851–860 of 877 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The second was on the automated stitching of imagery from UAVs for murder applications Fixed that for you
FWIW the application was to send up UAVs after Air Force runways were attacked to isolate exact locations and sizes of damage, to allow for the fastest possible fixes to be made. In these situations, seconds and minutes matter as the planes in the air need a place to land before they run out of fuel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have two crazy policies: - Forcing this irrelevant nonsense into maths grant applications. - Cancelling the grant applications because they contain this nonsense. And science is the loser. . One example: This grant was for $500,000: " Elliptic and Parabolic Partial Differential Equations ABSTRACT Partial differential equations (PDE) are mathematical tools that are used to model natural phenomena like electromagnet…
Given the current administration is slashing so many programs it's clear there is a lot of language in many grants that has "DEI" or DEI-adjacent language. What is not clear is: 1) This is "forced" due to any government policy. 2) Any such policies could be attributed only to the Biden administration, or even any single administration. I was curious so I stalked the PI in the linked grant, who happens to be female. H…
But yes it wasn't just top-down. The diversity statements in faculty hiring started about ten years ago and started becoming mandatory and used for screening at many places about five years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hiring on merit can increase representation of underrepresented groups. There are also shitloads of decisions one can make that increase representation of underrepresented groups without violating Title 7. You can have better parental leave and part-time work policies. Or you can open an office in a region with different racial demographics. Or you can send recruiters to events like Grace Hopper. The idea that leader…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think their point is the billions in private investment which preceded those millions. But the "billions" didn't precede the "millions". They're just completely incorrect, and anyone that knows even a tiny amount about the actual history can see it immediately. That's why these comment sections are so polarized. It's a bunch of people vibe commenting vs people that have spent even like an hour researching the ind…
You seem to be arguing that the second government touches anything then everything it does gets credited to the government funding column. Seems simplistic to me, but you can believe what you like. Go back far enough and there was only private industry, and no government funding until the space race basically. Either way the fact remains that the billions spent developing GPU's preceded the millions spent to use thos…
Absolutely not. This is an obvious bad faith interpretation of my comment.
> Either way the fact remains that the billions spent developing GPU's preceded the millions spent to use those GPUs for AI.
Again, you're just obviously completely factually wrong to anyone who has even a modicum of casual interest in the history of these technologies.
> Not sure what it has to do with polarization of the comment section. I assume it's just people seeking an opportunity to heap abuse on anything close to a representative of the evil "other side".
And one more time for the people in the back. Anyone with any amount of actual knowledge on the topic at hand can immediately dismiss your entire argument because it isn't based in anything resembling fact. It's just you wishing or hoping that it might be somewhere close to true. This is just that scene from Billy Madison: "Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
This subthread turned out to be generic political flamewar, just the kind of thing we don't want on HN, and several of your comments fanned the flames.
If you could please have a read of the guidelines and take care to observe them in future we'd be appreciative:
[flagged]
Post, sir, and the mods be damned ! I did. It is indeed unfortunate that people vote down posts in discussions like these not because they are incorrect, but because they disagree with the facts presented. More Reddit than HN. But short of mods tracking down downvoters and having them justify their actions, I don't see how to de-Reddit it.
As moderators we don't particularly care what opinion you express, but it's everyone's responsibility to comment in a way that doesn't break the guidelines [2].
The most relevant to you in this thread are these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Society isn't going back to old people eating dogfood, a child labor workforce, and people being denied basic healthcare. Adjust to reality and make it work, or the masses will make it work but it won't benefit anyone how we get there.
[flagged]
> Lol what an internet tough guy.
Please take care to read and observe the guidelines, particularly these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
most research is useless science for the sake of science, the vast majority of research publications are not moving humanity forward you can have a whole career based on getting funding for experiments that don’t actually work
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this is not the meaning assigned in the case of Trump. The conspiracy theory is that he is "owned" in the sense of having some secret that can be exploited by Russia.
There is a belief that he is an agent turned by kopromat, but the view that he is an asset is broader (since assets include agents, people using the “asset” description may hold to the stronger or weaker form, and often, in practice, believe that is af least the weaker form and possibly the stronger.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
maybe, but nobody is talking about that we're talking about the story in the article: republicans totally gutting science funding regardless of presidential candidates or DEI
[flagged]
Your confusion here might explain why your comments are apparently being viewed by so many others as low value (just observing here, not making that judgement myself), and why you're being so consistently corrected by others in this HN post. Try to take our constructive criticism constructively. Don't fall into the common right-wing trope-trap of thinking anyone who disagrees with you or downvotes you is an enemy plotting against you who must be defeated. Open yourself to changing your mind based on overwhelming feedback from many others. Don't "dig in"/"double down" like the current president of the usa [0].
I say "confusion" because I have good faith in you, and don't think you're engaging in tired whataboutism in an attempt to redirect criticism away from those at fault intentionally. I imagine the reason you're doing it, is likely just a mistake on your part, hence the helpful advice above.
0: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/oppositional-...