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

Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 420 posts

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#391

Post by Ajedi32 »

supplied_demand wrote: post #349
Ajedi32 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tax money isn't drained out of the economy. The money used for NASA goes right back into the economy, since they use it to buy things. That's not remotely how this works. By this logic, wars are actually free since the money spent goes to defense contractors who use it to buy things and hire employees. We can have an unlimited military budget with no negative repercussions! As the sibling commenter pointed out, you…

The broken windows fallacy isn’t about government spending. The parable never mentions governments or taxes, you have added that piece. Voluntary economic transactions don’t have a positive ROI by virtue of being voluntary. People and companies engage in negative ROI activities all the time.

People and private companies that are reliant on voluntary transactions for their funding will go bankrupt and be forced to stop if they spend too much on negative ROI activities. Governments can just raise taxes/borrow more money and keep spending until the whole country implodes, unless voters stop them.

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#392

Post by dang »

leptons wrote: post #314
Loughla wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Old. They're old. Gerontocracy means old people. Dems, republicans, both are old. The average age for republicans and democrats in the house is 57 or so. The average in the senate is 62(r) and 65(d). While 57 isn't ancient, it's also not young enough to give a shit about 2070. 62 and 65 year olds certainly don't care about a date so far in the future that their kids will be dead.

[flagged]

Breaking the site guidelines like this is not cool and will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. You unfortunately have been in the habit of breaking them.

Edit: we've had to ask you this a lot:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42065061 (Nov 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41684566 (Sept 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36870132 (July 2023)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25182199 (Nov 2020)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25146606 (Nov 2020)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24483757 (Sept 2020)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24475231 (Sept 2020)

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#393

Post by xedrac »

davidw wrote: post #378
xedrac wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he was a citizen, then I would definitely have a problem with it. The problem I see is that asylum claims have been so abused recently that they have become an entitlement rather than an exceptional case. I don't know the specifics of this guy, but a judge ruled in his case to not keep him here. Maybe there's a good reason for that, or maybe the judge is sick of what has transpired over the last 4 years and is ove…

So first you're for legal immigration, and then well, no, not like that. "Do things the proper way" is just a facade for the xenophobia. The guy worked with the US in Afghanistan. Do you not think he has a real case here? He'll get killed if they send him back.

On the surface, yes, it looks like he has a strong case for asylum. But the judge denied it for some reason, which I assume is based on something more than personal feelings. I am not familiar enough with him or his case to judge for myself, and I am certainly not going to blindly accept what the news says, as they have proven to be almost completely void of unbiased information.

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#396

Post by hackyhacky »

roenxi wrote: post #354
hackyhacky wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although the article is from the LA Times, California is not the only state with science research. Since research benefits everyone, it makes sense and is more efficient to fund it under the largest possible umbrella.

Counterpoint: No it doesn't. I've included about as convincing an argument so hopefully that satisfies you. But I feel that is a bit light for a comment so I'll go further - producing food is a benefit to everyone and that isn't funded under the largest possible umbrella. It is funded under a highly decentralised system and works unbelievably efficiently. There is no reason to think science is different. Even the big…

> Counterpoint: No it doesn't. I've included about as convincing an argument so hopefully that satisfies you.

I don't seen any evidence. Would you say that government investment in space, the internet, or medicine does not benefit the general public?

> producing food is a benefit to everyone and that isn't funded under the largest possible umbrella. It is funded under a highly decentralised system and works unbelievably efficiently.

Among other mechanisms, the federal government provides extensive financial support and incentives to food growers. Are you saying that federal food subsidies should be eliminated under the same principle as eliminating research?

> have shown to be fund-able by a disparate group of entities (ironically governments).

I feel like you are undermining your own point here.

> Interested parties can just fund science directly.

They can, but historically, profit-motivated non-governmental entities are sufficiently risk-averse that they are unwilling or unable to invest in basic research, i.e. such research that may or may not have a monetizable application. The internet is the classic example of this class of research.

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#397

Post by roenxi »

hackyhacky wrote: post #396
roenxi wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: No it doesn't. I've included about as convincing an argument so hopefully that satisfies you. But I feel that is a bit light for a comment so I'll go further - producing food is a benefit to everyone and that isn't funded under the largest possible umbrella. It is funded under a highly decentralised system and works unbelievably efficiently. There is no reason to think science is different. Even the big…

> Counterpoint: No it doesn't. I've included about as convincing an argument so hopefully that satisfies you. I don't seen any evidence. Would you say that government investment in space, the internet, or medicine does not benefit the general public? > producing food is a benefit to everyone and that isn't funded under the largest possible umbrella. It is funded under a highly decentralised system and works unbelieva…

I have some respect for arguments so I'll avoid the snark this time. However, I don't see how any of this is particularly relevant. It seems to be very pro-government but if you scroll up a bit you'll see my original post was arguing that in this instance the Californian government could fund this; if they care. So I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.

> Are you saying that federal food subsidies should be eliminated under the same principle as eliminating research?

That sounds like a good idea to me. Probably, yes.

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#399

Post by trust_bt_verify »

rockemsockem wrote: post #386
trust_bt_verify wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are some private contracts which do not contain the bloat of private profit?

Government employees profit from work they do too. There is no enterprise that people should engage in that does not provide profit to them personally. What are you saying?

That’s an odd take, I never said people should not be paid a living wage for their contributions to the country. However, when was the last time the government authorized a multibillion dollar pay package for a single worker? The government doesn’t have stock buy backs, they don’t have dividends to pay out. That is where private business greed comes in and has no place in public government work. That kind bloat is what I am highlighting in private business.

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#400

Post by bumby »

rockemsockem wrote: post #388
bumby wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you measuring effectiveness? It seems like you might have a pretty shallow perspective on what NASA does and what their goals are. For example, do you know how many mission directorates they have and how they differ?

Not the person you're responding to, but JWT, SLS, and several other projects have suffered extreme bloat in both cost and timeline. Mega projects like that are some of the most public -facing things NASA does, so they unfortunately tend to drive public perception. I will never argue that NASA doesn't accomplish amazing things, but large parts of the organization are ineffective. IDK if I'd go so far as to say the en…

It does read to me that many people view this with the same lens we apply to private companies.

As an example, some of the bloat is intentional because it buys down political risk. It would be more efficient to have a program like SLS done within a single NASA center. But that also makes it easier to cut funding because there are a limited number of constituents affected by those cuts. This is exacerbated by long timeline projects that don’t align with shorter political timelines. By spreading the project to many centers, it adds inefficiency but also ensures the survivability of the project. To an extent, there has a a good chance there never would be audacious projects if they were run with maximum financial efficiency. So you’re stuck with the choice of an efficient project that never gets completed or inefficient one that does. As a taxpayer, I’m not thrilled with that dynamic but I understand why it exists

Post reply on HN