• 42yeah@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Take that, already meager science budget! They will definitely be used to make society better.

    • Dragonstaff@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Thank God we are cutting out this wasteful science. It will pay for half of an F-35. We’re buying an extra F-35, of course, so it’s a net loss, but our budget is unlimited for the military.

    • meep_launcher@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I’m thinking the outcome of this may be even more sinister.

      I know there is already plenty of corporate hands in science, doing what they can to fund research they want and making it more difficult for potentially damning results to come out.

      Fun wild experiments won’t go away, they’ll still get funded, but only at the mercy of the corporation that bankrolls their study.

  • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The Moon landing line is a pretty important thing to study, actually, since we know what the rehearsed line was: “One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” Without that “a” it’s a very silly line.

    Armstrong for years claimed he said the line right and that it must’ve been garbled in the radio transmission, and in recent years has been vindicated as better signal:noise algorithms processed the recording and found the missing word. Researchers aren’t blowing money to find out if Armstrong was a liar, they’re using it to develop more sensitive receivers, better transmission protocols, and more advanced algorithms to parse signal out of noise, all of which have massive impacts in other domains. An algorithm that’s better at parsing data out of noise in particular is going to be useful in loads of places like MRI machines where improving resolution will take billions in research but improving parsing is just updating the software.

    • m_f@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      10 hours ago

      That’s exactly what I was wondering. Simple objective, very difficult problem, maybe have to invent new algorithms. Kind of like this:

  • quixotic120@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    150
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    This is a regularly done conservative tactic. Attack research because it’s frequently stupid sounding. But sometimes stupid sounding research leads to incredible things.

    Sometimes you research the mating habits of red eyed tree frogs and you learn a lot for conservation efforts and stuff about the species. Conservatives love this because they can hand wave and go “who cares about this thing I personally don’t care about”

    But those science nerds sometimes do stuff like researching gila venom in the 70s which eventually led to ozempic now, one of the potential major treatments for t2 diabetes, a scourge of our morbidly obese modern society. This has gigantic positive implications for public health and financial benefits

    The whole point is you can’t know until you’re done what will be groundbreaking

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Take literally any scientific idea and you can easily imagine a conservative mocking it.

      “They want to male a huge bomb, sit on it, and go to space!”

      “They’re looking at mold from their days old sandwiches and call it science!”

      I tried googling whether penicillin was mocked “pencillin was mocked as stupid” just out of interest. The third result (or first after “people also ask”) on Google, The Stupid Reason That Elon Musk Is Complaining About Scientists Spraying Bobcat Urine on Alcoholic Rats

      Around and around and around

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      ·
      12 hours ago

      It’s an even more fundamental conservative tactic. What they do is find a single example of something they think they can easily deride and hold it up as representative of that entire thing. Think welfare, immigration, criminal justice, reproductive rights, gender identity, and much more. Right wing media is full of single cases they beat into their viewerships’ minds while ignoring all other cases

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        It’s used by every group to deride anythign they disagree with, just oversimplify things until they sound stupid.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            I used to watch them on Youtube to see the stupid shit they’d do… Sadly they got boring quick as all they really do is whine about being required to have a license and forward their bills to the US Treasury. They simply run out of ways to be entertaining quick.

            There are two camps.

            1. Those who are LARPing that they’re tough and “know the real rules” and are “using them to fight in this grand rebellion!” - It boils down to them being hostile with police and then hostile with the judges, wondering why their magic words aren’t working and blaming the Judge and cops for not knowing better. Weird how the movement is still alive when NONE OF THEM can find anyone in legal who will play along. Maybe it’s slowly dying, like the Christian Science movement (which has nothing to do with Christians who are Scientists, Science told through a biblical lens, Science in general, or even Christianity…)

            2. Those who fall on hard times and are desperate for some “life hack” that makes it all easier, even though if there actually was one we’d all be doing it.

            The former is funny for a bit, but they run out of material fast, the latter is just sad.

            I will say that early on Soverign Citizens arguments actually worked, though mostly because part of the scam is bringing a shit ton of paperwork with you, giving it to the prosecutor when you’re arrested, and hoping they’ll give up because it’s “Too much to go through and we have other cases.”

            It worked in the begining, but as the SC Movement became more wildly known and more people went through the paperwork, these “papers” are usually just rejected out of hand as they’re basically just the written word version of filibuster and filibuster doesn’t really work in court. (Objection: Relevance)

      • leisesprecher@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I heard the explanation “conservatives stop thinking if they like the current result”.

        If immigrants committed any crime, the obvious solution is to deport all of them. Less immigrants, less crime, sounds great, no further research needed.

        But if it’s about something like social security, they go to the ninth layer of indirection to “prove” that it’s bad, because now they found a study that slightly agrees with one of their talking points (p ≈ room temperature).

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 hours ago

      They don’t want groundbreaking though, unless it’s profitable. They want people to suffer unless they can profit from their relief. They don’t want the government funding this sort of research. They want the government funding their companies that then perform this sort of research at a 5000% mark-up.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    190
    ·
    13 hours ago

    This isn’t about efficiency, it’s about attacking science as a tool for evaluating truth. It’s a way to discredit the authority of expertise and shape the course of research with selective funding and demonization.

    • TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I think it’s because Elon Musk just really wanted to be the head of a department called “D.O.G.E.”. The whole attacking science thing is just a bonus.

      • tyler@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Yeah how much is this “office” going to cost the taxpayers? I would guess a lot more than $100k on a sunfish experiment.

      • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Elon Musk: now singlehandedly responsible for the US falling further behind China in innovation and research (for the record, fuck the CCP).

        I seriously hope the UK takes advantage and offers visas and funding for the research. We’ve already got a good research sector though it took a hit from Brexit. Taking in these US scientists, even if it’s only for four years, would accelerate the UK’s growth, suck it Yanks!

        p.s. also the EU would love to have them as well.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Especially if you’d add up all the inefficiencies already introduced in the name of efficiency. All those grant proposals, superfluous fluff articles to bump impact factors, etc. are all required overhead to game a system designed to seem efficient.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I personally don’t think that politicians should be given elaborate security details. Their performance or lack of performance should determine how safe they are from the populace they’re tasked with serving.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Ehhh, with a large enough population you’re bound to find someone crazy enough to do it for no reason at all.

        • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Rather have an assassination problem than a school shooter problem. If we let those crazy people shoot the president instead of a school, they can work out their hatred of humanity without harming anyone important.

  • ComRed2 [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Hey E-L-O-N , y’know what else the government spends an exorbitant amount of money on? Go on, take a guess.

  • TheFogan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4263280/#%3A~%3Atext=Results+showed+that+male+quail%2Ctest+(Coc+→+Sal).

    Sunfish I can’t find the actual study, it appears it was done in 1975, and was a big thing that congress at the time used as the examples of wasteful spending.

    First 2 I can’t really say the value or lack of value of. I mean they were studies on effects of dangerous substances on behavior. and yes of course like all studies you pick animals that you might be able to get the effects of. Obviously a lot of science is just randomly probing around looking for oddities that give you a hypothesis to try and refine later into something useful. Obviously addictive substances is an important topic to understand, and poking around randomly might actually give solutions that could be discovered IMO.

    Now the last one is the only one I’d agree, isn’t exactly super useful.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2033014/feds-blow-700k-to-find-out-what-really-happened-on-the-moon/

    was done in 2016.

    All that being said… lets also take a serious statement on cost here… a million dollars in 2016. That’s like, 15 minutes of iraq war money.

    • m_f@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Another comment explains the moon landing one. It’s a hexbear comment and probably not federated to a lot of instances, so copying it here:

      The Moon landing line is a pretty important thing to study, actually, since we know what the rehearsed line was: “One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” Without that “a” it’s a very silly line.

      Armstrong for years claimed he said the line right and that it must’ve been garbled in the radio transmission, and in recent years has been vindicated as better signal:noise algorithms processed the recording and found the missing word. Researchers aren’t blowing money to find out if Armstrong was a liar, they’re using it to develop more sensitive receivers, better transmission protocols, and more advanced algorithms to parse signal out of noise, all of which have massive impacts in other domains. An algorithm that’s better at parsing data out of noise in particular is going to be useful in loads of places like MRI machines where improving resolution will take billions in research but improving parsing is just updating the software.

      Can’t really blame people for defederating though. It’s a slog to find the treasure in the shit. In this same thread there’s both “Death to America” and “kill all honkeys” non-sequiturs. I can see why they drove off their admins in a stupid struggle session recently. I’m just waiting for another struggle session when they discover the etymology of “bad” and have to rename !badposting@hexbear.net:

      It is possibly from Old English derogatory term bæddel and its diminutive bædling “effeminate man, hermaphrodite, pederast,” which probably are related to bædan “to defile.”

      • TheFogan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 hours ago

        wow, yeah thanks for the repost of it then, and yeah seems even further to go in there, when conservatives comb for examples of the terrible things they are fighting… and it seems like over and over again, even their cherry picked examples seem to fail

    • tyler@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 hours ago

      How much is it gonna cost us to create this new “D.O.G.E.” Department and pay Musk? The cost of these studies is completely irrelevant to the situation, like others have said the GOP props up ridiculous situations and makes it seem like they represent the entire situation, and they do it to disguise what they’re doing which is fleecing taxpayers money to private corps.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I was furious when I learned about the “Schools are offering litter boxes to trans students who identify as cats!”

        Not because it was a lie, but because it was based on truth.

        The truth? Schools in areas with heavy gun violence now have litter boxes so that pooping can be done in the advent of a school shooting.

        It’s absurd, but because of a problem the Right made, not because of a “misguided solution” of the Left

  • abbadon420@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Well, that was something that benefitted women, so it’s clearly not efficient for any of the grey, white men in this committee

  • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    11 hours ago

    It’s terrifying how easy it is to manipulate a population that’s so biscously anti intellectual.

    This is the dunning Kruger effect in real life. They’re too stupid to understand science so they assume science doesn’t make any sense.

    I’m sure they would consider it a waste to “measure bubbles in antarctic sea ice” because they don’t understand that’s what climate models are based on and vindicated by. And even if they did understand it theyd still be against it.

    It’s tough because obviously as communists you have to try to maintain a belief everybody is deserving of basic dignity and respect but then you see somebody yell “don’t you fucking tell me what to do” as they climb over the “do not enter, high voltage” sign of a substation.

    It’s a lot harder to maintain the belief that any loss of life is a tragedy when you have a guy in a klan robe saying it’s their constitutional right to to wrap their lips around the exhaust pipe of a diesel truck specifically modified to cause as many emissions as humanly possible.

    • shani66@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      That’s nice and all, but progress isnt tied to the idea that trash needs to be respected. It is more important that every deserving personlive a decent life than it is to give those animals what they well and truly deserve (which is what we are all currently getting anyway). They should get a standard minimum quality of life because it is the easiest way to ensure those that do deserve it get it.

  • TheDoctor [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Science inherently involves the reproduction of work that’s already been done. That’s how the process ensures reproducibility. Talking about the efficiency of science makes very little sense because the savings bought by science are privatized, viewed like externalities.