4 ms·

> It's probably because of the mythos of private entrepreneurship and the uncomfortable narrative of all this so-called "free market capitalism" being supported

> It's probably because of the mythos of private entrepreneurship and the uncomfortable narrative of all this so-called "free market capitalism" being supported by billions in govt funds... I think this is a really bad straw man. There's broad bipartisan support for funding research into good ideas, assuming it's done the right way. The problem, though, is that the billions in government research spending we already allocate are subject to incredible amounts of lobbying and earmarking. We'll have a NASA allocation, but it has to take place in the state of a particular Senator. Or the research will be funneled through the department of defense and received by defense contractors. And, besides, for every DARPAnet, we have many "Where does it hurt most to be stung by a bee?" (1). It's hard to evaluate whether we would still end up in a net positive situation. I don't have hard feelings against people who are both enthusiastic and skeptical about government funding grants. (1) https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/ef6fcd58-c537-491f-aa06-6f7a81038d0e/sen.-jeff-flake-s-twenty-questions---report.pdf https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/ef6fcd58-c5...

cma 10y ago
> And, besides, for every DARPAnet, we have many "Where does it hurt most to be stung by a bee?" (1). Did they invest the same amount in these two?
- humanrebar 10y ago
  They invest more than DARPAnet in programs that get earmarked. Entire jets and battleships are researched, developed, and manufactured for political reasons. I was saying that just pointing out that programs like DARPAnet might not make up for all the other nonsense. And we can flip that around as well, maybe PARC was spun off from some successful grants, but we're not taking into account these sorts of failures when attaching the price tag to those initial grants.
nataz 10y ago
I really dislike research hit jobs like the link you posted. At best they are disingenuous, at worst they are outright lies. The funding attached to the projects is for the total grant amount provided, which may fund multiple projects, staff, or overhead. From the link: METHODOLOGY Specific dollar amounts expended to support each study were not available for the projects profiled in this report. Most were conducted as parts of more extensive research funded with government grants or financial support. The costs provided, therefore, represent the total amount of the grant or grants from which the study was supported and not the precise amount spent on the individual studies. This is not intended to imply or suggest other research supported by these grants was wasteful, unnecessary or without merit.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  Agreed. I poked around for more primary sources but the office of a senator seemed less controversial than partisan news organizations. Actual links to studies would be less useful since the "interesting bit" would be a note about funding coming from the NSF or something. It's an incomplete and distorted picture of how bureaucracy funds research. I brought it up to add counterpoints and context to the implication that government is actually good at this sort of thing if we'd just get over free market capitalism (or something).
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    You think the office of an avowedly partisan senator would be less contentious than a putatively 'neutral' news organization?
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      Than the sources I found? Yes.

cma 10y ago

> And, besides, for every DARPAnet, we have many "Where does it hurt most to be stung by a bee?" (1). Did they invest the same amount in these two?

humanrebar 10y ago
They invest more than DARPAnet in programs that get earmarked. Entire jets and battleships are researched, developed, and manufactured for political reasons. I was saying that just pointing out that programs like DARPAnet might not make up for all the other nonsense. And we can flip that around as well, maybe PARC was spun off from some successful grants, but we're not taking into account these sorts of failures when attaching the price tag to those initial grants.

nataz 10y ago

I really dislike research hit jobs like the link you posted. At best they are disingenuous, at worst they are outright lies. The funding attached to the projects is for the total grant amount provided, which may fund multiple projects, staff, or overhead. From the link: METHODOLOGY Specific dollar amounts expended to support each study were not available for the projects profiled in this report. Most were conducted as parts of more extensive research funded with government grants or financial support. The costs provided, therefore, represent the total amount of the grant or grants from which the study was supported and not the precise amount spent on the individual studies. This is not intended to imply or suggest other research supported by these grants was wasteful, unnecessary or without merit.

humanrebar 10y ago
Agreed. I poked around for more primary sources but the office of a senator seemed less controversial than partisan news organizations. Actual links to studies would be less useful since the "interesting bit" would be a note about funding coming from the NSF or something. It's an incomplete and distorted picture of how bureaucracy funds research. I brought it up to add counterpoints and context to the implication that government is actually good at this sort of thing if we'd just get over free market capitalism (or something).
- infinite8s 10y ago
  You think the office of an avowedly partisan senator would be less contentious than a putatively 'neutral' news organization?
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    Than the sources I found? Yes.