5 ms·

Headline should read "after funding cut, scientists look for new funding". Not quite as clickbaity though... ETA: I used to work at a government lab. I've ne

Headline should read "after funding cut, scientists look for new funding". Not quite as clickbaity though... ETA: I used to work at a government lab. I've never heard a contractor say "they made the right choice. My work is obsolete/irrelevant/a waste of money." At the end of the day, people have livelihoods to maintain. Their work is always "needed now more than ever". Some of it actually is. Some of it isn't.

microwavecamera 8y ago
The article doesn't cover much of the history and mystery behind the Jason group. They were the stuff of conspiracy theory lore when I was younger.
- starpilot 8y ago
  MJ12, Bilderberg group. Think tanks. Anyone can join.
notthegov 8y ago
Perhaps but the JASON Group is the most famous group of top secret scientists. Half of their studies are classified but here's some that aren't- https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason JASON was founded as Project 137 by John Archibald Wheeler and others. It was only publicly confirmed to exist after the Pentagon Papers mentioned them.
- pontifier 8y ago
  Thanks, I'm particularly interested in their evaluation of low cost Fusion concepts. I really wish I could get some funding to build my prototype reactor.
notbob 8y ago
> I used to work at a government lab. Most JASON scientists haven't worked at a government lab for decades. How is this relevant? > ...I've never heard a contractor... These aren't contractors, they are scientists. And not just any scientists. In most cases, they aren't even the scientists employed by a national lab. They're scientists employed by all manner of institutions, including universities who will pay their paychecks regardless of whether this funding comes in. Usually senior and well-respected. Many of those scientists have, if not "fuck you money", at least "fuck you reputations" that translate into "fuck you money". E.g., the current chairperson is fucking Russell Hemley... he's not putting up with federal background checks because he needs the extra pennies... JASON members work on JASON projects because they think those projects are important. Nobel laureates and other top scientists don't work on grant funded projects for the money... if all they cared about was feeding their families, they would just retire. And if all they cared about was money, they would pimp their reputations to private industry labs.
- cm2187 8y ago
  I don't know about these specific scientists but often professors only get paid for the school terms and must rely on externally funded research grants for the rest of the year.
  - AlexCoventry 8y ago
    If you don't bring in grant money, you'll end up with a lab roughly the size and utility of a shoebox.
  - dgacmu 8y ago
    You're missing the parent's point. Another (one-time?) JASON who you might have heard of is Bill Dally. He was a prof at Stanford, including being the department chair, and is the chief scientist / senior VP of Research at Nvidia. Needless to say, silicon valley senior VPs don't usually need extra spending cash.
- kilo_bravo_3 8y ago
  >These aren't contractors, they are scientists. If you are paid to perform a service based on the terms of a contract you are, by definition, a contractor. It doesn't matter if you are cleaning toilets or hosting a conference on quantum computing.
  - notbob 8y ago
    > If you are paid to perform a service based on the terms of a contract you are, by definition, a contractor. 1. "Contractor" means something specific in the Defense industry. Every employee, including members of the armed forces and employees of DHS, are "paid to perform a service based on the terms of a contract" (the employment contract). But, of course, literally everyone knows that when I say "contractor" I definitely do not mean "someone who has signed an employment contract with the federal government". 2. The expectations associated with grants are different enough from most other contracts that there's a useful distinction between "grant work" and "contract work".
- snowwrestler 8y ago
achenatx 8y ago
I own a contracting company and we regularly tell clients they should cut the project we are working on because it doesnt provide enough value. We do software requirements, identifying the minimum necessary features to maximize the value. Some projects have no redeeming value. Who wants to waste a clients money working on something that has no value for a client?
- nn3 8y ago
  >Who wants to waste a clients money working on something that >has no value for a client? Isn't that the whole business model of Accenture and similar?
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    That's doing the least possible while billing the most. It's an optimizing function. Doing valueless projects is a consequence of that function.
seem_2211 8y ago
This is something I see on Twitter a bit (usually with "academics" who spend a lot of time telling other people how they should live their lives). "Very important work" is very subjective. Almost all of us want to think that our work is very important (myself included).

microwavecamera 8y ago

The article doesn't cover much of the history and mystery behind the Jason group. They were the stuff of conspiracy theory lore when I was younger.

starpilot 8y ago
MJ12, Bilderberg group. Think tanks. Anyone can join.

notthegov 8y ago

Perhaps but the JASON Group is the most famous group of top secret scientists. Half of their studies are classified but here's some that aren't- https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason JASON was founded as Project 137 by John Archibald Wheeler and others. It was only publicly confirmed to exist after the Pentagon Papers mentioned them.

pontifier 8y ago
Thanks, I'm particularly interested in their evaluation of low cost Fusion concepts. I really wish I could get some funding to build my prototype reactor.

notbob 8y ago

> I used to work at a government lab. Most JASON scientists haven't worked at a government lab for decades. How is this relevant? > ...I've never heard a contractor... These aren't contractors, they are scientists. And not just any scientists. In most cases, they aren't even the scientists employed by a national lab. They're scientists employed by all manner of institutions, including universities who will pay their paychecks regardless of whether this funding comes in. Usually senior and well-respected. Many of those scientists have, if not "fuck you money", at least "fuck you reputations" that translate into "fuck you money". E.g., the current chairperson is fucking Russell Hemley... he's not putting up with federal background checks because he needs the extra pennies... JASON members work on JASON projects because they think those projects are important. Nobel laureates and other top scientists don't work on grant funded projects for the money... if all they cared about was feeding their families, they would just retire. And if all they cared about was money, they would pimp their reputations to private industry labs.

cm2187 8y ago
I don't know about these specific scientists but often professors only get paid for the school terms and must rely on externally funded research grants for the rest of the year.
- AlexCoventry 8y ago
  If you don't bring in grant money, you'll end up with a lab roughly the size and utility of a shoebox.
- dgacmu 8y ago
  You're missing the parent's point. Another (one-time?) JASON who you might have heard of is Bill Dally. He was a prof at Stanford, including being the department chair, and is the chief scientist / senior VP of Research at Nvidia. Needless to say, silicon valley senior VPs don't usually need extra spending cash.
kilo_bravo_3 8y ago
>These aren't contractors, they are scientists. If you are paid to perform a service based on the terms of a contract you are, by definition, a contractor. It doesn't matter if you are cleaning toilets or hosting a conference on quantum computing.
- notbob 8y ago
  > If you are paid to perform a service based on the terms of a contract you are, by definition, a contractor. 1. "Contractor" means something specific in the Defense industry. Every employee, including members of the armed forces and employees of DHS, are "paid to perform a service based on the terms of a contract" (the employment contract). But, of course, literally everyone knows that when I say "contractor" I definitely do not mean "someone who has signed an employment contract with the federal government". 2. The expectations associated with grants are different enough from most other contracts that there's a useful distinction between "grant work" and "contract work".
snowwrestler 8y ago

achenatx 8y ago

I own a contracting company and we regularly tell clients they should cut the project we are working on because it doesnt provide enough value. We do software requirements, identifying the minimum necessary features to maximize the value. Some projects have no redeeming value. Who wants to waste a clients money working on something that has no value for a client?

nn3 8y ago
>Who wants to waste a clients money working on something that >has no value for a client? Isn't that the whole business model of Accenture and similar?
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  That's doing the least possible while billing the most. It's an optimizing function. Doing valueless projects is a consequence of that function.

seem_2211 8y ago

This is something I see on Twitter a bit (usually with "academics" who spend a lot of time telling other people how they should live their lives). "Very important work" is very subjective. Almost all of us want to think that our work is very important (myself included).