The public is so overwhelmingly anti science and thinks nasa takes up like 20% of the countries budget in polls. Lets convince 1 guy in charge of a grant that something obscure is necessary to save humanity, instead of a bunch of mouth breathers who are going to donate to anti-vaxxer and fountain of youth quacks.
I don't have much more faith in what most nerds would fund, either
a lot of important science is stunningly boring unremarkable stuff that ends up finding out "well that didn't work"
It's not even that. Even someone with an advanced degree in a science field is still going to be hard pressed to differentiate between two similar, but distinct approaches to a given problem outside of their field.
What if the system were set up such that other notable, respected individuals in the field could comment on which projects would be the most funding-worthy?
Yeah, you're not going to get a lot of pledges for your obscure physics project that most PhDs can't understand on your own, but if Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson each gave it 5-stars you suddenly have a lot of nerds throwing money at it.
Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson are physicists. What about all the projects that are outside the scope of their expertise?
You're essentially going to recreate the grant system that already exists but is underfunded.
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So far I am enjoying Fallout 3 more than I enjoyed Fallout: New Vegas, which may or may not be a controversial opinion?
I am only a few hours into 3, however, and I very likely could have a chip on my shoulder about New Vegas because I've started so many playthroughs that the first 2-4 hours is such a chore now.
We should make something like a Patreon but for science, where the general public can directly fund research projects as an alternative to the normal grant process.
There are several crowdfunding kickstarter like enterprises designed to finance science projects.
There are some really bad things about this.
1) The crowdfunding kickstarter movement grossly misunderstands the amount of money required to run a full time research laboratory that can produce publication quality data. I.E. You will see them fund small projects to the tune of 100k or so. This is chump change for a laboratory and would cover one tech's salary and some reagents for a year.
2) The crowdfunding kickstarter movement gives citizens the idea that government funding is not important if it can be supplanted by crowdfunding. Which is an untenable position. The only way science will ever recover is if governments increase investment in science.
3) The crowdfunding kickstarter movement is frequently in love with the "gentleman scientist" trope which really only supports a very specific and very rich type of person to do science.
4) There is one guy named Ethan Perlstein who says he is an indy scientist but really he is just running a standard biotech startup. He is like Silicon Valley for scientists.
These all are only problems if you envision the system as a replacement for the standard method of scientific funding and not as something that pulls in additional cash.
Obviously this isn't a replacement for government funding.
So far I am enjoying Fallout 3 more than I enjoyed Fallout: New Vegas, which may or may not be a controversial opinion?
I am only a few hours into 3, however, and I very likely could have a chip on my shoulder about New Vegas because I've started so many playthroughs that the first 2-4 hours is such a chore now.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
fallout 3 was poop from a butt. Bethesda just did not get the setting.
The story was dumb.
The side stories were dumb.
The public is so overwhelmingly anti science and thinks nasa takes up like 20% of the countries budget in polls. Lets convince 1 guy in charge of a grant that something obscure is necessary to save humanity, instead of a bunch of mouth breathers who are going to donate to anti-vaxxer and fountain of youth quacks.
I don't have much more faith in what most nerds would fund, either
a lot of important science is stunningly boring unremarkable stuff that ends up finding out "well that didn't work"
It's not even that. Even someone with an advanced degree in a science field is still going to be hard pressed to differentiate between two similar, but distinct approaches to a given problem outside of their field.
What if the system were set up such that other notable, respected individuals in the field could comment on which projects would be the most funding-worthy?
Yeah, you're not going to get a lot of pledges for your obscure physics project that most PhDs can't understand on your own, but if Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson each gave it 5-stars you suddenly have a lot of nerds throwing money at it.
The problem I have with this as a non-science person is that I do not understand a lot of science, especially advanced science. With a Veronica Mars Movie kickstarter I give money and I get my newsletter and it's like, okay they are filming. That is definitely part of a process that makes sense when making a movie. They are doing a lot of filming, which means they are clearly on their way to making a movie.
With science, as a lay person, even if there is a super well made explanation of what is being funded, there's probably large swaths of it that are going to be meaningless to me. And once I've invested money into it, I'm not going to very much like to hear if they aren't getting results they expected, nor am I going to be able to understand the ins and outs of what is going on.
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Falcon 9 v1.1 with Dragon capsule (loaded with Commercial Resupply Service payload, including a great deal of experimental gear provided by CASIS, the Center for the Advancement of Science In Space) heading to the International Space Station. Weather forecast is still "GO" and looks better than yesterday, but keep in mind that the launch window is instantaneous, so even a 1-second hold inside the terminal countdown (T - 10 minutes) would result in a scrub of today's launch.
The public is so overwhelmingly anti science and thinks nasa takes up like 20% of the countries budget in polls. Lets convince 1 guy in charge of a grant that something obscure is necessary to save humanity, instead of a bunch of mouth breathers who are going to donate to anti-vaxxer and fountain of youth quacks.
I don't have much more faith in what most nerds would fund, either
a lot of important science is stunningly boring unremarkable stuff that ends up finding out "well that didn't work"
It's not even that. Even someone with an advanced degree in a science field is still going to be hard pressed to differentiate between two similar, but distinct approaches to a given problem outside of their field.
What if the system were set up such that other notable, respected individuals in the field could comment on which projects would be the most funding-worthy?
Yeah, you're not going to get a lot of pledges for your obscure physics project that most PhDs can't understand on your own, but if Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson each gave it 5-stars you suddenly have a lot of nerds throwing money at it.
Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson are physicists. What about all the projects that are outside the scope of their expertise?
You're essentially going to recreate the grant system that already exists but is underfunded.
There's respected popular scientists in most fields. Like if Antonio Damasio puts his recommendation behind a neuroscience project I'm going to be infinitely more likely to fund it too. You could argue that this is giving popular scientists too much sway when their positions might not reflect consensus (they might specifically be popular because they're controversial), but this is still more money; it's not taking away cash from government funding.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So far I am enjoying Fallout 3 more than I enjoyed Fallout: New Vegas, which may or may not be a controversial opinion?
I am only a few hours into 3, however, and I very likely could have a chip on my shoulder about New Vegas because I've started so many playthroughs that the first 2-4 hours is such a chore now.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
fallout 3 was poop from a butt. Bethesda just did not get the setting.
The story was dumb.
The side stories were dumb.
Worse than poop from a butt. At least poop is popular in Germany.
+1
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
So far I am enjoying Fallout 3 more than I enjoyed Fallout: New Vegas, which may or may not be a controversial opinion?
I am only a few hours into 3, however, and I very likely could have a chip on my shoulder about New Vegas because I've started so many playthroughs that the first 2-4 hours is such a chore now.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
fallout 3 was poop from a butt. Bethesda just did not get the setting.
The story was dumb.
The side stories were dumb.
Worse than poop from a butt. At least poop is popular in Germany.
I didn't realize how shitty the vaults were in FO3 until new vegas. The Election Vault. oh my goddddd. all my dicks.
Man sometimes I forget the worst thing about saying you like something on the interbutts is just the calvacade of being told the thing you like is bad and you're somehow wrong for liking it.
Man sometimes I forget the worst thing about saying you like something on the interbutts is just the calvacade of being told the thing you like is bad and you're somehow wrong for liking it.
Opinions!
conform conform conform conform
Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited April 2015
Too much.
spacekungfuman on
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Man sometimes I forget the worst thing about saying you like something on the interbutts is just the calvacade of being told the thing you like is bad and you're somehow wrong for liking it.
Opinions!
it's okay
everyone else besides you is wrong on these boards about everything
the trick is imagine you are some of kind of dashing iconoclast and everyone else on the internet is a drooling idiot and then just like wat u liek
Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
+1
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Some quick rocket stats: With today's payload, it stands roughly 208 feet tall, and is 12 feet in diameter. Fully loaded, it weighs in at roughly 505,000 lbs, and at lift-off the nine Merlin-1D engines on the first stage will produce roughly 1.3 million pounds of thrust, equal to the power of about 5 Boeing 747s.
i wouldn't describe fallout 3 as a bad game tho just fallout nv is better in literally everyway
but its ok some people like nwn1 more than nwn2 or kotor1 more than kotor2, we just call those people idiots and say mean things about them whenever possible
Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
+1
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
Man sometimes I forget the worst thing about saying you like something on the interbutts is just the calvacade of being told the thing you like is bad and you're somehow wrong for liking it.
Opinions!
FO3 is a weird case. It's not just a game. It kind of represents the death and defilement of a truly beloved classic PC RPG. FO:NV was like a love letter to the originals, so when you say that FO3 is better than FO:NV, you are kind of saying that a Bethesda made modern dumb downed game with the name fallout on it is better than the "real" fallout.
We should make something like a Patreon but for science, where the general public can directly fund research projects as an alternative to the normal grant process.
There are several crowdfunding kickstarter like enterprises designed to finance science projects.
There are some really bad things about this.
1) The crowdfunding kickstarter movement grossly misunderstands the amount of money required to run a full time research laboratory that can produce publication quality data. I.E. You will see them fund small projects to the tune of 100k or so. This is chump change for a laboratory and would cover one tech's salary and some reagents for a year.
2) The crowdfunding kickstarter movement gives citizens the idea that government funding is not important if it can be supplanted by crowdfunding. Which is an untenable position. The only way science will ever recover is if governments increase investment in science.
3) The crowdfunding kickstarter movement is frequently in love with the "gentleman scientist" trope which really only supports a very specific and very rich type of person to do science.
4) There is one guy named Ethan Perlstein who says he is an indy scientist but really he is just running a standard biotech startup. He is like Silicon Valley for scientists.
These all are only problems if you envision the system as a replacement for the standard method of scientific funding and not as something that pulls in additional cash.
Obviously this isn't a replacement for government funding.
Point number 2 is probably the most important one I think
especially since Fox News and republicans in general try to push the idea that private industry ever does actual research or innovation when it does not.
Private industry is only good at taking an idea that was developed on the public dime and turning it into a product / carrying it those last couple years to market.
My "problem" with New Vegas is that I played through like 90% of it years ago on the 360 and for some weird reason never finished it.
I got it last year for PC and I have started it a bunch of times but always grow wary of it around Novac because I just keep starting it, making a character and getting to Novac.
This is hell.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
i wouldn't describe fallout 3 as a bad game tho just fallout nv is better in literally everyway
but its ok some people like nwn1 more than nwn2 or kotor1 more than kotor2, we just call those people idiots and say mean things about them whenever possible
I can see liking KOTOR 1 more than 2. 2 is the better game and story, but its very buggy and not very star warsy.
But NWN1 over 2? Going purely on the campaigns, that seems impossible to me. If you factor in community made stuff then it makes sense though.
0
Options
kaleeditySometimes science is more art than scienceRegistered Userregular
of all the fallout media, I've only played nv
I couldn't play it much until I dropped it to really basic gripes like how it's kind of trying to be a shooter but isn't
I should go back to 1 and 2
+1
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
Guys, Twin Peaks is having auditions for their new location here.
I expect all of you to apply.
The public is so overwhelmingly anti science and thinks nasa takes up like 20% of the countries budget in polls. Lets convince 1 guy in charge of a grant that something obscure is necessary to save humanity, instead of a bunch of mouth breathers who are going to donate to anti-vaxxer and fountain of youth quacks.
I don't have much more faith in what most nerds would fund, either
a lot of important science is stunningly boring unremarkable stuff that ends up finding out "well that didn't work"
It's not even that. Even someone with an advanced degree in a science field is still going to be hard pressed to differentiate between two similar, but distinct approaches to a given problem outside of their field.
What if the system were set up such that other notable, respected individuals in the field could comment on which projects would be the most funding-worthy?
Yeah, you're not going to get a lot of pledges for your obscure physics project that most PhDs can't understand on your own, but if Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson each gave it 5-stars you suddenly have a lot of nerds throwing money at it.
Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson are physicists. What about all the projects that are outside the scope of their expertise?
You're essentially going to recreate the grant system that already exists but is underfunded.
There's respected popular scientists in most fields. Like if Antonio Damasio puts his recommendation behind a neuroscience project I'm going to be infinitely more likely to fund it too. You could argue that this is giving popular scientists too much sway when their positions might not reflect consensus (they might specifically be popular because they're controversial), but this is still more money; it's not taking away cash from government funding.
You've been involved in crowdfunding. Can you imagine what those scientists would have do deal with from their "supporters"?
And what would happen when a lab spends a couple million in crowdfunding money over a couple years only to come up with a negative result? That's good science but backers would flip their shit.
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
+2
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Man sometimes I forget the worst thing about saying you like something on the interbutts is just the calvacade of being told the thing you like is bad and you're somehow wrong for liking it.
Opinions!
"somehow" wrong like you don't know you're trash
+2
Options
kaleeditySometimes science is more art than scienceRegistered Userregular
Posts
You're essentially going to recreate the grant system that already exists but is underfunded.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
These all are only problems if you envision the system as a replacement for the standard method of scientific funding and not as something that pulls in additional cash.
Obviously this isn't a replacement for government funding.
It isn't.
At all.
fallout 3 was poop from a butt. Bethesda just did not get the setting.
The story was dumb.
The side stories were dumb.
The problem I have with this as a non-science person is that I do not understand a lot of science, especially advanced science. With a Veronica Mars Movie kickstarter I give money and I get my newsletter and it's like, okay they are filming. That is definitely part of a process that makes sense when making a movie. They are doing a lot of filming, which means they are clearly on their way to making a movie.
With science, as a lay person, even if there is a super well made explanation of what is being funded, there's probably large swaths of it that are going to be meaningless to me. And once I've invested money into it, I'm not going to very much like to hear if they aren't getting results they expected, nor am I going to be able to understand the ins and outs of what is going on.
Falcon 9 v1.1 with Dragon capsule (loaded with Commercial Resupply Service payload, including a great deal of experimental gear provided by CASIS, the Center for the Advancement of Science In Space) heading to the International Space Station. Weather forecast is still "GO" and looks better than yesterday, but keep in mind that the launch window is instantaneous, so even a 1-second hold inside the terminal countdown (T - 10 minutes) would result in a scrub of today's launch.
noice! Also. I watched videos on how to play the resistance expansions. they look super fun. we should get a game 2gether
There's respected popular scientists in most fields. Like if Antonio Damasio puts his recommendation behind a neuroscience project I'm going to be infinitely more likely to fund it too. You could argue that this is giving popular scientists too much sway when their positions might not reflect consensus (they might specifically be popular because they're controversial), but this is still more money; it's not taking away cash from government funding.
Worse than poop from a butt. At least poop is popular in Germany.
I didn't realize how shitty the vaults were in FO3 until new vegas. The Election Vault. oh my goddddd. all my dicks.
Opinions!
it's okay
everyone else besides you is wrong on these boards about everything
And a lot of that dumb got dragged into New Vegas due to sheer inertia.
NV is still the better game, but NV felt really... sterile.
but its ok some people like nwn1 more than nwn2 or kotor1 more than kotor2, we just call those people idiots and say mean things about them whenever possible
u gettin in on that One Night Resistance
twitch.tv/tehsloth
but wut if Im not imagining.
GUNSTAR MOTHER FUCKING HEROOOOEEEEEEES OH MAHGAAAAAAWD!
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
FO3 is a weird case. It's not just a game. It kind of represents the death and defilement of a truly beloved classic PC RPG. FO:NV was like a love letter to the originals, so when you say that FO3 is better than FO:NV, you are kind of saying that a Bethesda made modern dumb downed game with the name fallout on it is better than the "real" fallout.
Point number 2 is probably the most important one I think
especially since Fox News and republicans in general try to push the idea that private industry ever does actual research or innovation when it does not.
Private industry is only good at taking an idea that was developed on the public dime and turning it into a product / carrying it those last couple years to market.
I got it last year for PC and I have started it a bunch of times but always grow wary of it around Novac because I just keep starting it, making a character and getting to Novac.
This is hell.
I can see liking KOTOR 1 more than 2. 2 is the better game and story, but its very buggy and not very star warsy.
But NWN1 over 2? Going purely on the campaigns, that seems impossible to me. If you factor in community made stuff then it makes sense though.
I couldn't play it much until I dropped it to really basic gripes like how it's kind of trying to be a shooter but isn't
I should go back to 1 and 2
I expect all of you to apply.
I don't think I'd be a good location for the show. I have to go to work and stuff.
You really should. 2 in particular holds up really well provided you get the unofficial res and content patch with it.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
You've been involved in crowdfunding. Can you imagine what those scientists would have do deal with from their "supporters"?
And what would happen when a lab spends a couple million in crowdfunding money over a couple years only to come up with a negative result? That's good science but backers would flip their shit.
wont hear me complaining less do dis
NNID: Hakkekage
"somehow" wrong like you don't know you're trash
you think my balls-in-flannel gambit will work out
what is this now?