5 ms·

And as such these tiny tiny cuts are a good idea? It's very dangerous to call defunding of sciences and regulatory oversight to be "wasteful" spending. They ar

And as such these tiny tiny cuts are a good idea? It's very dangerous to call defunding of sciences and regulatory oversight to be "wasteful" spending. They are both inexpensive and tend to be valable for decades to come. Maybe Trump, his team, and the Republican majority in every branch of government could do something positive about entitlement spending? It'd be great to get back to a US where we actually spend non-trivial money on core science.

koolba 9y ago
There's nothing sacred about science that makes it untouchable or puts it above all other spending. It's talk like that which leads to bloated budgets that never get resolved because everything falls in that category to someone.
- nine_k 9y ago
  Likely science is not among top 10 greatest sinks of government funds, and the amount of waste in it is not atypically high. It's just a wrong target for financial optimization maybe.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  > There's nothing sacred about science that makes it untouchable or puts it above all other spending. Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted. Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public. Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech". When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort.
  - koolba 9y ago
    > Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted. The weasel words in that are "almost never". If something has merit then let it stand on its merit. > Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public. Sure and I'm not saying to block them all. I'm saying it's fine to take a look at them individually, there are no sacred cows, and labeling something "____ Science" doesn't make it beyond reproach. > Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech". That was quick. Usually it takes more than one reply before the Nazi references come out. > When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort. Everything about how the Federal government operates is a form of cherry picking. It's a side effect of having limited time and funds. The executive branch decides what they're going to follow up on. If you're upset that your particular cherries aren't the ones being picked, and it really seems like that's the root of your dissent, then so be it. That's hardly scientific though. That's just being a sore loser.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      > Sure and I'm not saying to block them all. I'm saying it's fine to take a look at them individually, there are no sacred cows, and labeling something "____ Science" doesn't make it beyond reproach. So you request a specific approach with reason and care offered, but base this on the generalism, "Science is not sacred?" Seems contratradictory but okay... Being specific, why wouldn't we carefully measure the impact of private industry on public health? Private industry isn't on the hook for health emergencies, the public is. So we shut this down because... "waste?" Given the the ongoing phenomenon of our executive parroting nonsense, pseudoscientific marketing speak like "clean coal" it certainly appears to be the executive helping the coal industry with it's long-standing and well-documented agenda of stifling public research and denying transparency. > If you're upset that your particular cherries aren't the ones being picked, and it really seems like that's the root of your dissent, then so be it. That's hardly scientific though. That's just being a sore loser. I don't get why cancelling an ongoing public health research project is "my cherries". If the coal industry and their legacy, heavily subsidized, environmentaly damaging, largely export-driven, minimally job creating industry is causing public health crisis, I do not want to further reward them. It's their cherries you're proposing to pick, all the while suggesting that scientifically driving inquiry into public health is a luxury we may not be able to afford. To which I ask: why? What's in it for anyone? Why are you proposing that defunding public health and environmental research is fair but coal industry subsidies are conveniently absent from your austerity program. Why? Why is this your cherries and why should the public not only be on the hook for long term health and cleanup issues, but be forbidden from even asking questions about said potentialities? Can't we at least study and plan for potential expenses?
madaxe_again 9y ago
Oh, you know, that parable about the squirrels. One hoards acorns for winter but gets hit by a truck. The other one eats all of his acorns, becomes obese, and is worshipped by other squirrels for his acorn eating prowess, who bring him more acorns. Or something.

koolba 9y ago

There's nothing sacred about science that makes it untouchable or puts it above all other spending. It's talk like that which leads to bloated budgets that never get resolved because everything falls in that category to someone.

nine_k 9y ago
Likely science is not among top 10 greatest sinks of government funds, and the amount of waste in it is not atypically high. It's just a wrong target for financial optimization maybe.
KirinDave 9y ago
> There's nothing sacred about science that makes it untouchable or puts it above all other spending. Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted. Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public. Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech". When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort.
- koolba 9y ago
  > Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted. The weasel words in that are "almost never". If something has merit then let it stand on its merit. > Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public. Sure and I'm not saying to block them all. I'm saying it's fine to take a look at them individually, there are no sacred cows, and labeling something "____ Science" doesn't make it beyond reproach. > Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech". That was quick. Usually it takes more than one reply before the Nazi references come out. > When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort. Everything about how the Federal government operates is a form of cherry picking. It's a side effect of having limited time and funds. The executive branch decides what they're going to follow up on. If you're upset that your particular cherries aren't the ones being picked, and it really seems like that's the root of your dissent, then so be it. That's hardly scientific though. That's just being a sore loser.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    > Sure and I'm not saying to block them all. I'm saying it's fine to take a look at them individually, there are no sacred cows, and labeling something "____ Science" doesn't make it beyond reproach. So you request a specific approach with reason and care offered, but base this on the generalism, "Science is not sacred?" Seems contratradictory but okay... Being specific, why wouldn't we carefully measure the impact of private industry on public health? Private industry isn't on the hook for health emergencies, the public is. So we shut this down because... "waste?" Given the the ongoing phenomenon of our executive parroting nonsense, pseudoscientific marketing speak like "clean coal" it certainly appears to be the executive helping the coal industry with it's long-standing and well-documented agenda of stifling public research and denying transparency. > If you're upset that your particular cherries aren't the ones being picked, and it really seems like that's the root of your dissent, then so be it. That's hardly scientific though. That's just being a sore loser. I don't get why cancelling an ongoing public health research project is "my cherries". If the coal industry and their legacy, heavily subsidized, environmentaly damaging, largely export-driven, minimally job creating industry is causing public health crisis, I do not want to further reward them. It's their cherries you're proposing to pick, all the while suggesting that scientifically driving inquiry into public health is a luxury we may not be able to afford. To which I ask: why? What's in it for anyone? Why are you proposing that defunding public health and environmental research is fair but coal industry subsidies are conveniently absent from your austerity program. Why? Why is this your cherries and why should the public not only be on the hook for long term health and cleanup issues, but be forbidden from even asking questions about said potentialities? Can't we at least study and plan for potential expenses?

madaxe_again 9y ago

Oh, you know, that parable about the squirrels. One hoards acorns for winter but gets hit by a truck. The other one eats all of his acorns, becomes obese, and is worshipped by other squirrels for his acorn eating prowess, who bring him more acorns. Or something.