101–110 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh you mean like funding science? Dumbass.
This is funding science. Literally just reallocating funding from one part of the pipeline to another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems like typical establishment / reactionary push-back. NSF is spinning up Focused Research Organizations, which are very effective ways of getting basic research done that wouldn't otherwise be funded, and to do so in a way that allows for commercial spin-offs. That's not a handout.
The whole point of an FRO is to have less oversight than a traditional government grant or contract.
For example, let's say you want to make a fundamentally different kind of microscope, or nano-fabrication lab. Something that requires many millions of $$ to setup, and further tens of millions to operate. That's too much for an SBIR grant, too expensive for industry to do on a lark. An FRO could setup the lab and run it for 5-7 years, accomplishing major research goals while proving out the concept. But it'll never get done on a spoon-fed sequence of small grants.
So you grant an organization $50M/yr to do this work, with broad freedoms to spend that money how they see fit, so long as progress is made towards the research goals. That's an FRO. Yes, technically that is a government grant with less regulatory oversight. But it's not libertarian philosophy that drives that outcome, so much as regulatory oversight is not setup to fund such efforts in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Iran war really brought them to the surface, a lot of them were very unhappy with the Trump administration about that. So, like...Thomas Massie and Rand Paul? There were only four republicans in the House and four in the Senate to vote to limit war powers, and I don't think you could claim Murkowski or Collins are isolationists. Or did you mean this subset was "very unhappy" in like a completely impotent and me…
> Or did you mean this subset was "very unhappy" in like a completely impotent and meaningless way? That’s how I understood it, yes. So unhappy that they’ll write him in for a third term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> quantum computers, fusion, synthetic bio, space exploration, asteroid mining Poster children for tech with no realistic commercial prospects. Projects in these fields have been pipe dreams for decades. Where are any commercial products in the areas of fusion reactors? Quantum computers? Asteroid mining operations? If private investors want to fund this stuff, fine. As long as they don't come seeking bailouts later.
Not only that, but fusion itself is absolutely not what a tech venture capitalist wants to fund. The research horizon for fusion power is in the multiple decades. You're never going to find an investor that says "Yeah, I'll give you enough money to build a fusion reactor and do research for 20+ years in the hopes that you get something workable" Fusion is literally still in the pure science stage that OP was telling…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or did you mean this subset was "very unhappy" in like a completely impotent and meaningless way? That’s how I understood it, yes. So unhappy that they’ll write him in for a third term.
In our system we generally have the choice between two candidates. You can be "very unhappy" with one but still think he is a better option than the other one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But not even. At least in the domain I work in, there is virtually no interest of engaging with these NSF programs. Regardless of what's put in writing in the calls for applicants, there's still a significant prejudice that NSF - by being a part of the government - will be slow and ineffective at administering awards, and therefore it's a waste of time for any agile, fast-moving company. On the flip-side, my academic…
We have worked with many (NSF funded) research centers over the past decade. It (accidentally) became our speciality. If you know research centers that are looking for software dev firms that understand how to work with NSF funded grants and research centers, I’d love to connect.
Apologies if this interpretation is off-base, but I don't think it's a good thing that there is a nascent cottage industry of "software dev firms" that are elbowing their way into these grants. That is another glaring warning sign that what the NSF is doing right now is grossly inconsistent with what it is _supposed_ to be doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone with a bare understanding of the history of science would understand how bad of an assumption that is. You specifically have the much harder problem of explaining how you intend to maintain tech dominance with a Cultural Revolution and also without any foreigners or any of the many various groups of citizens you find personally undesirable.
I’m pretty sure we can maintain technological dominance with the O-visa and E-visa programs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have worked with many (NSF funded) research centers over the past decade. It (accidentally) became our speciality. If you know research centers that are looking for software dev firms that understand how to work with NSF funded grants and research centers, I’d love to connect.
Can you share more about who you are and what your firm does? Apologies if this interpretation is off-base, but I don't think it's a good thing that there is a nascent cottage industry of "software dev firms" that are elbowing their way into these grants. That is another glaring warning sign that what the NSF is doing right now is grossly inconsistent with what it is _supposed_ to be doing.
But occasionally those research centers have needed help on the cloud side setting up servers to do their research. So we’ve supported them there, but again mainly in an IT/programming capacity.
We aren’t competing for grants. We leave that to the scientists. :-)
Our company is KZN Consulting (kznconsulting.com) and our product is SimplyScholar.com