And, yes, it is a false dichotomy to say we can only fund one. But the other reality is that we have only so much money for the sciences and one dollar spent on one project is one not spent on the other.
Of all major industries, energy has the smallest percentage total revenue directed to funding research. That's already hinting at a problem.
And there's the fact that a fuckton of that is going to "exploration", i.e. finding more fossil fuels we don't really need.
Solar is good. Solar is wonderful. Solar has legitimate problems too. You seem to be perfectly willing to sell out the long term future for the medium term, which is the weirdest case of short-sightedness I've ever seen.
There's nothing anti-nuclear about reporting positive events in fusion development. I don't care how much bias you're used to seeing, there's no point in screaming "bias" when bias is clearly not present.
And here is that cynicism personified. Notice how anonymous coward here doesn't mention any sort of concrete goals he thinks should have been met, and haven't. Notice how he talks about a money pit, but doesn't talk about allocation. It always always always reads as repeating complaints you've heard somewhere else.
Tell me, how much slippage on the NIF timeline would be too much? Or ITER? What scientific results do you think have been unsatisfactory?
Public cynicism about fusion seems to have peaked at almost exactly the same time as there are a lot of new ideas and experiments ready to go.
Even the needlessly big, expensive NIF has hit some amazing recent roadmarks recently(scientific net positive), while at the same time their funding is being slashed. Lots of new clever experiments seem to be promising(like Larwenceville plasma physics' Focus Fusion record heat density), in an era where no one in policy positions seems interested in chasing the tech.
I'm glad Princeton is getting back in the game, but everything I hear says there won't be enough funding to actually get the staffing they need.
I'm going to guess, though I could just be acting like an insensitive clod, that you've never had to deal with the debilitation of a missing limb. I feel like it's going to be a pretty appealing option to a lot of people.
And as far as "invasive surgery" goes, amputations are pretty much top of that category too.
No, causation can actually have a negative correlation, surprisingly.
It's relatively easy to generate cases where X can be caused by 2 different things, but the majority case simply has a stronger effect, if you don't account for mediating factors.
Let's take a case where everything is controlled by people so cause can be quite directly ascribed. Applying for US citizenship causes US citizenship. But among residents of the US, those applying for US citizenship are far less likely to end up being citizens than those who don't.
Not absolutely in a purist sense, no. It's less oriented on documenting fundamental and immutable phenomena that the universe operates on.
Howerver: It certainly uses the scientific method. Modern social science(less so political science) is predicated on using objective measures, falsification, and experimentation. It definitely is intended to provide useful predictive models. There is the expectation of academic rigor, peer review, and ideas standing with respect to tradition(except inasmuch as tradition itself is studied). It's not the "social studies" you were forced to write dozens of boring papers on in high school, actual modern social scientists are much more interested in fact that opinion.
The paper isn't a security research paper. They're social scientists trying to put a tighter pinpoint on the behaviors and methods of the Chinese government.
The abstract linked in the summary doesn't even suggest the paper contains a list of "what" is censored. It's more about "how" its supposed to be censored.
Qualifications about processes for popular users, manual deletion, automatic deletion, when to user ban, when to IP ban. They only briefly mention a few specific keywords: riot, terrorism, masses.
the Chinese government would see it and crack down even harder on net access
Um, how, exactly?
It's not like they're going to change their standards over this. What allowed this to happen is that the task of censorship is so time consuming and broad that the government had to outsource some of the work to the site runners.
(Government) censorship is always top-heavy, and always relies on a degree of volunteerism from the populace. The most this researcher did is made the government a bit more paranoid about the actions of foreign nationals.
Studying governments and cultures is an important branch of academia, and while it was ethically questionable, it's still entirely within the domain of critical examination.
I certainly won't pretend that this mechanism leaves no gray areas exactly like you described.
It leaves lots of gray areas. And people fight about the dtails on wikipedia all the time. I don't think the solution is to remove that sole requirement for notability, though.
Unfortunately, financial harm is a real thing. And it can, thanks to how we run our economy, result in physical harm to real people.
That doesn't mean that this case represents real financial harm, or even if it did, that someone might go hungry as a result. But in our world, you need money to survive.
I'm always wary for this quid pro quo notion of justice that you're implicitly backing, because harm can be difficult to both quantify and qualify, and retrobution doesn't achieve nearly as much as we think it does. Let me restate that I'd almost certainly agree with the conclusions of the argument you presented, but I don't necessarily endorse the argument itself.
Oh yeah, what "people are like" is definitely a good source of factual information. That's a brilliant plan.^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W
Okay, got the sarcastic energy out of my system. I have no need to be so hostile about this. Wikipedia requires some means to resolve content disputes. For any article, period.
If I went to your Goulet page, and editted to say that Goulet pens cause 30 infant deaths/year due to lack of safety testing, how is anyone going to objectively tell whether that's more or less true than whatever you put?
They can't. But if a business journal reports a sudden spike in the pen market due this company, that's a thing that anyone can backtrack and verify.
Hearsay is for the rest of the internet, Wikipedia is for things someone with some expertise has laid down as fact elsewhere. It aggregates reliable information. not all information.
Tech skills are hard to objectively verify. Technical results are hard to objectively verify. We collectively proxy that by having lots of tests, competitions, selection, and other heuristics. But that's not a symptom of us respecting skill more than other jobs(maybe more than other specific office jobs, but not more than lawyers, doctors, manufacturing technicians, similar things), it's a symptom of it being really hard to tell.
These companies are looking to take shortcuts. And some are looking for excuses to cut salaries. That's it.
If it were really important, bear with me here, someone might write an article in, say, a business newspaper of repute.
"Some specific subculture likes a thing" is a really poor criteria, because those subcultures tend to get their own ass with false information. Sorry to phrase it so coarsely, but what you're proposing is a natural avenue to publishing false information.
A sufficient degree of falsity is enough to completely undermine an encyclopedia's credibility. Why is this brands' website insufficient for the kind of information you want to disseminate? What would being on wikipedia add besides false credibility? Your arguments seem like ad-hoc rhetoric rather for a pet cause than a genuine justification.
The word "sheep" is a sure-fire bet that someone is experiencing cognitive dissonance. Either that, or you're just out of substantive ideas. Either way, game over.
It's a bit like "you won't buy into my absolutist ideology because you're a mindless follower" as if absolutist ideologies didn't attract exactly that sort more than anything else.
And of course, we won't. Because flight is entirely different in so many ways from driving that things that do fly wouldn't be called cars.
We have all sorts of flying transportation, traditional helicopters, airplanes, balloons, quadrotors, with all kinds of different properties, and functions. None of them are much like cars, all of them are more expensive. All of them require more skill to operate. But they exist, and you could get one today if you really wanted.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm so damned slow. I didn't catch that.
With that critical piece of information, I think this is snark directed at his detractors.
And, yes, it is a false dichotomy to say we can only fund one. But the other reality is that we have only so much money for the sciences and one dollar spent on one project is one not spent on the other.
Of all major industries, energy has the smallest percentage total revenue directed to funding research. That's already hinting at a problem.
And there's the fact that a fuckton of that is going to "exploration", i.e. finding more fossil fuels we don't really need.
Solar is good. Solar is wonderful. Solar has legitimate problems too. You seem to be perfectly willing to sell out the long term future for the medium term, which is the weirdest case of short-sightedness I've ever seen.
There's nothing anti-nuclear about reporting positive events in fusion development. I don't care how much bias you're used to seeing, there's no point in screaming "bias" when bias is clearly not present.
And here is that cynicism personified. Notice how anonymous coward here doesn't mention any sort of concrete goals he thinks should have been met, and haven't. Notice how he talks about a money pit, but doesn't talk about allocation. It always always always reads as repeating complaints you've heard somewhere else.
Tell me, how much slippage on the NIF timeline would be too much? Or ITER? What scientific results do you think have been unsatisfactory?
Looks like a sphere with an empty column down the middle
Public cynicism about fusion seems to have peaked at almost exactly the same time as there are a lot of new ideas and experiments ready to go.
Even the needlessly big, expensive NIF has hit some amazing recent roadmarks recently(scientific net positive), while at the same time their funding is being slashed. Lots of new clever experiments seem to be promising(like Larwenceville plasma physics' Focus Fusion record heat density), in an era where no one in policy positions seems interested in chasing the tech.
I'm glad Princeton is getting back in the game, but everything I hear says there won't be enough funding to actually get the staffing they need.
Genuinely and honestly, yes.
Reminder: you're talking about trolling the physically disabled.
Socially, that's usually considered off limits.
I'm going to guess, though I could just be acting like an insensitive clod, that you've never had to deal with the debilitation of a missing limb. I feel like it's going to be a pretty appealing option to a lot of people.
And as far as "invasive surgery" goes, amputations are pretty much top of that category too.
No, causation can actually have a negative correlation, surprisingly.
It's relatively easy to generate cases where X can be caused by 2 different things, but the majority case simply has a stronger effect, if you don't account for mediating factors.
Let's take a case where everything is controlled by people so cause can be quite directly ascribed.
Applying for US citizenship causes US citizenship.
But among residents of the US, those applying for US citizenship are far less likely to end up being citizens than those who don't.
or science
Not absolutely in a purist sense, no. It's less oriented on documenting fundamental and immutable phenomena that the universe operates on.
Howerver:
It certainly uses the scientific method. Modern social science(less so political science) is predicated on using objective measures, falsification, and experimentation.
It definitely is intended to provide useful predictive models.
There is the expectation of academic rigor, peer review, and ideas standing with respect to tradition(except inasmuch as tradition itself is studied).
It's not the "social studies" you were forced to write dozens of boring papers on in high school, actual modern social scientists are much more interested in fact that opinion.
The paper isn't a security research paper. They're social scientists trying to put a tighter pinpoint on the behaviors and methods of the Chinese government.
Research in general isn't "real" until it's in a published journal someone can cite in the future. There's like a "purity of information" thing.
Also: social and political science isn't humanities.
The abstract linked in the summary doesn't even suggest the paper contains a list of "what" is censored. It's more about "how" its supposed to be censored.
Qualifications about processes for popular users, manual deletion, automatic deletion, when to user ban, when to IP ban. They only briefly mention a few specific keywords: riot, terrorism, masses.
the Chinese government would see it and crack down even harder on net access
Um, how, exactly?
It's not like they're going to change their standards over this. What allowed this to happen is that the task of censorship is so time consuming and broad that the government had to outsource some of the work to the site runners.
(Government) censorship is always top-heavy, and always relies on a degree of volunteerism from the populace. The most this researcher did is made the government a bit more paranoid about the actions of foreign nationals.
Studying governments and cultures is an important branch of academia, and while it was ethically questionable, it's still entirely within the domain of critical examination.
I certainly won't pretend that this mechanism leaves no gray areas exactly like you described.
It leaves lots of gray areas. And people fight about the dtails on wikipedia all the time. I don't think the solution is to remove that sole requirement for notability, though.
Unfortunately, financial harm is a real thing. And it can, thanks to how we run our economy, result in physical harm to real people.
That doesn't mean that this case represents real financial harm, or even if it did, that someone might go hungry as a result. But in our world, you need money to survive.
I'm always wary for this quid pro quo notion of justice that you're implicitly backing, because harm can be difficult to both quantify and qualify, and retrobution doesn't achieve nearly as much as we think it does. Let me restate that I'd almost certainly agree with the conclusions of the argument you presented, but I don't necessarily endorse the argument itself.
Oh yeah, what "people are like" is definitely a good source of factual information. That's a brilliant plan.^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W
Okay, got the sarcastic energy out of my system. I have no need to be so hostile about this. Wikipedia requires some means to resolve content disputes. For any article, period.
If I went to your Goulet page, and editted to say that Goulet pens cause 30 infant deaths/year due to lack of safety testing, how is anyone going to objectively tell whether that's more or less true than whatever you put?
They can't. But if a business journal reports a sudden spike in the pen market due this company, that's a thing that anyone can backtrack and verify.
Hearsay is for the rest of the internet, Wikipedia is for things someone with some expertise has laid down as fact elsewhere. It aggregates reliable information. not all information.
It's not colleagues, duh. It's subordinates.
You ask them: "Do you want to be fired today for saying no, or fired in 6 months when they let us hire a cheaper replacement for you?"
Let's be honest here: no it isn't.
Tech skills are hard to objectively verify. Technical results are hard to objectively verify. We collectively proxy that by having lots of tests, competitions, selection, and other heuristics. But that's not a symptom of us respecting skill more than other jobs(maybe more than other specific office jobs, but not more than lawyers, doctors, manufacturing technicians, similar things), it's a symptom of it being really hard to tell.
These companies are looking to take shortcuts. And some are looking for excuses to cut salaries. That's it.
Nah, actual facts like these aren't important. Instead, let's mod up the anonymous coward who calls PhD's talking about hard data "sketchy science".
If it were really important, bear with me here, someone might write an article in, say, a business newspaper of repute.
"Some specific subculture likes a thing" is a really poor criteria, because those subcultures tend to get their own ass with false information. Sorry to phrase it so coarsely, but what you're proposing is a natural avenue to publishing false information.
A sufficient degree of falsity is enough to completely undermine an encyclopedia's credibility. Why is this brands' website insufficient for the kind of information you want to disseminate? What would being on wikipedia add besides false credibility? Your arguments seem like ad-hoc rhetoric rather for a pet cause than a genuine justification.
So, in the shape of a car? That's the only requirement?
They exist and you can't have one.
The word "sheep" is a sure-fire bet that someone is experiencing cognitive dissonance. Either that, or you're just out of substantive ideas. Either way, game over.
It's a bit like "you won't buy into my absolutist ideology because you're a mindless follower" as if absolutist ideologies didn't attract exactly that sort more than anything else.
And of course, we won't. Because flight is entirely different in so many ways from driving that things that do fly wouldn't be called cars.
We have all sorts of flying transportation, traditional helicopters, airplanes, balloons, quadrotors, with all kinds of different properties, and functions. None of them are much like cars, all of them are more expensive. All of them require more skill to operate. But they exist, and you could get one today if you really wanted.