3 ms·

You’re glossing over the part where we’ve got an administration that’s anti science dumping money into what is literally snake oil. We are so strapped for cash

by tw04 1y ago

You’re glossing over the part where we’ve got an administration that’s anti science dumping money into what is literally snake oil. We are so strapped for cash we need to cut off people’s healthcare, slash NASA’s budget, make massive cuts to university research and terminate vaccine programs. But we’ve somehow got $7m to piss away on pretending you can turn lead into gold like it’s 600bc.

godelski 1y ago
> what is literally snake oil. Well it is this part that I'm unconvinced. You can probably gather from my comment that I fully believe they are overselling, but that's different. As for the administration part, that's an orthogonal conversation. It is preying on the effects that I discussed, so they are related, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. We can talk about the x-axis without the y-axis, even if we want to figure out where a point lies in a plane. > We are so strapped for cash I'll refer you to the first part of my comment. Personally, when you're strapped for cash I think it is best to go after the big ticket items that are costing you money rather than freaking out about losing a few pennies. You're not wrong that allocation is a problem, but allocation is a difference between lack of budget.
lesuorac 1y ago
> It has been trivial since the 1980’s to produce gold alchemically, when Nobel laureate Glenn Seaborg (also of Seaborgium fame) used a particle accelerator to transmute bismuth into gold. Not sure it's literally snake oil. But also investing ~7M into a bunch of credentialed individuals to continue experiments with fusion energy seems to be a fine decision. In the past you'd need to explain how fusion energy will help diverse communities power their homes. Now you just have to explain how fusion energy will create the presidents favorite substance.
- tw04 1y ago
  When it costs several hundred million dollars to produce gold that is measured in protons and neutrons it is functionally snake oil. The fact you can technically create gold from smashing particles together is completely irrelevant to the money being spent here. > the collision-induced reactions had removed anywhere from six to 15 neutrons, producing a range of gold isotopes from gold 190 (79 protons and 111 neutrons) to gold 199 (79 protons, 120 neutrons)
  - godelski 1y ago
    > When it costs several hundred million dollars We're talking about $7M, not $700M

by tw04 1y ago

godelski 1y ago

> what is literally snake oil. Well it is this part that I'm unconvinced. You can probably gather from my comment that I fully believe they are overselling, but that's different. As for the administration part, that's an orthogonal conversation. It is preying on the effects that I discussed, so they are related, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. We can talk about the x-axis without the y-axis, even if we want to figure out where a point lies in a plane. > We are so strapped for cash I'll refer you to the first part of my comment. Personally, when you're strapped for cash I think it is best to go after the big ticket items that are costing you money rather than freaking out about losing a few pennies. You're not wrong that allocation is a problem, but allocation is a difference between lack of budget.

lesuorac 1y ago

> It has been trivial since the 1980’s to produce gold alchemically, when Nobel laureate Glenn Seaborg (also of Seaborgium fame) used a particle accelerator to transmute bismuth into gold. Not sure it's literally snake oil. But also investing ~7M into a bunch of credentialed individuals to continue experiments with fusion energy seems to be a fine decision. In the past you'd need to explain how fusion energy will help diverse communities power their homes. Now you just have to explain how fusion energy will create the presidents favorite substance.

tw04 1y ago
When it costs several hundred million dollars to produce gold that is measured in protons and neutrons it is functionally snake oil. The fact you can technically create gold from smashing particles together is completely irrelevant to the money being spent here. > the collision-induced reactions had removed anywhere from six to 15 neutrons, producing a range of gold isotopes from gold 190 (79 protons and 111 neutrons) to gold 199 (79 protons, 120 neutrons)
- godelski 1y ago
  > When it costs several hundred million dollars We're talking about $7M, not $700M