4 ms·

> Oh, that's just an artifact of using tax payer money to finance research. This is true even if you're at a large company. But you're right that it is not tru

> Oh, that's just an artifact of using tax payer money to finance research. This is true even if you're at a large company. But you're right that it is not true for most of the old scientists who predominately came from wealthy families. But I don't think we should "stop that" and rather I'm arguing that we should "modify it to reflect reality." Of course, it gets political, but governments (and its people) are highly incentivized to make long term improvements and work at scales and problems that aren't as appropriate for individuals or even companies (companies must work on much smaller timescales). We really just need to stop getting in our own way. But that requires admitting we are dumb. Even if we're smart that doesn't mean we're not also dumb. Then again, Musk has enough money he could develop over a dozen CERNs himself and fully fund them indefinitely, a feat so far done only by the agglomerated efforts of a large organization of countries (despite it being a drop in the bucket for their budgets). I've never understood billionaires and mega billionaires though. Because I'd be setting up as many mega projects I could and give them indefinitely funding because you can't throw your money away faster than it grows. Well... I guess I understand MacKenzie Scott...

eru 2y ago
> Of course, it gets political, but governments (and its people) are highly incentivized to make long term improvements and work at scales and problems that aren't as appropriate for individuals or even companies (companies must work on much smaller timescales). What? Governments mostly care about the next election. Companies (and individuals) can plan for the long haul. > Because I'd be setting up as many mega projects I could and give them indefinitely funding because you can't throw your money away faster than it grows. Two problems: first, it's very easy to just throw away money for no good outcome. See eg the ISS or the Space Shuttle. Especially if there's no pressure at all. Not getting in the way at all, also means not getting in the way of charlatans and grifters. It's a hard problem to separate worthwhile projects from the chaff. Second, it's very easy even for a billionaire to spend money faster than the make it. For a simple example, Mark Zuckerberg owns a huge chunk of Facebook (and that's approximately his entire wealth). You can use publicly available stock price data to check how much his investments in the 'Metaverse' have hurt his net worth.
- godelski 2y ago
  > You can use publicly available stock price data to check how much [Mark Zuckerberg's] investments in the 'Metaverse' have hurt his net worth. I assume you're trolling. Because you're talking about the third richest man in the world, who doubled his wealth last year and similarly the year before. Who has sold at least $20bn of those stocks, which alone would result in him still being in the top 100 wealthiest people. What a weird person to use to exemplify your point
  - eru 2y ago
    Selling stocks doesn't increase your net worth.

eru 2y ago

> Of course, it gets political, but governments (and its people) are highly incentivized to make long term improvements and work at scales and problems that aren't as appropriate for individuals or even companies (companies must work on much smaller timescales). What? Governments mostly care about the next election. Companies (and individuals) can plan for the long haul. > Because I'd be setting up as many mega projects I could and give them indefinitely funding because you can't throw your money away faster than it grows. Two problems: first, it's very easy to just throw away money for no good outcome. See eg the ISS or the Space Shuttle. Especially if there's no pressure at all. Not getting in the way at all, also means not getting in the way of charlatans and grifters. It's a hard problem to separate worthwhile projects from the chaff. Second, it's very easy even for a billionaire to spend money faster than the make it. For a simple example, Mark Zuckerberg owns a huge chunk of Facebook (and that's approximately his entire wealth). You can use publicly available stock price data to check how much his investments in the 'Metaverse' have hurt his net worth.

godelski 2y ago
> You can use publicly available stock price data to check how much [Mark Zuckerberg's] investments in the 'Metaverse' have hurt his net worth. I assume you're trolling. Because you're talking about the third richest man in the world, who doubled his wealth last year and similarly the year before. Who has sold at least $20bn of those stocks, which alone would result in him still being in the top 100 wealthiest people. What a weird person to use to exemplify your point
- eru 2y ago
  Selling stocks doesn't increase your net worth.