zlacker

As an academic, ain’t no way research from an unfunded grant proposal is happening…

The problem with your second statement is that we all of these posts and articles are attempts to throw evidence to support something you have already decided is true. More bad/non evidence does not make an argument and continually citing bad evidence that doesn’t prove your point reduces the credibility of the argument you are making.

>>avs733+(OP)
As a non-academic: huh?

The claim wasn't that the research was unfunded, just unfunded by DARPA.

To your second point, bad/non-evidence of essentially __everything__ is why the internet is the way it is today. You're saying "fake news is fake" which isn't really saying anything at all.

>>avs733+(OP)
Ok, as another academic: this happens all the time. People use funds from one grant to subsidize other research. I've heard a colleague refer to it "as using one project to pay the bills of another project."

It's all also a moot point in that just because the grant wasn't funded from DARPA doesn't mean it wasn't funded. And if it was funded, it doesn't mean we would know who funded it.

Not trying to be conspiratorial, just trying to point out the funding on this grant or lack thereof doesn't mean anything about it happening or not happening. It just means the researchers were interested in it happening.