3 ms·

I generally don't read the claimed scientific breakthrough articles on HN. This is exactly the reason. Unless these science breakthroughs can be put to good use

I generally don't read the claimed scientific breakthrough articles on HN. This is exactly the reason. Unless these science breakthroughs can be put to good use then they might as well not exist. And as you mention, they need to be reproduced and commercialized (i.e. mass produced or at least affordably produced). People are allowed to dream and hope, but I'd rather not give into marketing and hype. To each their own.

stevenhuang 3y ago
Science breakthroughs that can't immediately be put to good use might as well not exist? Yeesh. What an embarrassingly confused, short sighted, and self-serving perspective of science.
- maxbond 3y ago
  I think maybe you're taking them a little too literally, I don't think they're suggesting that people shouldn't be doing research on such things, I think they're saying it isn't useful for them personally to read about it. I follow science news, but it is a little exhausting how much of it is bullshit. Outliers and measurement errors disproportionately create interesting stories, and so things that don't pan out end up being overrepresented in the scientific press (like that supposed tachyon detection a few years ago). There's a lot of stories about seemingly promising technologies that just don't really seem to go anywhere. When these things get a lot of attention, they're followed by a breathless hype train and the attendant grifters. A lot of it feels like a wasted effort. I suspect it gives some the impression that science itself is a giant grift where nothing useful is produced, and contributes to antiscience attitudes.
  - justin_oaks 3y ago
    Yes, this is what I meant. Thanks for interpreting what I said charitably. For some reason the poster you're responding to felt the need to add "immediately" to their interpretation of what I said to make my words seem ridiculous.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  To a single person not involved in the field? What exactly is the benefit?

stevenhuang 3y ago

Science breakthroughs that can't immediately be put to good use might as well not exist? Yeesh. What an embarrassingly confused, short sighted, and self-serving perspective of science.

maxbond 3y ago
I think maybe you're taking them a little too literally, I don't think they're suggesting that people shouldn't be doing research on such things, I think they're saying it isn't useful for them personally to read about it. I follow science news, but it is a little exhausting how much of it is bullshit. Outliers and measurement errors disproportionately create interesting stories, and so things that don't pan out end up being overrepresented in the scientific press (like that supposed tachyon detection a few years ago). There's a lot of stories about seemingly promising technologies that just don't really seem to go anywhere. When these things get a lot of attention, they're followed by a breathless hype train and the attendant grifters. A lot of it feels like a wasted effort. I suspect it gives some the impression that science itself is a giant grift where nothing useful is produced, and contributes to antiscience attitudes.
- justin_oaks 3y ago
  Yes, this is what I meant. Thanks for interpreting what I said charitably. For some reason the poster you're responding to felt the need to add "immediately" to their interpretation of what I said to make my words seem ridiculous.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
To a single person not involved in the field? What exactly is the benefit?