7 ms·

Absolutely, but I think we become desensitized to numbers. $3,000,0000,000 is alot of money. In trying to find the costs of a synchotron I came upon this artic

Absolutely, but I think we become desensitized to numbers. $3,000,0000,000 is alot of money. In trying to find the costs of a synchotron I came upon this article [1] that mentions the construction of an entire campus surronding a synchrotron, experimental facilities, and so on. The entire construction project and synchotron cost £263 million. That's at government level efficiency, which is to say significantly overpriced, and of course is also just a one-time expense. Even this one time inefficient cost however is only about 10% of our annual spend. The ongoing spend related to maintenance of the facility would of course be a small fraction of that upfront cost. I just don't understand how one can argue that a 3x increase in funding can be expected to yield massive exponential gains in output. [1] - https://www.theage.com.au/national/synchrotron-will-cost-taxpayers-20040212-gdxai5.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/synchrotron-will-cost-tax...

AnthonBerg 8y ago
It’s $0.5 per person.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  That's great in a single-variable universe, but in ours unfortunately there are a million other "it's (only) $0.5 per person" things. It's like letting the public choose what students have to learn - "but this is sooo important!" (and this, and this, and this,...). I don't understand that kind of argument. You have to choose the right level of scale for what you are looking at. I would not trust an architect (of buildings) who is a particle physicist, or a forest(-system) manager whose specialization is the cell. Some things need to be looked at the the higher (compound) level to get any useful results. EDIT (for the reply below, to which I cannot reply?): > I find it important / useful for myself to put it into context. Well, my point is that you don't.
  - AnthonBerg 8y ago
    It’s both a lot of money and also much less. I find it important / useful for myself to put it into context. For me the takeaway is that I went and calculated how many times richer than the average and therefore what my share of $0.5 per person would be. It still wasn’t a lot. And probably more affordable to me than the person at the middle of the income scale even then. But yes! I see the “what about all the other things” element too.

AnthonBerg 8y ago

It’s $0.5 per person.

ItsMe000001 8y ago
That's great in a single-variable universe, but in ours unfortunately there are a million other "it's (only) $0.5 per person" things. It's like letting the public choose what students have to learn - "but this is sooo important!" (and this, and this, and this,...). I don't understand that kind of argument. You have to choose the right level of scale for what you are looking at. I would not trust an architect (of buildings) who is a particle physicist, or a forest(-system) manager whose specialization is the cell. Some things need to be looked at the the higher (compound) level to get any useful results. EDIT (for the reply below, to which I cannot reply?): > I find it important / useful for myself to put it into context. Well, my point is that you don't.
- AnthonBerg 8y ago
  It’s both a lot of money and also much less. I find it important / useful for myself to put it into context. For me the takeaway is that I went and calculated how many times richer than the average and therefore what my share of $0.5 per person would be. It still wasn’t a lot. And probably more affordable to me than the person at the middle of the income scale even then. But yes! I see the “what about all the other things” element too.