311–320 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nondiscrimination is also the law . See Title 6, Title 9 of course the Civil Rights Act
Do you see how you're doing the "even if that is happening, which it isn't, it's actually a good thing" thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is an incomplete list of things that it's impossible to research in industry: 1. Astronomy. 2. Physics. 3. Geophysics concerning the parts of the Earth deeper than the crust. 4. Biology aside from medicine. 5. Chemistry aside from industrial chemistry. 6. Theoretical computer science. 7. Mathematics. I'm not blaming you for not knowing this, but I am holding my head in my hands - how can people not know about as…
> Astronomy. What benefits do you expect to see from the kinds astronomy that require this sort of funding? Sure, knowing things can be nice but this ignores opportunity costs, eg. would practical knowledge like fusion research be further along if talent weren't focused on impractical knowledge? > Physics. Not strictly true, see quantum computing for instance, lasers, semiconductors and so on. There are some types of…
"holding my head in my hands" to quote an earlier poster
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically none of modern optics would exist without astronomy (well at least astronomy is a convenient cover for military/intelligence interests funding better optics). Most of statistics and efficient cameras originate in astronomy/astrophysics (mostly because you have to count all the photons and you are never getting a second relevant measurement point) There are huge parts of physics which are only publicly funde…
> well at least astronomy is a convenient cover for military/intelligence interests funding better optics Right, defense can and has funded research for its own purposes, and sometimes those purposes can find wider commercial application (like the internet). That's all great, national defense is one of the government's primary purposes. > There are huge parts of physics which are only publicly funded. Yes, and? Is th…
This is not true in many aspects. There are many problems with plasma and laser wakefield acceleration. First, the beam quality (emittance and stability) is orders of magnitude below collider requirements. They have demonstrated GeV-scale acceleration over centimeters, but scaling to multi-TeV and maintaining luminosity is not even close to solved. There are no concept for a full detector-ready experimental program exists using wakefield accelerators. But on the other hand, we have "FCC" being based on mature accelerator technologies, with well-understood cost scaling and detector integration that builds on decades on experience building accelerators. Actually it is much safer option than what you are saying.
But the important point is that you are making it binary choice, we can still investigate and work on wakefield accelerators while working on more mature projects. Remember than it takes decades of work and thousands of scientists to make any of these things work. And it is not the question of accelerator itself but what detector can use it and for what physics exactly. We can produce much more interesting physics colliding muons instead off protons but this is much more challenging task and will cost more efforts and will cost more.
Also I would say that Scientific value isn’t measured by compactness or cost alone. This is a VC mindset not a scientist pushing boundaries of knowledge.
> Right, defense can and has funded research for its own purposes, and sometimes those purposes can find wider commercial application (like the internet). That's all great, national defense is one of the government's primary purposes.
Well since we are here. I know it is a cliche by now and many people HN doesn't like to be reminded about that but guess that is the most beneficial CERN output ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The whole reason to collect taxes is for good of the society. There are infinitely many things that are marginally good for society and finitely many resources to accomplish them. Spending on irreplicable research has an opportunity cost that most taxpayers wouldn’t choose. Framing it as empathy to forcibly take their income and subsidize lofty science is ironic.
Another way to look at this is that a country that only spends research money on profitable ventures is going to lose to a country that spends exploratory research money. I, for one, willingly give my cash. You don't get breakthroughs by being timid with this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> realize that you will most likely end up in industry. > Things are quite bleak right now... you think it's bleak that one's research now has to be profitable rather than being subsidized by people paying taxes?
I do, and I'm tired of pretending it's not. If I could legally hypothecate my entire tax payment to science funding, I would. Science research has a high overall economic multiplier and frankly I'm sick of how one political tendency in the US has chosen to clothe itself in ignorance for political gain. It's contemptible.
That is literally the opposite of how taxes work though. Other people decide how your money is spent. If your financial situation was that of the US govt [0] I also don't think you would act the way you say with your earnings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you see how you're doing the "even if that is happening, which it isn't, it's actually a good thing" thing?
No, I don't. What is "that" in your telling? Obeying the law?
There are redresses for breaking the law -- the courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I don't. What is "that" in your telling? Obeying the law?
Performative statements of allegiance. There are redresses for breaking the law -- the courts.
I think you don't know what that word means.
The comment I'm addressing claimed that DEI statements are partisan. They weren't, until an ideologue decides to make them so.
Performative, maybe. In many jobs, I have to prove that I can be legally hired: is that performative as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Performative statements of allegiance. There are redresses for breaking the law -- the courts.
> Performative statements of allegiance . I think you don't know what that word means. The comment I'm addressing claimed that DEI statements are partisan. They weren't, until an ideologue decides to make them so. Performative, maybe. In many jobs, I have to prove that I can be legally hired: is that performative as well?
It's hard to parse how they were used any other way.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250403173227/https://edib.harv...
https://www.thecrimson.com/column/council-on-academic-freedo...
https://www.thecrimson.com/column/council-on-academic-freedo...
Both of the writers seem to believe that DEI statements, as implemented at Harvard, were mildly to wildly partisan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thanks for the pointer. I looked up AFL vs John Roberts, and the lawsuit seems straightforward and has a reasonable basis. https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/04/america-first-legal-fou... "The suit was prompted by the refusal of the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office to respond to AFLF's FOIA requests for copies of communication with the offices of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson,…
Someone with a hacker mindset and domain knowledge might want to understand the subtext of the case, which is more important. I don't think I'll convince you otherwise, but those interested can read this counterpoint to the Reason link with more background and detail: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-ally-steph...
I was raised in a very left wing family where pulling on the rope was required, it's in my blood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Performative statements of allegiance . I think you don't know what that word means. The comment I'm addressing claimed that DEI statements are partisan. They weren't, until an ideologue decides to make them so. Performative, maybe. In many jobs, I have to prove that I can be legally hired: is that performative as well?
Performative : made or done for show (as to bolster one's own image or make a positive impression on others) It's hard to parse how they were used any other way. https://web.archive.org/web/20250403173227/https://edib.harv... https://www.thecrimson.com/column/council-on-academic-freedo... https://www.thecrimson.com/column/council-on-academic-freedo... Both of the writers seem to believe that DEI statements, as implem…
No, it's pretty easy. They were used to comply with the law.
> Both of the writers seem to believe that DEI statements, as implemented at Harvard, were mildly to wildly partisan.
Do you know what partisan means? It means favoring a particular political party. The attempt to cast perfectly normal rules against discrimination as a partisan project is one of the more evil ideas to come out of this administration, and that's saying something. Believe it or not, some people take actions because they have authentic beliefs. Not everything you don't like is performative, and not everything is calculated for it's political impact.
The current government, like you, sees everything through a partisan lens. They thinks that a lawyer who takes the case of a client who opposes the administration is necessarily partisan (and therefore worthy of punishment). More recently, the American Bar Association was singled out for alleged [1] partisanship for having the gall to support a plaintiff who thinks the government should pay its debts. Or how about the Associated Press [2] is a partisan organization now because of the name they choose to assign to the body of water south of the US.
The expansion of the world "partisan" to mean anyone who has any beliefs at all makes every person and every action a partisan. Which means that everyone is either with the administration or against it. That's exactly how they see the world, but that's not the world that I want to live in.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-temporarily-blocks-cance...
[2]https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2025/the-asso...