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

NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#41

Post by monero-xmr »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33
monero-xmr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a lack of imagination. The research lead to Google and OpenAI, but you can’t imagine such research could have happened without taxpayer funding. Furthermore there is no return to the taxpayer for the funding, other than esoteric “America benefits when the research happens in America”

> you can’t imagine such research could have happened without taxpayer funding In a vacuum, maybe. But if China is subsidising basic research, it doesn’t make sense for private enterprise to do it here. That technology base shifts to where its cost of capital is lowest. This is practically how America ascended—putting massive public resources behind emerging science and technology before the fractured powers of Europ…

Funneling massive amounts of taxpayer dollars perhaps made sense in a pre-internet age where central planning of research was potentially more efficient when capital moved slowly and wasn’t large enough to fund such endeavors. I truly think that time passed decades ago.

I would entertain arguments for situations where huge amounts of taxpayer dollars might be required because the private sector doesn’t show up. But the bar has to be way, way higher than it has been.

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#42

Post by runsWphotons »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33
monero-xmr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a lack of imagination. The research lead to Google and OpenAI, but you can’t imagine such research could have happened without taxpayer funding. Furthermore there is no return to the taxpayer for the funding, other than esoteric “America benefits when the research happens in America”

> you can’t imagine such research could have happened without taxpayer funding In a vacuum, maybe. But if China is subsidising basic research, it doesn’t make sense for private enterprise to do it here. That technology base shifts to where its cost of capital is lowest. This is practically how America ascended—putting massive public resources behind emerging science and technology before the fractured powers of Europ…

Until somewhat recently America had an advantage in commercialising the basic research. But now increasingly we fund some basic research to the tune of tens of millions of dollars only to see it commercialised overseas (often by China but by others too), often when technical know how is exfiltrated and patents ignored. This reduces the expected benefit of funding the research.

Science has been a big part of the US dominant lead but I think it is quite a stretch to say it is how America ascended. Historically it is better case that America ascended through industrial and commercial might which led to the victory in WW2 (in which the nuclear bomb was a small footnote in reality--much more important after).

The growth gains are how the funding produces an eventual return but this is increasingly globalised (i.e. there is not always a particular gain to Americans). Some company in Europe might be the one which wins the market, giving everyone lower prices but only the european taxpayer a special gain. There is a kind of tragedy of commons here. Science is probably advanced the most when there is a dominant industrial commercialising power which foots the bill?

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#44

Post by monero-xmr »

oefrha wrote: post #38
hodgesrm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When corporations that actually have a market test and profit motive are funding the research, avenues that are unlikely to succeed will be cut off sooner... It's hard to see how your suggestion would work for fundamental advances in technology. For example, backpropagation took decades to move from an idea to industrial use. [0] It was also "invented" multiple times. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpropagati…

Explaining the value of fundamental research and long term societal investment to some crypto bro is an utter waste of time. Polar opposite mindset.

I understood the value of crypto well before the vast majority of people and made a significant amount of money. While that isn’t an argument in favor of my opinions on other subjects, the pejorative of “crypto bro” is certainly inaccurate considering I noticed a massive profit opportunity well before most others, and instead should signal that I have heterodox opinions that might be accurate before the small-c conservatives (i.e. academics writ large) accept the truths

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#45

Post by ricksunny »

cheaprentalyeti wrote: post #40
ricksunny wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah we have a Linda Moulton Howe fan here I see =)

Hey, I'm collecting money for my expedition to see what's beyond the ice wall. I hope this will be more successful than the last expedition I sent, this time I'm sending them with a starlink terminal.

What’s your best source link for the NSF researchers alleged to have disappeared there for two weeks back in the 1990s?

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#46

Post by exe34 »

monero-xmr wrote: post #31
exe34 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a shit argument. Fundamental research funded by the government led to the Googles and OpenAIs of today. If industry funds research, the profits stay in the hands of the same people. When government funds research, new billionaires are minted down the line. if you like billionaires (I don't), you'd fund government research, not hope that the existing billionaires think it's in their interest. We wouldn't know abo…

You have a lack of imagination. The research lead to Google and OpenAI, but you can’t imagine such research could have happened without taxpayer funding. Furthermore there is no return to the taxpayer for the funding, other than esoteric “America benefits when the research happens in America”

> You have a lack of imagination.

Maybe I should move to lalaland too. It sounds nice there.

Back in reality, American economic and military supremacy was founded on Government funding fundamental research and industry using it to create unprecedented growth in wealth and quality of life for mot people in the form of jobs. China has figured it out, and they are forging ahead. America is heading back to the middle ages.

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#47

Post by jltsiren »

palmfacehn wrote: post #37
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can’t imagine such research could have happened without taxpayer funding In a vacuum, maybe. But if China is subsidising basic research, it doesn’t make sense for private enterprise to do it here. That technology base shifts to where its cost of capital is lowest. This is practically how America ascended—putting massive public resources behind emerging science and technology before the fractured powers of Europ…

Equating central planning with liberty feels like a reach. Can you think of any examples where central planning resulted in misallocated resources? If so, why is state directed research a special case? If the state has cancelled research for 'impure' political motives, how would we know that it hasn't directed state research (and outcomes) for similarly impure political reasons? There's an interesting contradiction i…

People who support public funding for research are usually strongly opposed to central planning in the allocation of the funds. They don't want to have uninformed politicians, administrators, and citizens deciding what research is worth funding. They want to have the decisions done in the field, by people who understand the topic.

Public funding does not require centralization. While the American style of governance is top-heavy, the EU is less centralized, with most resources at the state level. Each state has its own agencies for funding research, and together they distribute much more funding than EU-level agencies.

There are also plenty of private organizations funding basic research. European elites have traditionally found it prestigious to support arts and sciences, and hence there are many private foundations funding research. While some elements of that culture made it to the US, it's not as strong there as it is in Europe. Instead, rich Americans prefer direct donations to universities, which often use the money for buildings and student amenities.

In other words, American universities rely more on central sources of research funding, as the states are less capable and private entities less interested than in Europe.

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#48

Post by potato3732842 »

mlinhares wrote: post #23
brendoelfrendo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.propublica.org/article/video-project-2025-presid... Consider the video "Staffing an Office" where Jeff Small, a former advisor in the Department of the Interior says “When you work for the federal government everything you put in an email, text, or note is FOIAable and releasable to the American people. At interior, we had a ton of in person meetings which allowed us to speak a little more freely about th…

And also keeping plausible deniability for the people at the top. They never told anyone to do anything, they decided to do this themselves. The third reich was full of this as well.

>And also keeping plausible deniability for the people at the top. They never told anyone to do anything, they decided to do this themselves. The third reich was full of this as well.

Dude, every single government ever in the history of humanity works this way. The appointed administrators of ancient rome were scheming up ways to serve their benefactors without leaving a tablet trail that their benefactors opponents could complain about. When I worked for a podunk state department of a well run solidly blue state 15yr ago we did this. There were meetings with no agenda where they'd verbally go over what the new boss's (appointed positions at top of department, not the governor himself) inclinations were on areas of policy relevant to the department and there would be discussion about how to align to that. And this wasn't people who reported to the boss, these were line level workers and middle managers. This wasn't coming from the top down. This was the bottom simply knowing what was good for it.

And just to be clear, just because it's always like this doesn't mean you shouldn't hate it and hate them for doing it.

Re: NSF plans end to lone U.S. Antarctic research icebreaker

#50

Post by pastage »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #39
sbierwagen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not subtle. Donald perceives colleges as bastions of wokeness. Nature literally endorsed Joe Biden: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02852-x Now that he's president, here come the reprisals. Zero out NSF's funding, shut down NPR, end the COVID era break on student loan enforcement, withdraw grants from Harvard.

If your research is funded by taxpayer dollars, you're a public servant and you should welcome public accountability. You should accept that explaining the public benefit of what you do is part of your job, and accept the possibility that the public won't see eye-to-eye with regard to that benefit. The fundamental problem is that scientists stopped thinking of themselves as public servants, and started thinking of th…

You are not automatically a public servant if you are funded by taxes. In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people. E.g. handle who gets a tax cut, go to jail, or other things that we need to out source to people that serve our interests in powerful ways. It is important to differentiate them from people that just do a thing for money.

Further more saying things like "It is your fault that you are in front of my fist" is not productive. Being antiscience is the problem here not being antileft.

Post reply on HN