Fixed Missing Link: You and your research

_posts/2016-09-07-phd.markdown

@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ Let me now try to serialize a few thoughts on what goes into this sense of taste
 
 **Be ambitious: the sublinear scaling of hardness.** People have a strange bug built into psychology: a 10x more important or impactful problem intuitively *feels* 10x harder (or 10x less likely) to achieve. This is a fallacy - in my experience a 10x more important problem is at most 2-3x harder to achieve. In fact, in some cases a 10x harder problem may be easier to achieve. How is this? It's because thinking 10x forces you out of the box, to confront the real limitations of an approach, to think from first principles, to change the strategy completely, to innovate. If you aspire to improve something by 10% and work hard then you will. But if you aspire to improve it by 100% you are still quite likely to, but you will do it very differently.
 
-**Ambitious but with an attack.** At this point it's also important to point out that there are plenty of important problems that don't make great projects. I recommend reading [You and Your Research](You and Your Research) by Richard Hamming, where this point is expanded on:
+**Ambitious but with an attack.** At this point it's also important to point out that there are plenty of important problems that don't make great projects. I recommend reading [You and Your Research](https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html) by Richard Hamming, where this point is expanded on:
 
 > If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work. It's perfectly obvious. Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem' must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. We didn't work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity. They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It's not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack. That is what makes a problem important.