amark

It's extremely difficult to re-gain respect once it's lost. That's just how people are. We form an opinion on somebody, and then look for reasons to justify that opinion, not challenge that opinion.

Also, group/team dynamics are usually influenced by the most vocal. If there was a previous serious conflict with 1 or 2 team members, it's possible they continued to poison the discourse, even when the management quality improved for that week.

I've been a hypem fan for 7 years. Take it from me, it's the BEST.

My company's UX even riffs off of theirs (with an unrelated focus)

Same as with any position in the tech industry. It's not about job applications and education anymore. It's about networking. It's about demonstrating skills through projects. It's about online presence. It's about conferences and events. It's about reaching out to people who have done it before, and learning from them.

Why do they use so much bloom lighting? It's excessive.

That's true, but you're ignoring the other environmental impacts your plastic use (and my plastic use) will have. Raw materials, expanding landfills, landfill leakage, leeched chemicals from plastic bottles/containers into our food/water, reduced bird populations from eating plastics, etc.

Nobody gets tenure anymore. Most stay as associate professors, and make 60-70k.

He said contemporaries, not friends. Meaning that other successful PHDs/Scientists that put in the same amount of work that he did, but in the private sector, are making that much money.

Science requires repeatability and thorough testing to stabilize theories. If studies are only preformed once and discarded, instead of repeated, we know nothing.

Those fields aren't the issue, and not what he is discussing in the article. The two fields he mentions, bio-chem (the DNA sequencing) and quantum physics (higgs), both require large amounts of funding to progress. Think the large hadrom collider was cheap? Think a DNA sequencing machine is cheap?

Math is only limited by computer power, and our own personal mental computing power. Computer science, similarly. Those two fields are different from the rest of science as we know it today.

Don't think so. The interview is long winded, but right around the mid-point the author get's to the point. The title isn't misleading.

That won't work. The money isn't going to line the pockets of (most) of the researchers. It's going to fund the actual science costs itself, which is millions per project.

The problem is that science nowadays is expensive. We've past the days where scientits can preform chemistry experiments in their garage, most science requires heavily specialized equipment, years of preparation, and/or lots of people.

I don't see a clear way to fix this problem. The projects that have the clearest ROI will continue to get funded first.

He's really a PR genius. When he restores Flappy Bird to the app store next week, after a week of the media writing about how it was taken down abruptly, It'll blow up even more.

Dogecoin's already innovating faster then bitcoin!

Basically what they're saying is "we're ok with subverting the constitution if it fits our needs".

The executive branch's power has gotten completely out of hand in the past decade, all under the guise of "security" and preventing "terrorism". The reason the judicial branch exists is to stop crap like this. If they can't do their job constitutional balance of power doesn't exist.