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

What's happening inside the NIH and NSF

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: What's happening inside the NIH and NSF

#421

Post by lrem »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #281
ggm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to believe some will move for lifestyle reasons, but the problem is the post war IPO landscape (post 1980s really) across biotech and ICT has made one stark barrier: USA is a place where you can go from $100k to $100m vesting if you are lucky. That very few do achieve this isn't the point: you cannot do it, in almost any other economy. You have to be socially smart enough to see that a $100k salary and lifesty…

There's a lot of other benefits to the USA attracting high skill talent than just salary: * English language school system so your kids (if you have them) will speak a world language. * Racially and culturally diverse cultures, cuisines, and communities. * Exposure to goods from most of the world, even if marked up. * Availability of international franchises headquartered in other countries in major metros. * A stron…

Eh, that's not a unique set of strengths. In any European country I know about (at least a dozen) you can get all-English education from kindergarten to PhD. In some for free, in some that's paid, but probably not as expensive as in the US. Everything is really rather a matter of tradeoffs and bang-for-the buck rather than categorical differences. Some European passports offer more access, but without the downsides of the US one. The only matter in which I don't know how to compare is the racial issues, but I hear the US is not exactly free of those either.

Re: What's happening inside the NIH and NSF

#422

Post by Juliate »

fsckboy wrote: post #152
amelius wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> USA is a place where you can go from $100k to $100m vesting if you are lucky. That very few do achieve this isn't the point: you cannot do it, in almost any other economy. That's a kind of lottery-mentality that Europe doesn't want to attract anyway.

> That's a kind of lottery-mentality that Europe doesn't want to attract anyway. the problem with the European thinking you describe is not lottery vs sure-thing, it's the idea that everybody within a geography should should think the same way and not all mentalities "belong".

Not at all. It’s that we experienced several times, first-hand, that some mentalities and mindsets systematically drive our societies to discord, war and death.

And to those mentalities… yes we ought to remind they’re not welcome.

Re: What's happening inside the NIH and NSF

#423

Post by baq »

BrenBarn wrote: post #374
kortilla wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not lottery mentality and thinking that it’s equivalent is why Europe isn’t innovating. If someone wins the lottery and gets rich, society isn’t better off. If someone starts a new company that made a cure for some disease and gets rich, society is much better off. You absolutely want to attract people that want to make huge breakthroughs with unlikely odds of success.

> You absolutely want to attract people that want to make huge breakthroughs with unlikely odds of success. It's fine to want that and to attract those kind of people. What you don't want is to attract people who want to do that in order to make a lot of money .

I used to think that too, but realized it’s very naive later in life. At some point people are good at what they do, but get tired, start a family, want to settle down. Money helps quite a bit to have those folks motivated.

If you want innovators, motivate them with rewards. Money is a great reward since you can turn it into mostly anything you’d like. Want to buy a mansion? Fine. Want to travel around the world? Feel free. Want to give it away to charity? Great!

Re: What's happening inside the NIH and NSF

#424

Post by baq »

77pt77 wrote: post #354
kortilla wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not lottery mentality and thinking that it’s equivalent is why Europe isn’t innovating. If someone wins the lottery and gets rich, society isn’t better off. If someone starts a new company that made a cure for some disease and gets rich, society is much better off. You absolutely want to attract people that want to make huge breakthroughs with unlikely odds of success.

> If someone starts a new company that made a cure for some disease and gets rich, society is much better off. The reality is that you get crap like Facebook, Instagram, Xwitter.

You get both, Facebook’s job is to be known about, so you know about it. There’s a ton of companies doing drug research basically silently… in the US. Most fail, it doesn’t matter as long as a few succeed.

Re: What's happening inside the NIH and NSF

#425

Post by throwawaymaroon »

justanotheratom wrote: post #266
einrealist wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process is the problem. There is no oversight and accountability for Musk and his "DOGE". That's pure poison to Democracy and to a functioning society. Musk is neither competent nor efficient. He looks at line items and makes stuff up. He destroys a hundred useful things to destroy a bad one. Details don't matter to him. Its the same con man mentality that feeds off the works of his workforce. People who think he…

Can you give specific examples to back up your comments about Musk? I am quite gullible otherwise.

[dead]

Re: What's happening inside the NIH and NSF

#427

Post by tc4v »

bawolff wrote: post #4

Seems like a good opportunity for other countries to recruit scientists. I think its underappreciated how much of America's modern success comes down to attracting scientists and intellectuals from war torn europe in the 30s-50s.

> Seems like a good opportunity for other countries to recruit scientists.

would be if any other country actually put money in research... Well there is China, but in Europe we already have more PhD than research position.

Re: What's happening inside the NIH and NSF

#428

Post by chabska »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #99
bawolff wrote: post #4

Seems like a good opportunity for other countries to recruit scientists. I think its underappreciated how much of America's modern success comes down to attracting scientists and intellectuals from war torn europe in the 30s-50s.

it would be a dumb move. any scientist who moves on a whim so easily to chase money is more likely to not be doing good science.

This is a funny take. As researchers, half of their job was just writing grant applications to get more money. Lab supplies don't grow on trees.

Re: What's happening inside the NIH and NSF

#429

Post by flaminHotSpeedo »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #224
lanstin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weird spanner in the works is that while people may be unhappy, they are unhappy because of things they believe that aren't true. Covid response in the US wasn't that bad; global warming really is causing the floods and fires and hurricanes and the EVs really are helping, as would methane emissions rules and so on; if people think the bi-coastal elites are looking down on them (and they are), like so what; that's…

> Covid response in the US wasn't that bad ...what? Trump's son-in-law was put in charge of supply distribution, refused to invoke the defense production act, and when they finally did, Trump took ages to actually "order" ventilators. They refused to implement testing because they knew that tests would show how bad things were and justify measures that would hurt the stock market. Trump largely didn't do anything at…

Ugh it sucks to be reminded of all that bullshit. Though it's good not to forget.

But I think the earlier comment may have been referring to the restrictions in the US relative to other countries. Most other countries were much more severe for their lockdowns

Re: What's happening inside the NIH and NSF

#430

Post by bee_rider »

scarab92 wrote: post #376
miki123211 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do feel for those in the hard sciences Those in the liberal arts probably have it even worse, as their experience usually doesn't translate to industry at all. No idea if that kind of "research" is funded the same way as hard sciences in the US though, it definitely is there.

It's the hard sciences I feel for because they typically deliver good returns on taxpayer funded research expenditure, and are generally disciplined enough to keep their head down and focus on their work, rather than engage in culture wars. In contrast, the humanities made their own bed. They became politically partisan, engaged in systematically discriminatory hiring practices, and routinely conduct research that th…

I think very few people proactively decide to become partisan. Most liberal arts academics just want to work in their special field. Sometimes the things they study get politicized, but that’s mostly the doing of talking heads.

If somebody wanted to become a partisan hack, there are easier ways than getting tenure, right?

Post reply on HN