4 ms·
We have multiple single humans with net worths over a thousand times their budget. The only thing that's staggering is what's getting priority over these monume
by cosmotic 1y ago
We have multiple single humans with net worths over a thousand times their budget. The only thing that's staggering is what's getting priority over these monumental scientific achievements.
- tiahura 1y ago[flagged]
- hliyan 1y agoThis is one of the most harmful attitudes to come out of otherwise smart people in Silicon Valley. Dismissing any effort that does not bear immediate, tangible fruit, failing to follow a chain of causality to long term benefits and discounting the intellect of people working on such efforts. For example, a similar attitude would have dismissed J.J. Thompson's work on cathode rays and electrons in the late 1800's, and would have seen his intellect directed to steam engines and steel work. That would have seen a delay in the very technology ecosystem that enabled the parent to post their comment.
- tiahura 1y agoInteresting doesn’t necessarily mean important. There are an infinite number of potential scientific endeavors, I don’t think it’s unseemly to suggest that a field’s likeliness to improve humanity’s quality of life should be a factor in determining funding.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y agoI think any advances in basic science is worthwhile. You can’t predict when or how it will become useful. Quantum mechanics or relativity were probably pretty useless for a few decades after their discovery.
- ta8645 1y agoSure, but we don't have unlimited time and money. Prioritization is obviously a necessity, and therefore I think the OP's point stands. Considering potential tangible rewards shouldn't be seen as a taboo factor in that calculation.
- raccomandoo 1y agoEvolution is search. These projects create demand for high tech manufacturing, this alone is a net positive. The money isn't burned in a pit, it is spent employing people.
- ta8645 1y ago[flagged]
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y agoBasic research should be funded like defense. Allocate a certain percentage of GDP.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y agoSure. But we also need a certain base level of research that has zero potential rewards we can imagine now but pushes the boundaries of our knowledge further out. Because a few decades or even centuries later it will become useful.
- Dx5IQ 1y agoWhich is ironic given where this is posted. Do all startups yield a net result? Either to the VCs or the humanity?
- joules77 1y agoRoot cause of that attitude is the 3 month metrics reporting required by Wall St. It is arbit and the largest corps that do research fully understand it can generate these counter productive attitudes generating deadline based superficial progress. Which is why they try to keep their R&D people separate but it is never long lasting cause its all built on top of contradictions. You want to build something long lasting look at how the Vatican survives not at how corporations/nations/empires survive. But getting science orgs to be that open minded is very tricky given all the baggage the Church has accumulated.
- Larrikin 1y agoLike optimizing and making sure people see ads? This comment has to be sarcasm
- preisschild 1y agoWhat is "more useful" than understanding how the universe, we all live in, works at a fundamental level?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Couldn’t the geniuses debating whether the universe is expanding at 50 or 51 mph be put to work doing something a little more useful? You do know that musing about the useless photoelectric effect is how we got a lot of modern technology? At what point did we miss that civilisations that uncover milestones in basic physics tend to reap the rewards thereof?
- tiahura 1y agoHow many billions were spent on that musing?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> How many billions were spent on that musing? If one considers the leisure that the time’s thinkers were afforded with estates and enterprises underneath them, I wouldn’t be surprised if the sum total of the photoelectric investigations came to billions inflation adjusted.
- minebreaker 1y agoThis comment makes me wonder, why don't those rich people make space telescopes just for fun? That's definitely what I would do. Besides, it must be a way funnier than buying Twitter.
- AngryData 1y agoAnyone who has billions of dollars to spend is obviously treating their wealth like some sort of highscore and don't give a shit about anybody or anything else, otherwise they would have been spending their money once they were already in the 100 million dollar level because they are already so far beyond any needs or material desires for them or their next 6 generations of family.
- aspenmayer 1y agoThe more you have, the more you can invest. Investing is a form of helping. Also, you can use the profits from your investments to give direct aid and donations, as well as create nonprofit organizations to fund. All of this can be gamed for appearances’ sake as well. It’s a hall of mirrors. If everything is politics, what they do is as suspect as what they don’t do. You can’t pour from an empty cup. The more you have, the more you have to work with, and the more you can help others. This is what the parable of the talents is meant to demonstrate, for example.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- TwoFerMaggie 1y ago> obviously treating their wealth like some sort of highscore yep. see > Caleb will later recall, in an interview with D Magazine, asking his dad why he works so hard. > “It’s a game,” Randy explains to his son. > “How do you know who wins?” the boy asks. > “Whoever dies with the most money.” [1] not even exaggerating [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/alden-global-capital-killing-americas-newspapers/620171/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/alden-g...
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
- nashashmi 1y agoYou just compared a person's entire lifetime worth of savings and investments to an annual budget.
- cosmotic 1y agoI compared a thousandth of their net worth to the anual. A tenth any of their net worths would sustain the anual budget indefinitely.
- nashashmi 1y agoSure it would but it’s still a big 10%. And it is not like they have the 10% in cash. They are using it for stock votes and dividends and etc. and for what purpose should they give it up? For someone else’s budget? Better if you compare annual salaries to annual budgets.