3 ms·

That $100 billion doesn't vanish into thin air. It principally goes into plant and equipment to build the machine, as well as research into high tech manufactur

• credit_guy 4y ago
  Where does this argument stop? 1 trillion, 10 trillion?
  • duped 4y ago
    Ideally never
• rhn_mk1 4y ago
  Isn't that the economic theory of broken windows? Given the choice between alternatives, added value should be considered, not added cost.
  • XorNot 4y ago
    The problem with the the broken window narrative is that while invalid, it's counter-argument is also too simplistic when dealing with issues on the level of nation states. Suppose you have a city where windows never get broken. So there's no demand for glazing for a few years. So the glaziers all go out of business and move onto other things - they break down their machines and factories and repurpose them. Then there's a minor earthquake and it breaks a lot of windows. But the cost to replace them is enormous - there's no glass making business anymore! What should have cost a few hundred dollars costs hundreds of thousands because the machines and people need to be built and retrained, and the quality for a few months is kind of bad as well. What should the city have done? Well, one answer would be to break some windows regularly to keep at least one glazier operating. Or we could pay the glazier to make windows we don't use right now, or ask them to build better windows under government grant to keep them available and maybe come up with an improved window design...etc. etc. etc. A machine on the scale of the LHC doesn't get made in a factory which makes LHCs. It gets made in literally tens of thousands of businesses, each of which services a big order for some type of precision part that's either within their capabilities or that they might believe can be accomplished if demanded. Once they can do that, that becomes the new thing that everyone else can now buy potentially. So yes, sure - let's talk about added value, but when "choosing between alternatives" you need to have some actual, reasonable alternatives. The postulate here - build ITER instead for fusion power - is exactly the same sort of project. And the reality is we can and should do both.
• lupire 4y ago
  Eh, Berners-Lee could have written that proposal for a different collaborative project, or someone else would have eventually. We already had gopher. Web was an incremental step.
• BrandoElFollito 4y ago
  It was invented at CERN and had nothing to do with the accelerator. It would have been invented the same way in the home lab of T. Berners-Lee
  • pas 4y ago
    true, yet big budget research institutions do have more occasional super-high-yield inventions than home labs. maybe because it was just easy for him to "beta test" it with like-minded folks. so the solution is obvious. spend all the physics money on healthcare (or fusion power) research institutions and hope for the best.