31–40 of 106 posts
Every time I read about one of the national labs doing this research, I wonder how much longer we will head about these. I feel fairly positive that DOGE's layoffs and budget cuts mean this output will fade away in time.
[flagged]
Every time I read about one of the national labs doing this research, I wonder how much longer we will head about these. I feel fairly positive that DOGE's layoffs and budget cuts mean this output will fade away in time.
[flagged]
A quote from Carl Sagan’s, Demon Haunted World.
> We are rarely smart enough to set about on purpose making the discoveries that will drive our economy and safeguard our lives. Often, we lack the fundamental research. Instead, we pursue a broad range of investigations of Nature, and applications we never dreamed of emerge. Not always, of course. But often enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think defense budget is facing cuts. They are getting even more money.
The national labs are absolutely getting budget cuts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first line of the articles says "seven-millionths of a second", which would be 1/7μs or 0,14μs. They also mention that the camera shot 16 frames in that period, so that would be once every 0,00875μs or once every 8,75ns Youtubers are a couple of magnitudes away from that, AFAIK
I would say you described "one seven millionth" of a second (1/7,000,000 s) "Seven millionths" would be 7/1,000,000 s (7μs). They take 20 to 40 images in that period using 7 cameras, so any given camera might be as low as 1.4μs per frame.
Every time I read about one of the national labs doing this research, I wonder how much longer we will head about these. I feel fairly positive that DOGE's layoffs and budget cuts mean this output will fade away in time.
I don't think defense budget is facing cuts. They are getting even more money.
Every time I read about one of the national labs doing this research, I wonder how much longer we will head about these. I feel fairly positive that DOGE's layoffs and budget cuts mean this output will fade away in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>What if DOGE savings create more money for important science? >Your answer to this question determines whether you believe in ideology or data. I've upvoted your comment to give you time to show us your data.
There’s one data point against the original comments assumption or intention
Every time I read about one of the national labs doing this research, I wonder how much longer we will head about these. I feel fairly positive that DOGE's layoffs and budget cuts mean this output will fade away in time.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Basic research is important science and is in societies best interest to support it. A quote from Carl Sagan’s, Demon Haunted World. > We are rarely smart enough to set about on purpose making the discoveries that will drive our economy and safeguard our lives. Often, we lack the fundamental research. Instead, we pursue a broad range of investigations of Nature, and applications we never dreamed of emerge. Not always…
[0]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9975718/
[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016975529...
[2]: https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/internet
[3]: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/impact-nih-research/improving-...
Why are science communicators so consistently missing the mark? Is it not obvious that if you're writing an article proclaiming to capture _explosions_ at 7mths of a second, people want to see some pictures of said explosions? Clearly they're understanding that explosions are a hook to grab the reader's attention, but then they just don't include any of the resulting pictures? C'mon y'all! We need to do better here!