nananonymous

> Okay, this is clearly not a discussion worth having.

100% agreed.

This type of social control is so bizarre to me. Like, here's a literal script for you to read from if you'd like us to stop attacking you in the future.

That's great for solving known problems, like maybe Coke could estimate that reducing turbulence in their pipes in Warehouse ABC would save them a half million dollars a year. Then they can set aside money, maybe insure the project against failure, the insurance company has some idea what to charge them for such a policy, and so on.

But when Einstein was working on Relativity nobody could have foreseen what it would make possible. In that case the discovery was made and then eventually the business sector found a way to sell it, decades afterwards. Today we know what GPS makes possible so we know what it's worth, but in 1905 there was basically no market value for it.

I have a hard time seeing taxation as always theft. In a democratic society the public either is or was part of the decision on whether or not to fund things like the LHC. If society agrees to pay for it then by definition there's no coercion.

I think the LHC has over a dozen participating countries, each of which volunteered to be part of it. Ideally there should be checks and balances making sure a project of this scale is free from corruption.

That's the problem. They can't answer that question and neither can the market. The market is great at assigning value to things based on scarcity and demand, but there will never be scarcity of the Navier-Stokes equations because they can just be copied and shared so the market is useless for saying what they're worth.

And before a discovery is made literally nobody knows how it might change the world. I somehow doubt a thousand investors could have better predicted the future value of the transistor any better than the handful of electrical engineers working on that frontier.

I think the comments above are pointing out what appear to be perverse incentives surrounding seeking mental health resources. It raises the question of whether those incentives could be changed in a way that all parties would benefit.

Meta: how can you write an article about Uber's president leaving and leave out the massive lawsuit from Google's parent company?

Grandparent comment was saying "X is bigger than Y", saying "Y is not zero" misses the point.

sqeaky's comment offers an explanation. I don't fully agree with it but it's a productive step forward in a discussion. When you use words like ignorant, tedious, stupid, dumb and lazy while failing to refute the argument it doesn't make you or your side look any better. I look at sqeaky's comment and have to admit I can see where they're coming from, meanwhile I look at your comments and wonder why you think you've just knocked this one out of the park.

> CITATION NEEDED.

Do you really need proof that more effort is going towards getting women into jobs from Column A than Column B? You had to resort to linking one of your own comments from a middle-popularity post on a fairly small website from a year ago. I could easily find videos of world leaders saying "This is important"

But you can just clear your cookies, go to google and see how "women in ____" auto-completes, then see how many results each phrase gets. You may not see an "orders of magnitude" of difference but you won't be able to act like there's equal attention going in each direction either.

I expected that to be a post to an actual discussion, not a link to one of your own posts which nobody actually responded to.

It also sidesteps the point that there's an orders of magnitude difference in how much effort goes towards getting women into safe and high-paying male-dominated jobs compared to dangerous low-paying male-dominated jobs.

So you think it'll go air-to-surface soon, too? /s

The difference here is Lockheed knows why they're developing this technology, in Real Genius they were being tricked.

If facebook is just now announcing their upgrade should we expect these prices to go down?

Since KE = (1/2)mv^2 we can just do the math.

Say m=2 so we're just left looking at the v^2 terms:

120^2 - 96^2 >? 24^2 - 0^2

5184 >? 576

So yes, the KE difference between 120 and 96 is greater than the difference between 24 and 0.