Why has Steve Jobs' death got more press than Ralph Steinman's?
Right now, every single story in the top 30 on HN is related to Steve Jobs. A search for "ralph steinman" on HN now turns up a total of two results (but these proportions are not limited to HN). I would like to find an answer and explanation to the question in the title. Was Jobs that much more valuable to society? Whether technology is beneficial to society is out of the question-- did Jobs technological innovations contribute more to society than a Nobel laureate's work in immunology, or does it just come down to popularity with the general public?
5 comments
I'd say it has at least a bit to due with sampling bias - many of the more prolific content-creators on the internet are more likely to comment on the passing of Jobs than Steinman.
Steve Jobs' entire work life relates directly to the industry HN addresses. Ralph Steinman is tangentially interesting.
This explains HN, but not general news sites like the NY Times or the Guardian.
Jobs is more immediate than Steinman. Steinman does invaluable research out of the public eye. Jobs thrusts himself into public consciousness and directly impacts US society with his widely used and advertised products.