| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | cayley_graph 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| That is an enormous budget cut; it is exactly an evisceration. And the general trend is to cut both science and its application. Trials for life-saving treatments _by biotech companies attempting to commercialize them_ are being halted or cancelled due to the science cuts and general corruption. Many people have many complaints; many should be ignored. There's lots of money (and indeed, huge market incentive) to commercialize potentially successful science, and as such it has been done consistently. Curiosity-driven science must feed it, and the idea that it does not unambiguously benefit society at large, with extreme and breathtaking return on investment, is a fantasy perpetuated by those susceptible to the idiotic culture war. |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | cayley_graph 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sorry, I'm not in the business of responding thoughtfully to low effort questions slung rapid-fire over the fence, which moreover take nothing I've said into account. Case in point, this comment; it seems innocuous but would take an extreme amount of effort on my part to reply to what is, I suspect, something you've made up your mind about. I think it's clear from your other comments cited here that you're exactly who I'm talking about: a gullible soldier of the culture war who has perfected the art of
wasting endless quantities of time arguing online. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Sorry, I'm not in the business of responding thoughtfully to low effort questions slung rapid-fire over the fence How is it “low-effort” to ask you to address a point raised in the article itself? The article talks about “decades” of complaints that the NSF isn’t focusing enough on applications. You’re the one who dismisses that in a low-effort way by saying “many people have many complaints.” I’m simply asking you to engage with the points in the article itself. The fact that there’s been “decades” of complaints suggests it’s not some modern “culture war” issue. You’re the one who seems to be trying to shoehorn it into the culture war, instead of addressing the actual issue: the proper balance between fundamental research and applications. | | |
| ▲ | cayley_graph 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Many words expended here to avoid asking an answerable question. Which complaints? Must I recapitulate the last 70 years of history of politics around science in the United States? You have fixated on a singular line from the article rather than reply substantively to anything I've said (which indeed responds to such complaints inasmuch as this is possible without hearing a specific one), because you have little interest in reaching a shared understanding of its subject material (you do not remotely care about any such historical complaints, or I would've heard one by now) relative to your desire to advance the culture war, as laid bare by your other comments. This sort of low-trust behavior, exacerbated by pretending otherwise, is typical of your unfortunate mindset. The tactics of discourse you employ are tired and show no signs of improving. You've unfortunately lost the courtesy of a further response from me. |
| |
| ▲ | solid_fuel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's the game these guys play. It's rapid fire, low-substance Just Asking Questions again and again and again. There's never any actual thought behind it because there's no real desire to engage in the debate as a whole. They don't have backing evidence and don't need it because they aren't starting from a position rooted in facts or logic, they start from a position rooted in feelings like "gender being a social construct makes me feel weird" and work backwards to whatever position they stake out. The best move is always to aggressively call them out for what they are - gullible rubes at best and sociopathic liars at worst - and to not even bother engaging with the muck they sling. |
| |
| ▲ | jrflowers 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | “What is your response to my assumption?” lol | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | voxl 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why is government research doing what the industry should be. The point of government research is to enable people to work on things without requiring some economical impact. The fact you just happily ignore the political situation and the fact this is CLEARLY anti intellectual bullshit says all that needs to be said about you. |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Why is government research doing what the industry should be The government does plenty of applied research in conjunction with industry. E.g. DARPA. |
|
|
| ▲ | solid_fuel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Your entire ass is showing here, liar. You claim that the cuts aren't actually harmful then turn around and clarify that it's good to hurt people: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48636815 that's how it is obvious to everyone here that you aren't even trying to engage in good faith. The linked comment: >> hurting people they don’t like >> genuine desire to improve America > We think these are related, just like you do. The difference is that you assume that hurting billionaires will improve America while we assume that hurting NGOs and postmodernist academics will do so. > And that difference results from the fact that you think you can construct a new society without billionaires and industrialists that nonetheless offers the prosperity we have today, and more. By contrast, we think the way to get more prosperity is to do more of the things that made America prosperous in the past. |
