Live data from Hacker News

NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

bloomberg.com

51–55 of 55 posts

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#51
Bloomberg article is terrible. Why is HUD moving?

From foxnews: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hud-becomes-first-major-cab...

"The Robert C. Weaver Building is a vacant and run-down monument to waste with half a billion dollars in overdue maintenance," Ernst said, calling it a "cross between a ghost town and a horror show."

Investments to-date in the Weaver building totaled $90 million over the past 15 years, including plaza, roof and façade repairs.

Mold and asbestos containment have plagued the building, which also has only about half of its elevators in working operation.

I live in NOVA. The economies around here are addicted to government spending. As a federal taxpayer I think they should move many federal agencies to other states. USDA to KC was a start. Agriculture to Iowa, DOEnergy to Texas, NASA to Florida, Interior to Colorado for starters

The DC area doesn't have a right to these overpaid jobs.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#52

Years ago I read about how Norway was redistributing agencies out of Oslo and into other cities across the country. This felt like it made intuitive sense, as you'd maybe get to distribute jobs to other localities and break up the concentration of bureaucracy. I haven't read about the outcomes, but I've always wondered what could happen if the DC area did the same.

The counter argument to that is how VC constantly keeps money in SF/Palo Alto/etc because concentrating the workforce has its upside.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#53
post #51

Bloomberg article is terrible. Why is HUD moving? From foxnews: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hud-becomes-first-major-cab... "The Robert C. Weaver Building is a vacant and run-down monument to waste with half a billion dollars in overdue maintenance," Ernst said, calling it a "cross between a ghost town and a horror show." Investments to-date in the Weaver building totaled $90 million over the past 15 years, inclu…

I'm skeptical that the US Government can't manage to renovate a building.

That said, I've no deep concern with HUD moving. The larger story here is the NSF's displacement; coupled with the grant revocations and the proposed slashing of their budget, this seems more a story of "they want to get rid of NSF" than "they want to move HUD".

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an interesting contradiction in the popular discourse here at HN. The government is simultaneously characterized as unable to make the correct decisions and at the same time, characterized as the only viable mechanism to conduct scientific research. These two themes seem contradictory. If they cannot make the "right" decisions or lack competence in leadership, it wouldn't be unreasonable to doubt the efficacy…

> characterized as the only viable mechanism to conduct scientific research… It's the best way of funding basic (i.e. not immediately profitable) research. Stuff like $80k to study the bacteria in Yellowstone's hot springs… which brought us PCR. https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/yvo/news/how-a-thermophil... > How could they possibly identify the problems which are worthy of solving under these conditions? They don't…

>They don't. That's why they have you submit a proposal.

Proposals which are identified as either worthy of funding or rejected.

If anything NPR's selective reporting is misleading. Obviously the overall cost would be much higher than the materials cost of $1k. More over, the treadmill wouldn't exist without the study itself. I don't have a problem with a source like having an NPR editorial or ideological agenda, but the way they twist things is highly misleading. If their case is good, it deserves a better supporting argument.

>It's the best way of funding basic (i.e. not immediately profitable) research.

It isn't difficult to imagine a world where a fisheries association or another large seafood concern voluntarily funded a relevant university study. Whether this would include treadmills for prawns, I cannot say.

Appeals to the status quo of state funded research as the only or best way to achieve outcomes requires a better argument. At best, I think you might offer arguments via pragmatism. It would be reasonable to expect that purely voluntarily funded research would produce different outcomes. As these pursuits would generally be directed towards creating positive economic outcomes, rather than political or ideological ones, we might also expect that these outcomes would be better along the metric of economic value. Politically funded research could reasonably be expected to better at achieving political or ideological outcomes.

However, these are arguments from principle. We would need to test it empirically for those caught in the Scientismic paradigm to accept the results. Under this model of argument, the existence of state funded research tampers with the results. We wouldn't know how a voluntarily funded research regime would function when competing state funds are polluting the pool. Researchers may find it easier to pursue state backed projects than pursue projects which would appeal to the value creation process. This is just one of the flaws in the argumentum ad antiquitatem approach.

>"It's the best way of funding..."

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So admittedly KC isn't the best for the AG sector, but somehow it's still magically better than DC... where all the experts who have worked for the USDA and who are the most familiar with how it operates, live. Forget the point, you don't even have a leg to stand on.

>So admittedly KC isn't the best for the AG sector, but somehow it's still magically better than DC... where all the experts who have worked for the USDA and who are the most familiar with how it operates, live. I'm not saying it's not the best. I'm hedging against people like you making low effort comments that contribute nothing to the discussion like that by saying it might not be the best but it's better than DC

[flagged]
Post reply on HN