9 ms·

>2. Giving your money to Elon is like investing in an absolutely cutting-edge branch of science. At the absolute bleeding-edge. Maybe even beyond the bleeding-e

by tensor 13y ago

>2. Giving your money to Elon is like investing in an absolutely cutting-edge branch of science. At the absolute bleeding-edge. Maybe even beyond the bleeding-edge. Elon Musk runs engineering companies. They are certainly not at "the absolute bleeding edge" of science though. If you want to fund science, then fund science. Scientists and their graduate students actually do work at the bleeding edge of science and routinely push beyond it with only a small, small, fraction of what these billionaires make.

robryan 13y ago
The issue is the tangible results. You could put a lot of money in science and end up with a lot of dead ends. I think it would be better to think of it as investing in the cutting edge of science that has already been researched being implemented.
FD3SA 13y ago
Precisely this. Elon is a genius, and absolutely one of the greatest men alive. But we must understand that he is an engineer, not a scientist. The fact that he had to put his own money into an ambitious engineering project just goes to show how ridiculously conservative most investors are. Is it any surprise then, that basic science funding from profit driven investors is so abysmal? We need the NIH, we need the NSF, we need CERN, now more than ever. Basic science is the only way to get significantly more return from a dollar invested, but nobody wants to pay upfront. That is why we need taxpayer funding in basic science. Scientific breakthroughs will yield such massive dividends in the long run, that citizens would literally be spending on their own well being in a way that would otherwise be impossible. Discoveries such as vaccines, antibiotics, surgery, genetics and others have allowed humans to enjoy a standard of living unfathomable even a hundred years ago. If politicians had any vision whatsoever, they would have instigated a New Deal with massive investment in scientific and engineering research projects. Yet what did they do? Feed banks infinite loans at prime to keep them afloat, so that banks can choose to continue lending on a profit driven schedule. Guess who gets loans at prime from banks? Not the NIH, that's for sure.
- dfc 13y ago
  Precisely this? When is this not precise? this 1. Used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced 1.1 Used to introduce someone or something 1.2 Referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other, if specified, being identified by ‘that’) 2. Referring to a specific thing just mentioned 3. Used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced: More: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/this?q=this http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/this?q=...
  - nl 13y ago
    "This" on its own as a word indicating agreement is a fairly recent usage. Notably, the very definition you posted makes no mention of that usage. From that definition there is no way to tell if "This" on its own means "This predeceeding comment is completely wrong" or "This predeceeding comment is completely right". Also, "precisely" indicates degree rather than the generalist term "this". For example, "I'll meet you at this time tomorrow" and "I'll meet you at precisely this time tomorrow" have different connotations for how accurate you are expecting to be.
- chroem 13y ago
  >Elon ... is an engineer Oh really? Where did he study engineering? When did he take the FE exam? That's not a term that you can throw around all willy-nilly, especially in the context of hardware. Next, are you about to tell me that the CEO of Ford is also an engineer?
  - sqrlrgwright 13y ago
    Alan Mulally (CEO of FORD) is a former Boeing engineer.
  - robotresearcher 13y ago
    Musk describes himself as an engineer. I'd say his demonstrated ability to lead major engineering projects qualifies him to use that title. http://elonmusk.com/ http://elonmusk.com/ The term "engineer" does not imply chartered/professional status in current popular usage.
UncleOxidant 13y ago
Yes, but how do we "fund science"? We used to do that through the government, but now government funding of science is so broken primarily due to large segments of the US population being "anti-science" and voting that way thus those who control the purse strings don't see the value anymore. Maybe we need to start crowdsourcing scientific research?
- goodcanadian 13y ago
  Maybe we need to start crowdsourcing scientific research? Like this? https://experiment.com/ https://experiment.com/
bogs_carut 13y ago
Perhaps it's fair to say that they're at the absolute bleeding edge of /applied science/? After all, SpaceX's plans for a reusable rocket are certainly more ambitious than anything governments have been doing for the last several decades.
- Iftheshoefits 13y ago
  The internet, heaps of computing technology advances, several trips to the moon, space stations, and a shuttle program all have been done by the government "for the last several decades." It is undeniably government funded, backed, and run research that has fostered the technological "magic" we see today. I wrote "undeniable" because it is a fact--not a conjecture, opinion, or item subject to debate. Government funded and government run research programs created our space-age technology (literally) and the internet, and fueled a great percentage of the other developments that have advanced our technology so rapidly in the last several decades. Private companies (whether held privately or publicly traded) are mainly creatures of fear and risk aversion--even the ones that are relatively less so than others. There's nothing especially "bleeding edge" about SpaceX or Tesla, or just about anything else Musk has been involved with. Historically, it has usually taken a great thrust by the government to make big advances, whether through subsidies (i.e. corporate welfare) or direct involvement (NASA/DARPA).
  - bogs_carut 13y ago
    And yet the US government was never able -- nor did they try -- to develop a fully-reusable rocket, which is something SpaceX is currently doing. Saying that corporations are risk-averse followers is inane. Governments broadly fund a great deal of seed-level research. Sometimes they develop applications based upon it. Sometimes corporations get there first. We're seeing an instance of the latter with SpaceX, I think.
    - Iftheshoefits 13y ago
      What is inane about the statement regarding corporations? Generally speaking, unless there is a significant level of government backing or subsidy for the research, corporations just don't engage in it. There are of course exceptions here and there, but most of even that research is hardly bleeding edge. It's mostly very conservative iterations on the original research done by the government (or with government backing). This is true in medicine, space, computer, and just about any other human endeavor one can think of. Aside from that, your statement about a fully-reusable rocket may technically be true (I suspect that NASA actually has investigated a 100%-reusable rocket, but don't know for sure), but it is trivial and unsupportive of your point, since the concept isn't ground-breaking (the shuttle was completely reusable, even if the delivery system was only partially reusable) or even very risky, given the decades of research and engineering that the government has put into space rocket technology. That was, in fact my point. "Being conservative and risk-averse" is not synonymous with "never does anything new."
vacri 13y ago
This presupposes that engineering companies don't (can't?) do bleeding edge research.

by tensor 13y ago

robryan 13y ago

The issue is the tangible results. You could put a lot of money in science and end up with a lot of dead ends. I think it would be better to think of it as investing in the cutting edge of science that has already been researched being implemented.

FD3SA 13y ago

Precisely this. Elon is a genius, and absolutely one of the greatest men alive. But we must understand that he is an engineer, not a scientist. The fact that he had to put his own money into an ambitious engineering project just goes to show how ridiculously conservative most investors are. Is it any surprise then, that basic science funding from profit driven investors is so abysmal? We need the NIH, we need the NSF, we need CERN, now more than ever. Basic science is the only way to get significantly more return from a dollar invested, but nobody wants to pay upfront. That is why we need taxpayer funding in basic science. Scientific breakthroughs will yield such massive dividends in the long run, that citizens would literally be spending on their own well being in a way that would otherwise be impossible. Discoveries such as vaccines, antibiotics, surgery, genetics and others have allowed humans to enjoy a standard of living unfathomable even a hundred years ago. If politicians had any vision whatsoever, they would have instigated a New Deal with massive investment in scientific and engineering research projects. Yet what did they do? Feed banks infinite loans at prime to keep them afloat, so that banks can choose to continue lending on a profit driven schedule. Guess who gets loans at prime from banks? Not the NIH, that's for sure.

dfc 13y ago
Precisely this? When is this not precise? this 1. Used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced 1.1 Used to introduce someone or something 1.2 Referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other, if specified, being identified by ‘that’) 2. Referring to a specific thing just mentioned 3. Used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced: More: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/this?q=this http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/this?q=...
- nl 13y ago
  "This" on its own as a word indicating agreement is a fairly recent usage. Notably, the very definition you posted makes no mention of that usage. From that definition there is no way to tell if "This" on its own means "This predeceeding comment is completely wrong" or "This predeceeding comment is completely right". Also, "precisely" indicates degree rather than the generalist term "this". For example, "I'll meet you at this time tomorrow" and "I'll meet you at precisely this time tomorrow" have different connotations for how accurate you are expecting to be.
chroem 13y ago
>Elon ... is an engineer Oh really? Where did he study engineering? When did he take the FE exam? That's not a term that you can throw around all willy-nilly, especially in the context of hardware. Next, are you about to tell me that the CEO of Ford is also an engineer?
- sqrlrgwright 13y ago
  Alan Mulally (CEO of FORD) is a former Boeing engineer.
- robotresearcher 13y ago
  Musk describes himself as an engineer. I'd say his demonstrated ability to lead major engineering projects qualifies him to use that title. http://elonmusk.com/ http://elonmusk.com/ The term "engineer" does not imply chartered/professional status in current popular usage.

UncleOxidant 13y ago

Yes, but how do we "fund science"? We used to do that through the government, but now government funding of science is so broken primarily due to large segments of the US population being "anti-science" and voting that way thus those who control the purse strings don't see the value anymore. Maybe we need to start crowdsourcing scientific research?

goodcanadian 13y ago
Maybe we need to start crowdsourcing scientific research? Like this? https://experiment.com/ https://experiment.com/

bogs_carut 13y ago

Perhaps it's fair to say that they're at the absolute bleeding edge of /applied science/? After all, SpaceX's plans for a reusable rocket are certainly more ambitious than anything governments have been doing for the last several decades.

Iftheshoefits 13y ago
The internet, heaps of computing technology advances, several trips to the moon, space stations, and a shuttle program all have been done by the government "for the last several decades." It is undeniably government funded, backed, and run research that has fostered the technological "magic" we see today. I wrote "undeniable" because it is a fact--not a conjecture, opinion, or item subject to debate. Government funded and government run research programs created our space-age technology (literally) and the internet, and fueled a great percentage of the other developments that have advanced our technology so rapidly in the last several decades. Private companies (whether held privately or publicly traded) are mainly creatures of fear and risk aversion--even the ones that are relatively less so than others. There's nothing especially "bleeding edge" about SpaceX or Tesla, or just about anything else Musk has been involved with. Historically, it has usually taken a great thrust by the government to make big advances, whether through subsidies (i.e. corporate welfare) or direct involvement (NASA/DARPA).
- bogs_carut 13y ago
  And yet the US government was never able -- nor did they try -- to develop a fully-reusable rocket, which is something SpaceX is currently doing. Saying that corporations are risk-averse followers is inane. Governments broadly fund a great deal of seed-level research. Sometimes they develop applications based upon it. Sometimes corporations get there first. We're seeing an instance of the latter with SpaceX, I think.
  - Iftheshoefits 13y ago
    What is inane about the statement regarding corporations? Generally speaking, unless there is a significant level of government backing or subsidy for the research, corporations just don't engage in it. There are of course exceptions here and there, but most of even that research is hardly bleeding edge. It's mostly very conservative iterations on the original research done by the government (or with government backing). This is true in medicine, space, computer, and just about any other human endeavor one can think of. Aside from that, your statement about a fully-reusable rocket may technically be true (I suspect that NASA actually has investigated a 100%-reusable rocket, but don't know for sure), but it is trivial and unsupportive of your point, since the concept isn't ground-breaking (the shuttle was completely reusable, even if the delivery system was only partially reusable) or even very risky, given the decades of research and engineering that the government has put into space rocket technology. That was, in fact my point. "Being conservative and risk-averse" is not synonymous with "never does anything new."

vacri 13y ago

This presupposes that engineering companies don't (can't?) do bleeding edge research.