Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Army applying new areas of math

johndcook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 154 posts

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#71

Post by mattigames »

noobermin wrote: post #44

To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings. The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endle…

Yeah, traditional sources suck, in America; universities should be way more tightly controlled, in a decent society taking 56% of grant money should put some people in jail.

In the year 2019 working for the US military should feel embarrassing, after the Iraq fiasco, support to journalist-killer Saudi crown prince; support to genociders that use child soldiers such as Idriss Déby (Chad), plus many other mistakes makes it reasonable to feel ashamed of working for the US military complex.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#72

Post by 8note »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #69
reificator wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they more often than not assume I'm working on bombs > I only work on mapping software In fairness, those maps are likely used to ensure the bombs go where they should.

Better that they go where they should, than that they go where they shouldn't. The more accurate the mapping, the smaller the bomb can be, and the less collateral damage (presuming that the targeting information is correct).

that assumes the bomber isn't intending to maximize collateral damage

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#73

Post by throwaaaway1231 »

mswen wrote: post #55
noobermin wrote: post #44

To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings. The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endle…

I am reminded of a reception at the HPC User Forum back around 2002. There were a number of people in the room from various national labs and intelligence agencies. I was part of the firm that organized and hosted these meetings. I overhear a guy from NSA kidding a guy from Lawrence Livermore Labs with the following line. "At least I don't design weapons of mass destruction, all I do is read emails" In truth neither…

You say he is joking, but that person does know. I work at a research lab and at our yearly reviews, we have to day how our work directly contributes to a war fighting capacity. If that person thinks they do not contribute they are very seriously naïve or they are filling themselves.

Military labs do not try to make euphemisms for what they do, they want to make sure they directly contribute to a war fighting capability.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#74

Post by vasili111 »

geoka9 wrote: post #45
noobermin wrote: post #44

To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings. The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endle…

> I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something. Personally, I don't understand this, but I'm from an ex-Eastern Bloc country which I was all too happy to escape. I'd rather the US (and the rest of the Western world) made bombs than only Russia and China did. Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force i…

I am from the same boat and tottaly agree with you. Many people dont understand how real Russian threat is.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#75

Post by whatshisface »

throwaaaway1231 wrote: post #73
mswen wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am reminded of a reception at the HPC User Forum back around 2002. There were a number of people in the room from various national labs and intelligence agencies. I was part of the firm that organized and hosted these meetings. I overhear a guy from NSA kidding a guy from Lawrence Livermore Labs with the following line. "At least I don't design weapons of mass destruction, all I do is read emails" In truth neither…

You say he is joking, but that person does know. I work at a research lab and at our yearly reviews, we have to day how our work directly contributes to a war fighting capacity. If that person thinks they do not contribute they are very seriously naïve or they are filling themselves. Military labs do not try to make euphemisms for what they do, they want to make sure they directly contribute to a war fighting capabil…

There are varying degrees of "military lab," my favorite example being the National Ignition Facility.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#76

Post by joejerryronnie »

stevenjohns wrote: post #61
geoka9 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something. Personally, I don't understand this, but I'm from an ex-Eastern Bloc country which I was all too happy to escape. I'd rather the US (and the rest of the Western world) made bombs than only Russia and China did. Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force i…

> Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force is a much nicer alternative to a Russian one. In this case you're only speaking for yourself. Most Asians, from the Middle East through to the South East, would kindly disagree.

Good to know you speak for “most asians”.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#77

Post by reificator »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #69
reificator wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they more often than not assume I'm working on bombs > I only work on mapping software In fairness, those maps are likely used to ensure the bombs go where they should.

Better that they go where they should, than that they go where they shouldn't. The more accurate the mapping, the smaller the bomb can be, and the less collateral damage (presuming that the targeting information is correct).

> Better that they go where they should, than that they go where they shouldn't

True, at least when you're not the one being bombed.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#78

Post by austincheney »

jlarocco wrote: post #62
austincheney wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post is very puzzling. You, on one hand, sound exceptionally well educated but on the other hand describe a social circle that seems exceedingly ignorant or uninformed. Knowing the profound disconnect why would that make you embarrassed?

That's not a very charitable response. Obviously the OP's social circle will know better than that because they know him (or her) and what they actually work on. Among the general public there's a real stereotype about DOD work. When I mention to strangers that I work for a defense contractor, they more often than not assume I'm working on bombs or something like that. Not every time, but often enough that I'm used t…

> Obviously the OP's social circle will know better than that because they know him (or her) and what they actually work on.

If that were true then the OP would not have to explain himself/herself in any way that made him/her feel embarrassed in the first place.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#79

Post by throwaaaway1231 »

whatshisface wrote: post #75
throwaaaway1231 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say he is joking, but that person does know. I work at a research lab and at our yearly reviews, we have to day how our work directly contributes to a war fighting capacity. If that person thinks they do not contribute they are very seriously naïve or they are filling themselves. Military labs do not try to make euphemisms for what they do, they want to make sure they directly contribute to a war fighting capabil…

There are varying degrees of "military lab," my favorite example being the National Ignition Facility.

Heh, can you say more about it?

That is true. I am military and I work in a true military lab, so I probably have a different perspective

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#80

Post by austincheney »

throwaaaway1231 wrote: post #68
austincheney wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post is very puzzling. You, on one hand, sound exceptionally well educated but on the other hand describe a social circle that seems exceedingly ignorant or uninformed. Knowing the profound disconnect why would that make you embarrassed?

I spent two years of my life working on a technology I really hope is never used. I think it's very hard to think about making a technology you know is to killing someone. But at the same time, you know it is necessary. You really wish the world you live in would mean there's no reason to. But that isn't the world you live in.

> I think it's very hard to think about making a technology you know is to killing someone.

That does not appear to be related to this conversation. The OP does not have those worries and instead feels embarrassed when he/she must explain such.

Post reply on HN