3 ms·

> It's just not an issue for most people's everyday. Sure, but if you look at any of the fairly ridiculous and designed-to-be-divisive issues that pretty much

> It's just not an issue for most people's everyday. Sure, but if you look at any of the fairly ridiculous and designed-to-be-divisive issues that pretty much decide every bit of our political conversation.. anything can be an issue. Making the military more diverse is a good example, because while it's absolutely important, it also affects less than 1% of people directly, and less than 3% indirectly. I'd hazard a guess that open-access to research affects more than 1% of people directly, and roughly 100% of people indirectly. > state funded research shall be released to the public domain, and all prior contract terms to the contrary are hereby void This phrasing from GP works great because it pushes people's "freedom" buttons, and also their "curb government corruption" buttons, and for the more academically inclined, appeals to everything from accelerationist futurism to enlightened humanism. And it's not even divisive! This isn't controversial at all for anyone except the rent-seeking journal owners, and it seems like an easy win for anyone who wants to champion it. All by itself, this would be an amazing legacy, even for someone who exits political life immediately afterwards.

HPsquared 2y ago
I don't know about that, I think the military balance-of-forces affects more people indirectly than academic publishing.
- photonthug 2y ago
  Why would you think that? Everyone gets sick and so benefits from medical research, and of course there are other kinds of research, hence the 100% number. Generously assuming everyone in the military has 1 spouse and 1 child, and assuming 1% is in the military (also generous) gives less than 3%.
  - borski 2y ago
    I think the idea is that by maintaining a strong military presence, thus preventing us from being directly attacked on our soil (in theory), affects many more people’s lives indirectly, since they aren’t living in fear that they could be taken out at any moment. The same is not true for many countries without a strong military presence. And then there’s places like Costa Rica, where they somehow make it work.

HPsquared 2y ago

I don't know about that, I think the military balance-of-forces affects more people indirectly than academic publishing.

photonthug 2y ago
Why would you think that? Everyone gets sick and so benefits from medical research, and of course there are other kinds of research, hence the 100% number. Generously assuming everyone in the military has 1 spouse and 1 child, and assuming 1% is in the military (also generous) gives less than 3%.
- borski 2y ago
  I think the idea is that by maintaining a strong military presence, thus preventing us from being directly attacked on our soil (in theory), affects many more people’s lives indirectly, since they aren’t living in fear that they could be taken out at any moment. The same is not true for many countries without a strong military presence. And then there’s places like Costa Rica, where they somehow make it work.