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.
That's exactly what I was wondering. Simple objective, very difficult problem, maybe have to invent new algorithms. Kind of like this:
*removed externally hosted image*
Hey E-L-O-N , y'know what else the government spends an exorbitant amount of money on? Go on, take a guess.
Studying fly development has led to cancer treatments targeting the sonic hedgehog pathway.
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.
Well, that was something that benefitted women, so it's clearly not efficient for any of the grey, white men in this committee
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.
I never knew pregnancy tests had frogs in them. The sticks seem so small.
Those are usually the scary ones to piss on, unless it's a tree frog in which case you have to factor in the dexterity.
Here's the tweet in question: https://xcancel.com/DOGE/status/1858540521096089876#m
Anyone know what studies it's referring to?
