3 ms·

I thought the question was about research strength, not money-making strength. Although capitalisation is not really about making money rather than promising to

I thought the question was about research strength, not money-making strength. Although capitalisation is not really about making money rather than promising to make money later. Pretty much orthogonal to the aim of research.

tpmx 6y ago
In CS it's kind of combined.
- periheli0n 6y ago
  Hm. One can do awesome CS research without having to make tons of money. One can also make money with other people’s/universities’/countries’ CS research while doing zero CS research in-house. Research and money making are pretty much orthogonal. With research I refer to fundamental CS research, not how to squeeze 0.00053% more out of imagenet or making photos of young people look old, or solving problems of logistics in driver scheduling.
  - tpmx 6y ago
    Okay, let me rephrase this: The current strategy is great for individual researchers - when they become successfull they can get a great $400k/year job in the US. It sucks for the europeans who paid for them to get there though.
    - periheli0n 6y ago
      Funny enough, the way Germany’s Max-Planck Society is successful in hiring top US scientists not through outrageous salaries, but by offering them guaranteed, generous research budget in perpetuity. Not all researchers care about getting rich personally.
      - tpmx 6y ago
        Karl Marx would be so proud of you.
        periheli0n 6y ago
        No need to get personal. All I’m saying is that research success is not well measured by the amount of money it reels in. That doesn’t mean scientists should not make money. It just means the one has little to do with the other. Orthogonal. I know excellent scientists who are rich and equally excellent ones who are poor. I also know some intellectually less well endowed folks who are crazy rich. Money and research success have little to do with each other. All I’m saying.
ur-whale 6y ago
You've just elucidated all that is wrong with EU research. You won't have money for fundamental research if you don't have a huge focus, as a research institute, on economic output.
- periheli0n 6y ago
  In the EU, money for fundamental research comes from the government. I agree that this means less money and perhaps more bureaucracy, but als less dependence on economic trends and fads in the industry, and the ability to focus on fundamental questions without having to chase commercialisation. I know both sides, EU and US approaches to research and research funding, and I think both have their strengths and weaknesses. But either way I think measuring research performance by the amount of money made is the wrong measure.

tpmx 6y ago

In CS it's kind of combined.

periheli0n 6y ago
Hm. One can do awesome CS research without having to make tons of money. One can also make money with other people’s/universities’/countries’ CS research while doing zero CS research in-house. Research and money making are pretty much orthogonal. With research I refer to fundamental CS research, not how to squeeze 0.00053% more out of imagenet or making photos of young people look old, or solving problems of logistics in driver scheduling.
- tpmx 6y ago
  Okay, let me rephrase this: The current strategy is great for individual researchers - when they become successfull they can get a great $400k/year job in the US. It sucks for the europeans who paid for them to get there though.
  - periheli0n 6y ago
    Funny enough, the way Germany’s Max-Planck Society is successful in hiring top US scientists not through outrageous salaries, but by offering them guaranteed, generous research budget in perpetuity. Not all researchers care about getting rich personally.
    - tpmx 6y ago
      Karl Marx would be so proud of you.
      - periheli0n 6y ago
        No need to get personal. All I’m saying is that research success is not well measured by the amount of money it reels in. That doesn’t mean scientists should not make money. It just means the one has little to do with the other. Orthogonal. I know excellent scientists who are rich and equally excellent ones who are poor. I also know some intellectually less well endowed folks who are crazy rich. Money and research success have little to do with each other. All I’m saying.

ur-whale 6y ago

You've just elucidated all that is wrong with EU research. You won't have money for fundamental research if you don't have a huge focus, as a research institute, on economic output.

periheli0n 6y ago
In the EU, money for fundamental research comes from the government. I agree that this means less money and perhaps more bureaucracy, but als less dependence on economic trends and fads in the industry, and the ability to focus on fundamental questions without having to chase commercialisation. I know both sides, EU and US approaches to research and research funding, and I think both have their strengths and weaknesses. But either way I think measuring research performance by the amount of money made is the wrong measure.