4 ms·

It’s 500m spend without guaranteed success.

by SideQuark 4mo ago

MitziMoto 4mo ago
Yeah, so was building moon rockets.
- simoncion 3mo ago
  Looking at how Blue Origin is doing, it seems that that's still true.
- Groxx 3mo ago
  I don't think anyone (not insane) actually doubted we could reach the moon, they were just unsure how much money it'd take per launch, and if it'd ever be worth it. Because we had already reached orbit, "add more fuel" is essentially a guaranteed success, if infinite money is allowed - at worst you do it in multiple launches and join up the parts in space. 2, 10, 1000, it'll eventually succeed, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't. Reaching another star? Definitely more expensive, but entirely feasible if we all got our shit together and decided it was going to happen. Medical stuff though? Humans are complicated, and there are practically no guaranteed routes, regardless of money (currently).
  - m4rtink 3mo ago
    Well, don't forget the Soviets gave up in the end with their N1 rocket.
  - kakacik 3mo ago
    Yet the chance of saving human lives en masse and permanently advancing knowledge of our own bodies should be more important than ticking a checkbox of walking on the moon and then shelving whole thing for good (that comes from person who loves astronomy etc but there are simply way more important matters in society). We iteratively succeeded against AIDS ffs, that looked like impossible mission in 80s and 90s, we just threw more science and research on the problem. Your arguments are not that good
- SideQuark 3mo ago
  That's not a reason. That's an anecdote, a post selected and cherry picked example. Is this truly how you'd allocate resources? A more correct way to use reason is to look at all possible things that have been proposed that cost $500m, and see how those turn out in general. Then possibly weight using expert knowledge about this particular problem and the possible benefits. Then consider what the opportunity cost is, i.e., what you give up by spending $500m here instead of something else. Trite armchair rebuttals are not convincing.
throwawaytea 3mo ago
[flagged]
- Shitty-kitty 3mo ago
  Social Security is the number 1 line item accounting for over 22% of the federal budget.
  - tialaramex 3mo ago
    For now. Expect that to be overtaken by debt servicing in the not too distant future.
- 9dev 3mo ago
  Other people getting assistance too don't take away anything from your friend at all. If you want to be angry, be angry about your government spending trillions for the military and billionaires, not about the weakest parts of society.
  - throwawaytea 3mo ago
    It doesn't "take away", but if your employer paid you $x and you were struggling, and then they gave the same $x or more to people hanging out in the parking lot, you would probably see that as a personal insult.
    - 9dev 3mo ago
      That's a bit disingenuous, though; for that analogy to work, it would be the employer paying you, with a tenure of 40 years, the same shit salary as the new hire. And I get how frustrating that may feel, but it's still not the new hire's fault, but your boss's. Bottom line, both of you are getting a shit salary while the C-Suite and their investor friends rake in a multiple of your annual salary every month.
      - throwawaytea 3mo ago
9dev 3mo ago
remind me how successful the Iran war was
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]

It’s 500m spend without guaranteed success.

MitziMoto 4mo ago

Yeah, so was building moon rockets.

simoncion 3mo ago
Looking at how Blue Origin is doing, it seems that that's still true.
Groxx 3mo ago
I don't think anyone (not insane) actually doubted we could reach the moon, they were just unsure how much money it'd take per launch, and if it'd ever be worth it. Because we had already reached orbit, "add more fuel" is essentially a guaranteed success, if infinite money is allowed - at worst you do it in multiple launches and join up the parts in space. 2, 10, 1000, it'll eventually succeed, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't. Reaching another star? Definitely more expensive, but entirely feasible if we all got our shit together and decided it was going to happen. Medical stuff though? Humans are complicated, and there are practically no guaranteed routes, regardless of money (currently).
- m4rtink 3mo ago
  Well, don't forget the Soviets gave up in the end with their N1 rocket.
- kakacik 3mo ago
  Yet the chance of saving human lives en masse and permanently advancing knowledge of our own bodies should be more important than ticking a checkbox of walking on the moon and then shelving whole thing for good (that comes from person who loves astronomy etc but there are simply way more important matters in society). We iteratively succeeded against AIDS ffs, that looked like impossible mission in 80s and 90s, we just threw more science and research on the problem. Your arguments are not that good
SideQuark 3mo ago
That's not a reason. That's an anecdote, a post selected and cherry picked example. Is this truly how you'd allocate resources? A more correct way to use reason is to look at all possible things that have been proposed that cost $500m, and see how those turn out in general. Then possibly weight using expert knowledge about this particular problem and the possible benefits. Then consider what the opportunity cost is, i.e., what you give up by spending $500m here instead of something else. Trite armchair rebuttals are not convincing.

throwawaytea 3mo ago

[flagged]

Shitty-kitty 3mo ago
Social Security is the number 1 line item accounting for over 22% of the federal budget.
- tialaramex 3mo ago
  For now. Expect that to be overtaken by debt servicing in the not too distant future.
9dev 3mo ago
Other people getting assistance too don't take away anything from your friend at all. If you want to be angry, be angry about your government spending trillions for the military and billionaires, not about the weakest parts of society.
- throwawaytea 3mo ago
  It doesn't "take away", but if your employer paid you $x and you were struggling, and then they gave the same $x or more to people hanging out in the parking lot, you would probably see that as a personal insult.
  - 9dev 3mo ago
    That's a bit disingenuous, though; for that analogy to work, it would be the employer paying you, with a tenure of 40 years, the same shit salary as the new hire. And I get how frustrating that may feel, but it's still not the new hire's fault, but your boss's. Bottom line, both of you are getting a shit salary while the C-Suite and their investor friends rake in a multiple of your annual salary every month.
    - throwawaytea 3mo ago

9dev 3mo ago

remind me how successful the Iran war was

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]