Will be interesting to see how this affects math research. He has pumped unthinkable amounts of money into the field. The only first-class flights I've taken in my life were to get to Simons-funded conferences at super fancy hotels. (I found these conferences a bit ridiculous, but the luxury treatment did ensure that they could get together a lot of the biggest names in the field in one place.)
Besides the conferences, there is the SCGP at Stony Brook, the Simons Center in Manhattan, whatever MSRI is called now, AMS-Simons travel grants, tons of money for the arXiv, the Magma license deal... and that's just the stuff that I've benefited from personally. I know there's more, Simons Collaboration grants and probably other things I've never heard of. He was very good to us all.
We've always joked that Phds in geometry-adjacent fields have to have one of the highest average incomes of any degree, probably at least $1 million a year. Simons making $3 billion, the rest of us making 90k apiece.
The thing is that he genuinely loved math. I don't think there's really anyone in his orbit who loves math as much. His family is his family and his colleagues love money.
We'll see in the coming months and years whether he was able to create a structure that continues his legacy but usually the answer to that question is no.
His foundation also donates a lot to neuroscience research, particularly for Autism. I think there was a family reason for that, so probably at least some of his scientific philanthropy will continue for awhile. But yeah it's extremely hard to create a structure that would perpetuate without the remaining people at the top truly buying into and understanding the mission.
It's hard watching venerable institutions rot into "just avoid administerial short term blame" death loops. You have to have skin in the game, not just hire a temporary manager for it.
I think it's doable. Institutions under top leadership can thrive long after its founders die. This is true of almost every Fortune 500 company. I am sure there is enough redundancy to continue the foundation's goal. Carnegie foundation or Ford foundation, or Apple computers after jobs died .
I’d argue that Ford and Carnegie foundations are not good examples here, having veered very far from the intention/goals of the original donors into directions that are arguably diametrically opposed. Essentially they were hijacked from within by hired “professional managers” who pursued their own agendas. Maybe in the future we can set up AIs to make the decisions on our behalf after we’re gone, because humans are extremely unreliable over longer time frames!
It’s also not unheard of to structure a foundation to just run their assets down over time exactly on the theory that, given enough time, who know how the money will be distributed.
sadly, the trend for these sorts of things is to sour after the original founder leaves...
There is an esoteric concept that has some dynamics that explain this phenomenon somewhat. Not to get to into the weeds (the origins of this concept are esoteric religious ideas - I mean this secularly, as it relates to business entities) but the concept is an 'egregore'
I don't see it on the Wikipedia page, but the theory that explains the degradation of a companies original mission statement can be summarized as this: "Within an organization(egregore) there exists three classes of individuals... the primary two of which are those that serve in the name of the egregore, and those that serve the egregore directly, the third (a smaller %) being those un-loyal to the current structure and would change the egregore to suit their needs. Of the main two: The dichotomy can be spilt along lines like developers/founders vs marketers/sales, where developers are interested in serving the mission statement and developing a good product, and marketers are interested in growth and survival, at the expense of everything else. So when the developers/founders leave, the vacuum that is created is filled either by those that would change the egregore, or corrupt the mission statement in the name of growth and profit."
This is a simplistic model - with a fair bit of predictive and explanatory power. I have found it useful to describe that shift inside a corporation.
Simons has been out of day-to-day management for quite some time. He was succeeded by co-CEOs who were then themselves succeeded, IIRC. (These are my recollections from reading The Man Who Solved the Market). Apparently his management style was always pretty hands off and they operated multiple successful quant strategies that were led by others. Their Medallion fund returned 22% after (huge) fees in 2022 according to the WSJ. [1] That's the employee only fund that has blown the doors off for 30+ years. They do have a few other funds that manage much more $ and manage external money that have never performed at Medallion's level. In other words, it seems like succession will not be a major risk for them in the near term.
This split exists not just in organizations but in society at large. Some people are builders and some are redistributors. Builders take pride in creating value and redistributors can provide useful service by making value available to more people. Very often engineers are not interested in marketing/selling their product and redistributors fill a useful niche.
However, some fraction of redistributors are willing to enrich themselves at the expense of others. These should never be allowed to make decisions affecting others. A founder should always look for people from the first group by looking at their past behavior and make sure those succeed him.
That's because the HHMI as planned by Hughes was kind of a scam. It took legal decisions against his family to establish HHMI as a serious biomedical funding agency.
I am struggling to find that, sadly I am coming up short. It was from an essay, I believe, with a secular view of these things. But I can't seem to find the author. that was before I had zotero to organize these sources :)
"Here are some additional sources that discuss the concept of an egregore and how it can be applied to understanding group dynamics and the evolution of organizations:
"The Anatomy of the Body of God" by Frater Achad (Charles Stansfeld Jones) - A detailed exposition on the occult concept of egregores from a ceremonial magic perspective.
"Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown - This book discusses egregores in the context of economic systems and the power of collective beliefs shaping institutions.
"The Egregore Effect" by Jack Willis - Explores egregores as self-reinforcing memetic constructs that shape group behavior.
"The Cult of Information" by Theodore Roszak - While not directly about egregores, it discusses how ideologies and worldviews can take on a life of their own within organizations.
"The Organizational Hologram" by David Bohm - Applies concepts from quantum physics to understanding the undivided wholeness of organizations
> Hopefully the Simons empire has enough people who will keep executing his vision and stave off bureaucratic rot.
I think that fear is why the Gates foundation (or was it the one by Buffett or both?) have to spend down their endowment within a few years of the founder's death and then close shop.
I actually think they both cared. My comment was more to point out that she is still alive and is a computer scientist, so the foundation still has founding leadership.
Man. That Numberphile episode on Fermat's Last Theorem with Simon Singh had me on the edge of my seat like I was as a child when Darth Maul pulled out that double-bladed lightsaber during Phantom Menace. I'm not a math major either.
Another important one! I think they pump a lot of money into the MoMath as well. It's just hard to come up with every way the math world depends on Simons money.
the simons foundation will have influence on machine learning and medicine for many decades to come though and will hopefully be a force of positivity in these fields
I'm not blaming Simons, I am blaming the people I worked for when I worked at arXiv who, again, took a decade to start looking for sustainable funding.
While this thread is by no means as formal of an event. Picture yourself at someones memorial service, before/during/after the service you bring up a topic that is orthogonal to the person's life and frames it about yourself instead of the person being memorialized. Its just a bit weird.
Memorial service? What are you on about? In all likelihood, nobody here had met the guy, and HN would hardly even be on his radar. Picture yourself at a coffee place discussing some celebrity's life event and maybe it won't be so weird anymore.
I think you are underestimating the reach of HN. While I personally didn't know Jim, I know several people who did. And I know many people, me included, who benefited from his generosity and support of science.
I’ve noticed this cycle for the past 30 years on the internet where a useful thing starts out really simply (host a BBS, or host a billion pdfs forever). It’s not trivial, but it seems like it should be pretty low resource.
Then people get hired and are into it and want to get paid (as people do). And costs go up. And slowly more people get added. And instead of looking for cheap ways to operate, they want to fund those people and give them 5% raises every year.
So they look for funders to cover “the bare minimum.”
So rather than figuring out how to operate efficiently, they look for benefactors.
I love arxiv and use it all the time. But why do they have employees? And what are their costs? And why not get it to the point of operating with volunteers.
I suppose someone can do that and set it up. Until then, I’ll just donate or applaud benefactors. And use scihub too I suppose. How much does that cost to run?
When I worked there our estimates were that running costs came to about $5 per published paper compared to $5000-$20,000 at commercial journal publishers. It is still a lean operation but I think it’s a bad sign they moved most operations out of the Ithaca campus and right into high-cost NYC.
I have a spreadsheet. I take action at the end of the year depending on whether I'm itemizing or not (which I'll know at the end). I'm not going to do too much research. I'll add to it if I have a positive experience. If something annoying barely approaches the space of a thing I blacklist. I have some retention of some things on it but others I might fail to blacklist. In this case, I remembered.
I have a good base-case: GiveWell. So I'm content to dump everyone else on the slightest suspicion. I don't really care that much.
Besides the conferences, there is the SCGP at Stony Brook, the Simons Center in Manhattan, whatever MSRI is called now, AMS-Simons travel grants, tons of money for the arXiv, the Magma license deal... and that's just the stuff that I've benefited from personally. I know there's more, Simons Collaboration grants and probably other things I've never heard of. He was very good to us all.
We've always joked that Phds in geometry-adjacent fields have to have one of the highest average incomes of any degree, probably at least $1 million a year. Simons making $3 billion, the rest of us making 90k apiece.