3 ms·

But those are all engineering projects.. In a way, it's a lot easier to parallelize work on scientific project than engineering project. Competition from the in

But those are all engineering projects.. In a way, it's a lot easier to parallelize work on scientific project than engineering project. Competition from the industry actually helped Human Genome Project. Anyway, my bet is that we don't actually need a very big supercomputer to emulate what brain does. We just don't yet know why it is so efficient, we don't know the trick(s). And I think, there is a possibility, as Human Brain Project will evolve, we will get better at figuring out what really needs to be simulated and what is just a fluff. And this will make possible to scale it up even on current hardware. Anyway, at least that's why I think it should be supported.

dalke 11y ago
You said "ambitious projects". Now you're limiting those to scientific projects. Again I ask, "Do you have a tally of the ones that failed?" Would it include the Superconducting Super Collider? ($2 billion for a hole in the ground). Actually, it's a trickier question than that. What does failure in an ambitious science project mean to you? Do you classify the two failed Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (of four) as an engineering failure, or a scientific one, or both? For that matter, what is on your list of ambitious scientific projects, and how many of them have a success which is not primarily due to being a well-run engineering project? That is, the success of the Large Hadron Collider surely is due mostly to being a successful engineering project. My experience is that the high-end science projects like what you are talking about (eg, the so-called 'Grand Challenge' projects), are constructed so they cannot fail. They lack a solid, measurable goal, and any advancement is counted as a success. This failsafe means they are more likely to get political backing.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  I thought about your comments a bit and I think what's actually interesting in projects like HG or BB (or "Man on the Moon") is perhaps not scale as much as the fact that they are open ended. We don't know how the solution will look like. And that means that the solution may look really difficult or complicated today, but it's also possible that it won't be that difficult in the end. So what I mean, I think, is not ambition in terms of resources, but rather ingenuity.

dalke 11y ago

You said "ambitious projects". Now you're limiting those to scientific projects. Again I ask, "Do you have a tally of the ones that failed?" Would it include the Superconducting Super Collider? ($2 billion for a hole in the ground). Actually, it's a trickier question than that. What does failure in an ambitious science project mean to you? Do you classify the two failed Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (of four) as an engineering failure, or a scientific one, or both? For that matter, what is on your list of ambitious scientific projects, and how many of them have a success which is not primarily due to being a well-run engineering project? That is, the success of the Large Hadron Collider surely is due mostly to being a successful engineering project. My experience is that the high-end science projects like what you are talking about (eg, the so-called 'Grand Challenge' projects), are constructed so they cannot fail. They lack a solid, measurable goal, and any advancement is counted as a success. This failsafe means they are more likely to get political backing.

asgard1024 11y ago
I thought about your comments a bit and I think what's actually interesting in projects like HG or BB (or "Man on the Moon") is perhaps not scale as much as the fact that they are open ended. We don't know how the solution will look like. And that means that the solution may look really difficult or complicated today, but it's also possible that it won't be that difficult in the end. So what I mean, I think, is not ambition in terms of resources, but rather ingenuity.