zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. romwel+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-01-26 21:45:04
> and they show how little work they do as a % of all the work. Then as a % if we assumed 90% of all work (keeping all NSF work important) wasn't important.

Great, you're simply saying that pretty much all of science has the same importance as 10% of all other work being done. And you consider budget as a measure of output.

All that in the context of a conversation about technological breakthroughs, mind you.

By that metric, someone like Richard Feynman has produced less important work than your average run-of-the-mill engineer with a slightly higher salary.

Did you time-travel here from the USSR? The leadership there had similar ideas back in the day.

This is becoming very entertaining at this point.

replies(1): >>daniel+Gi
2. daniel+Gi[view] [source] 2024-01-26 23:09:27
>>romwel+(OP)
Econ 101 is your friend.
replies(1): >>romwel+BY
◧◩
3. romwel+BY[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-27 04:52:23
>>daniel+Gi
It is. So is the reality.

Highly recommend, A+++, 10/10.

"Impact is hard to measure, so let's take budget as a proxy" has got to be the hottest take of the year, and yes, I'm aware it's January.

[go to top]