of the problems was the simplicity of his discovery. In essence, Mendel was scientifically confirming that genes can be passed down and that some can skip generations, which is what farmers and animal breeders had known anecdotally for centuries. Mendel was the one, however, who both named and proved the existence of "dominant" and "recessive" genes, which he called "factors."
He knew he was on to something, despite being completely ignored by his contemporaries, allegedly saying "my time will come" to several friends after two well-attended lectures led to nowhere professionally. His work was rediscovered in 1900 by two leading botanists and geneticists at the time—Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns—and this led to a resurgence in his work as his experiments were replicated and shown to work flawlessly.
In the 1850s, Mendel tried several times to get his teaching credentials, but continuously failed the oral presentation part of the exams. Between this time and 1865, he turned his attention to physics, although he didn't make a ton of money doing so. In 1868, he became an abbot at a monastery.
Van Gogh famously only sold one painting in his lifetime: the 'Red Vineyard at Arles', completed in 1888. He sold it for 400 francs, or roughly $2,000 today. He painted Vineyard roughly two years before he took his own life by shooting himself in the chest at just 37 years old. It was during these last two years of his life that he painted the vast majority of the work he is known for, including The Night Cafe and The Starry Night.
He was apparently not easy to get along with. The widely rumored story that he cut off his ear to give to a woman might actually not be true; a recent book claims that it came off in a fight with a friend of his.
The woman who bought his vineyard painting, Anna Boch, was herself a painter and a friend to many in the artistic community in France at the time, and ostensibly became a prominent art collector of Impressionist artist. When she died, she asked that all proceeds from the sale of her collection go towards a fund that helped the retirement of artists.
In terms of length of time after death to being discovered, Galileo really takes the cake. He takes so much cake, in fact, that he could pretty much open his own bakery in the afterlife. He died in 1642 but his work wasn't allowed to be fully published until 1835 thanks, in large part, to an injunction that took place during his lifetime by the Catholic Church. His crime? He built a telescope that proved that the Earth revolved around the Sun, which went against the Earth-centric teachings of the Catholics at the time. He supported the heliocentric theory put forth by Nicolaus Copernicus.
The Catholic Church labeled Galileo as both a heretic and a suspicious character, and ultimately sentenced him to house arrest in 1633 in what is referred to as the Galileo Affair. He finally got one of his books published mass-market in 1638, just four years before his death. In 1668, Isaac Newton builds his own reflecting telescope and picks up where Galileo left off.
Albert Einstein referred to him as the father of modern science, and Stephen Hawking once said that Galileo "bears more of the responsibility for the birth of modern science than anybody else." He didn't get a full apology by the Catholic Church until Pope John Paul II in 1992.
Bill Hicks during the taping of Relentless, 1992.
While not a scientist, Hicks' influence extends far beyond the stand-up comedy circuit. Raised by Baptist parents, he rebelled young and took to stand-up early in his teens. After establishing himself in the mid-'80s, he was discovered by Rodney Dangerfield's team and promptly moved to New York City, where he performed some 300 sets a year. He became quite popular in England, and toured there in the early 1990s.
Hicks' material largely focused on expanding your mind via psychedelics, the downfalls of capitalism, and the death of the American dream. While this in and of itself might not seem like "top 10 greatest" material, consider this: While alive, he was a sometimes mentor to other comedians, including Jon Stewart. Hicks encouraged the young Jon to "walk the room" whenever things got rough, and encouraged many others to push their boundaries further and to apply philosophy to their sets; Hicks himself was a big fan of Terence McKenna and Howard Zinn. He's also been cited by thinkers and philosophers (the late Christopher Hitchens was reportedly a big fan, although citations confirming this are misty at best) and politicians. In 2004, a member of the British Parliament tabled a motion to declare February 26th "Anniversary of the Death of Bill Hicks".
That this House notes with sadness the 10th anniversary of the death of Bill Hicks, on 26th February 1994, at the age of 33 [sic]; recalls his assertion that his words would be a bullet in the heart of consumerism, capitalism and the American Dream; and mourns the passing of one of the few people who may be mentioned as being worth of inclusion with Lenny Bruce in any list of unflinching and painfully honest political philosophers.
He died of pancreatic cancer at just 32, possibly brought on by his heavy, lifelong cigarette use.
Just this week, director Richard Linklater announced he's going to be filming a Bill Hicks biopic.
Wegener on a polar expedition.
Alfred Wegener, a German-born meteorologist and polar researcher, was a pioneer of the theory of continental drift, i.e. the idea that continents are moving very slowly on tectonic plates. He died in 1930 but his theory wasn't accepted until 1953 when two British scientists revisited his work and began to produce data that confirmed it. He originally posited the theory by noticing how all the continents fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, and that fossils and rock types were similar on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
One of the reasons Alfred's theory wasn't accepted during his life is that he overshot the estimation: He figured that the continents drifted at about 250cm (or around 8ft) a year, when in actuality it's about 2.5cm (just under 1 inch) a year. Another reason, which perhaps falls under speculation more than concrete fact, was that Alfred himself was either too affable to publicly defend his works (he's noted as not replying during lectures where fellow scientists picked apart his work) or simply not confident in his skill with the English language.
Nowadays, GPS can measure Wegener's findings down to the millimeter, and the theory of Pangea—a landmass containing all the current continents that broke apart millennia ago, which Wegener called Urkontinent—is widely accepted.
More commonly known as 'El Greco' ('The Greek'), Doménikos created a style of painting that was laughed at during his time for being too dark and angular, yet lauded in the 20th century, some 300 years after his death in 1614. After settling in Venice, Italy, his profoundly individualistic style (and apparent disregard for being polite about other artists, as there's at least one record of him dismissing Michelangelo's painting style) rubbed a lot of the moneyed folks in Venice the wrong way. Because of this, he moved to Toldeo, Spain, which at the time was one of the main religious capitals of Europe.
To say that he wasn't famous during his time isn't entirely true, as he did quite well for himself in Toldeo, owning a 24-room, 3-bedroom sprawling apartment from 1585 until his death in 1614, which became not only his studio but somewhat of a hub for the artistic community of Toledo at the time. Yet during his life and even decades after his death his work was described by critics as "sunk in eccentricity", "strange", "eccentric," and "odd." This was because the gaudy, overwhelming Baroque style was hugely popular at the time, and El Greco's somewhat more artistic visions just didn't fit in. In the 20th century, Pablo Picasso was a huge fan and often repainted some of El Greco's more famous works (in his own style, of course) as a homage to his hero.
Edgar Allan Poe
Edgar Allen Poe, around 1847.
An impoverished writer not making a lot of money is nothing new, but it might surprise you a writer as influential as Edgar Allen Poe spent much of his life scraping by. After getting purposefully discharged from the Army and marrying his 13 year-old cousin, he spent a few years bouncing around editorial jobs while trying to get his work published. The country was just coming out of a recession and the publishing industry was afraid to take on new writers; because international copyright laws were scarce at best, publishing companies often just reprinted (you could say 'rebooted'!) older works. When Poe did get published, it was often for very little money. 'The Raven' was perhaps his best known work printed during his lifetime but he only made $9 from it.
Poe's wife began to show signs of tuberculosis around 1842 and ultimately died from the disease in 1847. Poe never quite recovered from her death and began drinking heavily. Weirdly, the circumstances around his death remain a mystery. He was found wandering the streets of Baltimore in clothes that weren't his, and taken to a hospital where he was shown as having "cerebral inflammation"—a term which often, in those times, referred to severe alcoholism.
Poe was far better known known as a critic during his lifetime, often getting into spats with poets and authors of the time, most notably Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. An enemy wrote a scathing obituary that propagated many untruths about Poe (drug addiction, etc) and assassinated his character in a way that echoed for years. But after his death, Poe's work spread thanks to French translations by none other than Charles Baudelaire. Because of this, he became huge in Europe in the decades after he passed. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who wrote the Sherlock Holmes series, was quoted as saying "Where was the detective story until Poe breathed the breath of life into it?"
Du Fu, sometimes known as Tu Fu.
Du Fu was a Chinese poet who lived from 712 to 770. He tried to become a civil servant but failed the test, possibly because his writing style was deemed too imaginative and dense. He then bounced around Shandong and Hebei for 10 years attempting to live the life of a poet-scholar, much like his idol Li Bai. When this didn't work out as planned (Li Bai was reportedly a "poetry star" at the time), he tried to retake the test in 745 but was failed by the Chinese prime minister at the time, along with every taker of the test, in what is thought to be an attempt to quash a rebellion. He married and had five children, four of whom survived floods and then a subsequent famine that devastated China around 750-755.
Turns out that the Chinese prime minister who failed him in 745 was onto something, as in late 755 there was a massive rebellion in China, referred to as the An Lushan Rebellion, that lasted for eight years. It upended Du Fu (who had earlier that year accepted a comfy position in local government), who spent much of the rest of his life trying to find a good home for him and his family. Conversely, the rebellion time period was particularly fruitful for Du Fu, who wrote much of his great works during this time.
But—like everyone else on this list—his work wasn't accepted during its time. In Du Fu's case, this was mostly due to the fact that he liked to write in different voices, i.e. using more correct language for more affluent characters (written in the first person), and more colloquial language for common people. At the time, this was considered pretty damn weird. But around the 9th century, Du Fu's work was revisited and taught and indeed lauded far more than it ever was in his lifetime. His work is exceptional (try this one), and definitely holds up today, even when translated into English.
Now, I know what you're thinking. Shakespeare is mega-famous and had to have been super popular during his time, right?
Well, not exactly. When he was alive, Shakespeare was regarded as a popular poet and a successful playwright, but he was nowhere near being widely recognized as one of the greatest writers to have ever lived. During his life, his poems were bigger than his plays, because his plays were only performed by his own company (which were popular, sure, but only in and around London). The plays themselves had extremely limited print runs because his theater company was protective of his work being performed by others due to copyright laws at the time being minimal at best. Five years after his death, his work—including the plays—was collected in 1623 and compiled as the First Folio (folios being a luxury item at the time) of his work. A 2nd Folio was printed nine years later.
But one of the reasons he got so popular post-death was that all plays and performances were banned in England from 1642 to 1660 thanks to Puritan leadership taking over the country due to the English Civil War. To get around this, actors performed short pieces of larger plays. Shakespeare's comedic plays were among the most performed during this time. When the Puritans finally were defeated in 1660, there was a mad dash to secure the rights—any rights, really—to plays that people liked. Because he had become so popular during this underground period, Shakespeare became overwhelmingly popular about 50 years after his death.
Interestingly, because Shakespeare didn't follow established "rules" of writing (unlike his contemporaries Ben Johnson and the writing team Beaumont and Fletcher) and played with concepts of space and time, Shakespeare's work was therefore more adaptable to different interpretations of his work.
One of only 2 photographs of Robert Johnson.
Photo: Columbia Records.
Robert Johnson holds a singular place in music history: He's often considered the father of blues music. Which isn't bad for a guy who only released two albums during his lifetime, hardly made any money from them, and died as the result of a bar fight.
Born in Hazelhurst, Mississippi, Johnson moved around the southern United States a fair amount—mostly between Memphis, TN, and the Delta region of Mississippi. Around 1930, after his wife died during childbirth, Johnson moved to Robinsonville, MS to pursue a full-time career as a musician and was struck by the sound of musicians Son House and Willie Brown. Apparently unable to keep up with them, he moved to Martinsville (some 250 miles north of Robinsonville) allegedly to find his birth father, but what is confirmed is that along the way he met guitarist Ike Zimmerman. What happens next is where things get weird: Johnson, before he left to Martinsville, was a terrible guitarist by all accounts including both Son House and Willie Brown, who described his playing as embarrassingly bad. So after two years in Martinsville, Johnson moved back to Robinsonville an incredible guitarist. So what happened?
The legend goes that Robert Johnson sold his soul at a crossroads in Mississippi to attain his incredible skill. But the truth is that Ike Zimmerman most likely taught Robert Johnson everything he knew. Zimmerman is alleged to have gotten his guitar prowess "supernaturally", allegedly playing his guitar in graveyards at night. As to Johnson selling his soul, what this could be attributed to is the fact that playing secular (i.e. non religious) music at the time could be referred to as "selling your soul to the devil."
Johnson toured from 1932 onwards, often staying with women he'd met at his shows. He traveled to Chicago, New York, Texas, and even Canada. He often busked on street corners to make ends meet. He recorded his songs in 1936, facing the corner of the studio to make his guitar sound louder. Only one of his songs sold relatively well; 'Terraplane Blues' sold about 5,000 copies regionally on 78rpm records. He died in August of 1938 after allegedly drinking poisoned whiskey after flirting with a married woman at one of the bars where he had been playing.
In 1961, a compilation of his work, King of the Delta Blues Singers, became hugely popular and inspired a blues revival that itself spawned the Chicago blues sound. It could be one of the most influential albums ever released; An early copy was given to Bob Dylan, who combined Johnson's sound with that of Woody Guthrie, another of his idols, to create his own signature sound. The compilation was particularly huge in the UK, inspiring guitarists to play the blues through newly released amplifiers that distorted the sound, thereby creating rock music as we know it. Notable fans include Paul McCartney, Van Morrison, Eric Clapton, the guys in Black Sabbath, The Who... the list really does go on and on.
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
- As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
The multifaceted cerebellum is large — it's just tightly folded.
- A powerful MRI combined with modeling software results in a totally new view of the human cerebellum.
- The so-called 'little brain' is nearly 80% the size of the cerebral cortex when it's unfolded.
- This part of the brain is associated with a lot of things, and a new virtual map is suitably chaotic and complex.
Just under our brain's cortex and close to our brain stem sits the cerebellum, also known as the "little brain." It's an organ many animals have, and we're still learning what it does in humans. It's long been thought to be involved in sensory input and motor control, but recent studies suggests it also plays a role in a lot of other things, including emotion, thought, and pain. After all, about half of the brain's neurons reside there. But it's so small. Except it's not, according to a new study from San Diego State University (SDSU) published in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
A neural crêpe
A new imaging study led by psychology professor and cognitive neuroscientist Martin Sereno of the SDSU MRI Imaging Center reveals that the cerebellum is actually an intricately folded organ that has a surface area equal in size to 78 percent of the cerebral cortex. Sereno, a pioneer in MRI brain imaging, collaborated with other experts from the U.K., Canada, and the Netherlands.
So what does it look like? Unfolded, the cerebellum is reminiscent of a crêpe, according to Sereno, about four inches wide and three feet long.
The team didn't physically unfold a cerebellum in their research. Instead, they worked with brain scans from a 9.4 Tesla MRI machine, and virtually unfolded and mapped the organ. Custom software was developed for the project, based on the open-source FreeSurfer app developed by Sereno and others. Their model allowed the scientists to unpack the virtual cerebellum down to each individual fold, or "folia."
Study's cross-sections of a folded cerebellum
Image source: Sereno, et al.
A complicated map
Sereno tells SDSU NewsCenter that "Until now we only had crude models of what it looked like. We now have a complete map or surface representation of the cerebellum, much like cities, counties, and states."
That map is a bit surprising, too, in that regions associated with different functions are scattered across the organ in peculiar ways, unlike the cortex where it's all pretty orderly. "You get a little chunk of the lip, next to a chunk of the shoulder or face, like jumbled puzzle pieces," says Sereno. This may have to do with the fact that when the cerebellum is folded, its elements line up differently than they do when the organ is unfolded.
It seems the folded structure of the cerebellum is a configuration that facilitates access to information coming from places all over the body. Sereno says, "Now that we have the first high resolution base map of the human cerebellum, there are many possibilities for researchers to start filling in what is certain to be a complex quilt of inputs, from many different parts of the cerebral cortex in more detail than ever before."
This makes sense if the cerebellum is involved in highly complex, advanced cognitive functions, such as handling language or performing abstract reasoning as scientists suspect. "When you think of the cognition required to write a scientific paper or explain a concept," says Sereno, "you have to pull in information from many different sources. And that's just how the cerebellum is set up."
Bigger and bigger
The study also suggests that the large size of their virtual human cerebellum is likely to be related to the sheer number of tasks with which the organ is involved in the complex human brain. The macaque cerebellum that the team analyzed, for example, amounts to just 30 percent the size of the animal's cortex.
"The fact that [the cerebellum] has such a large surface area speaks to the evolution of distinctively human behaviors and cognition," says Sereno. "It has expanded so much that the folding patterns are very complex."
As the study says, "Rather than coordinating sensory signals to execute expert physical movements, parts of the cerebellum may have been extended in humans to help coordinate fictive 'conceptual movements,' such as rapidly mentally rearranging a movement plan — or, in the fullness of time, perhaps even a mathematical equation."
Sereno concludes, "The 'little brain' is quite the jack of all trades. Mapping the cerebellum will be an interesting new frontier for the next decade."
What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?
- A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
- It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
- The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Welfare as an investment<p>The <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_vnber.pdf" target="_blank">study</a>, carried out by Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser of Harvard University, reviews 133 welfare programs through a single lens. The authors measured these programs' "Marginal Value of Public Funds" (MVPF), which is defined as the ratio of the recipients' willingness to pay for a program over its cost.</p><p>A program with an MVPF of one provides precisely as much in net benefits as it costs to deliver those benefits. For an illustration, imagine a program that hands someone a dollar. If getting that dollar doesn't alter their behavior, then the MVPF of that program is one. If it discourages them from working, then the program's cost goes up, as the program causes government tax revenues to fall in addition to costing money upfront. The MVPF goes below one in this case. <br> <br> Lastly, it is possible that getting the dollar causes the recipient to further their education and get a job that pays more taxes in the future, lowering the cost of the program in the long run and raising the MVPF. The value ratio can even hit infinity when a program fully "pays for itself."</p><p> While these are only a few examples, many others exist, and they do work to show you that a high MVPF means that a program "pays for itself," a value of one indicates a program "breaks even," and a value below one shows a program costs more money than the direct cost of the benefits would suggest.</p> After determining the programs' costs using existing literature and the willingness to pay through statistical analysis, 133 programs focusing on social insurance, education and job training, tax and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers were analyzed. The results show that some programs turn a "profit" for the government, mainly when they are focused on children:
This figure shows the MVPF for a variety of polices alongside the typical age of the beneficiaries. Clearly, programs targeted at children have a higher payoff.
Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser<p>Programs like child health services and K-12 education spending have infinite MVPF values. The authors argue this is because the programs allow children to live healthier, more productive lives and earn more money, which enables them to pay more taxes later. Programs like the preschool initiatives examined don't manage to do this as well and have a lower "profit" rate despite having decent MVPF ratios.</p><p>On the other hand, things like tuition deductions for older adults don't make back the money they cost. This is likely for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is less time for the benefactor to pay the government back in taxes. Disability insurance was likewise "unprofitable," as those collecting it have a reduced need to work and pay less back in taxes. </p>