3 ms·

You will not live forever. Would applying the same logic again suit you? Timing matters. Where current resources go matters. Having a plan matters. The current

You will not live forever. Would applying the same logic again suit you? Timing matters. Where current resources go matters. Having a plan matters. The current system is not perfect but it’s far better than no system at all.

dnautics 6mo ago
> The current system is not perfect but it’s far better than no system at all. you should question this assertion. your assertion is dependent on the assumption that science is a strictly positive sum game (with respect to funding). i am saying it is not, and i have provided the mechanistic explanation of why it's not. all i ask people to think about is: bad science is worth negative.
- notahacker 6mo ago
  imagine trying to insinuate with a straight face that firing everyone on a funding oversight body because they queried the executive branch bypassing the oversight is somehow going to reduce fraudulent research and grift in state sponsored science...
  - dnautics 6mo ago
    the existence of a body named X does not imply they were doing X, or doing X well. a better argument would be that trump doing this is possibly toxic because the process of resetting becomes overly political and associated with trump shenanigans. i guess that argument was too sophisticated to make
    - notahacker 6mo ago
      The possibility a body may have not being doing X perfectly does not mean that anybody should even consider the possibility that centralising X in the hands of the "vaccines cause autism" and "we have different ways of calculating percentages" division of the executive branch instead - the thing that actually happened - is anything other than a bad idea. Linking Trump's characteristic firing of anybody who questions his actions to a replication crisis he and his acolytes wouldn't be interested in solving even if they had the slightest understanding of it is far too disingenuous an argument to elicit a "sophisticated" response, or indeed anything other than contemptuous dismissal.

dnautics 6mo ago

> The current system is not perfect but it’s far better than no system at all. you should question this assertion. your assertion is dependent on the assumption that science is a strictly positive sum game (with respect to funding). i am saying it is not, and i have provided the mechanistic explanation of why it's not. all i ask people to think about is: bad science is worth negative.

notahacker 6mo ago
imagine trying to insinuate with a straight face that firing everyone on a funding oversight body because they queried the executive branch bypassing the oversight is somehow going to reduce fraudulent research and grift in state sponsored science...
- dnautics 6mo ago
  the existence of a body named X does not imply they were doing X, or doing X well. a better argument would be that trump doing this is possibly toxic because the process of resetting becomes overly political and associated with trump shenanigans. i guess that argument was too sophisticated to make
  - notahacker 6mo ago
    The possibility a body may have not being doing X perfectly does not mean that anybody should even consider the possibility that centralising X in the hands of the "vaccines cause autism" and "we have different ways of calculating percentages" division of the executive branch instead - the thing that actually happened - is anything other than a bad idea. Linking Trump's characteristic firing of anybody who questions his actions to a replication crisis he and his acolytes wouldn't be interested in solving even if they had the slightest understanding of it is far too disingenuous an argument to elicit a "sophisticated" response, or indeed anything other than contemptuous dismissal.