ContriteErudite

@ContriteErudite@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine | A quiet policy change means the government is making fewer bets on long-term science.⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Thank you for that. I do my best to be direct without sounding antagonistic or demeaning. It’s always been hard to have a good conversation on the internet, but I feel that lemmy - for the most part - has a good community with a strong sense of equanimity. I’ve always loved learning new things, so I really appreciate your open-mindedness and candor about wanting to learn more. Cheers!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine | A quiet policy change means the government is making fewer bets on long-term science.⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  In a different response I asked for you to provide examples, but I didn’t submit that reply until after you posted this, so I’ll respond here.

  I looked through those articles, and every example of a non-military scientific study had qualification from the author on the actual aim of the study and how future studies built upon the results. On the other hand, many of the military-funded studies were, in my opinion, hare-brained and ill-suited to begin with. Any study whose premise can be milled down to “how to kill more people better” is half-baked at best, and regressively dangerous at worst. Still, they produced knowledge or technology that later proved useful. Science has always been like this: the scientists who discovered nuclear fission wanted it to be a new energy source long before the worst of us chose to weaponize it.

  The same applies to gain-of-function research. It can help us understand how viruses cross species barriers, as COVID-19 did from bats to humans. That potential is real and valuable, even if the risks feel frightening to non-scientists. Some work may be better paused, but the underlying scientific questions remain important.

  As for cost, science has never been cheap. Researchers, equipment, specialized materials, and long-term animal care add up quickly. Maintaining a single genotyping mouse colony can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. What looks frivolous to one person may be vital to another, and many breakthroughs begin with questions that seem irrelevant at first glance.

  My broader point is simple: much of science’s value lies beneath the surface, in expertise and context the public rarely sees. Too often, people dismiss what they don’t understand instead of learning more or deferring to those who do. If we’re worried about waste, the Pentagon’s inability to pass an audit despite consuming more taxpayer money than scientific research ever has, says far more about misplaced priorities than the price of experimentation and discovery.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine | A quiet policy change means the government is making fewer bets on long-term science.⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m genuinely curious what you and others who share your thoughts have in mind when they say there are a lot of useless and frivolous scientific studies. Can you please share some examples, I’d like to learn more about them.

  As far as I know, receiving government funding for a scientific study is a highly competitive process. Proposals are examined by qualified experts who evaluate their merit, relevance, and scientific rigor long before money is awarded.

  I can understand why non-scientists might jump to the wrong conclusions, especially if they only ever see sensational headlines or oversimplified editorials. But this is exactly why it’s so important to recognize our own limits and defer to the people who actually work in these fields. It takes maturity and intellectual humility to admit when something is outside our wheelhouse.

  Curious people and scientists alike know to read past the headline, because that’s where the actual knowledge lives. The studies I know of that are most often mocked as “frivolous” are examples of how misleading a surface-level reading can be:

  “Drunk ants fall mostly on their right side.” This is actually an urban-myth-tier claim. There has never been a funded study or published paper demonstrating a one-sided “drunk ant” effect.

  “Cocaine makes honey bees dance differently.” The bee study wasn’t about amusing scientists with drugged insects. It examined how cocaine affects reward pathways and communication. This research was relevant to understanding addiction and motivation across species, including humans.

  “Do woodpeckers get headaches?” This wasn’t a joke experiment. Woodpeckers were used as a natural model to study how repeated head impacts can occur without concussive injury, producing insights into human head trauma and designing better safety gear.

  Ultimately, federal funding for scientific research is rigorous and competitive. Truly frivolous projects rarely make it through the approval process. What often looks absurd to the public is, in reality, carefully designed work grounded in expertise we don’t always see or fully understand.

  This is exactly why listening to experts matters, and why it’s so dangerous that American policy makers are completely discounting scientific knowledge and expertise.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The 1980s summed up in a single photo.⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Licking restaurant ashtrays is just what we kids did back then. We didn’t know any better!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨One of my favorites⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Nope, it’s nee-chuh. I also mispronounced it for years…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hardest version I've seen yet⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Was all said tongue in cheek. I was taking the piss because they were being hyperbolic. Appreciate you.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hardest version I've seen yet⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Right, so you’ve seen that, have you? Watched some gullible sap throw cans of food at the cat until one sticks? Perhaps if it’s a newly adopted pet, then yes, you have to put in some work to find the kind of food that the cat prefers. Research has proven that kittens actually build a preference for the food that their mother ate during gestation and nursing, and it takes deliberate care on the owner’s part to move them over to a different kind of food.

  I once had a golden retriever inhale half a pound of salami, vomit it across the linoleum ten minutes later, and then like some greasy ouroboros of shame, it eat the same spewed-salami again. Twice. It’s like comparing apples and oranges, except I bet my dog would have eaten those, too.

  And then there’s the cat, not having any of it. Doesn’t fetch, doesn’t beg, doesn’t need humans’ approval; which I bet drives certain people mad that it’s primary motivation in life isn’t to be their own personal dopamine dispenser.

  Sarcasm aside, I do get where you’re coming from. Cats and dogs aren’t variations of the same theme; dogs are social, cats are solitary. Some people understand that and don’t expect their pets to be anything more than what they are. Me? I like both cats and dogs. I don’t expect them to be little humans or to stroke my ego. I’m their caretaker, not their cult leader. If they’re happy, safe, and healthy, that’s the win. Anything beyond that is a bonus.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Good news. :)⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Has anyone seen RFK Jr. and one of Nurgle’s Great Unclean Ones in the same room together? I don’t think so…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I love bpd girls⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I think this as well, though I have no formal training in psychology. My perspective comes from a lifelong interest in learning across fields and from having several family members who struggled with mental health, often dismissed as hysterical, crazy, over-emotional, or immature. Decades later, many of them received diagnoses of comorbid autism and CPTSD. I believe that within the next 5–10 years, assuming the DSM can be inured against political editorialization, autism diagnoses will be further refined and the spectrum will become more granular and specific.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Breaking the generational barriers⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T new word A-R-T-I-S-T Spells BULLSHIT ARTIST. I say again, BULLSHIT ARTIST.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon turns on raytracing⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  There is a real reason to not use the “C + P” initialism in online chat these days… on some platforms it’s likely to be flagged & reported by automods/bots/Eye of Sauron.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨IT’S THE FEDS!⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Between all the microplastics, digital babysitting, and the department of education, the US had to dumb down its toys or risk alienating the target market. Regarding the lower quality chocolate, they’ve begun adding crayons directly to the mix so the children grow to become better marine recruits.

  obligatory /s

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Can't throw me off the scent⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Copper cables are easier to reuse or sell as scrap due to the intrinsic value of the metal value and simple structure. Fiber optic cables are harder to reuse because they require precise handling, expensive connectors, and special training and equipment to splice together properly. Unless thieves steal pre-terminated fiber and handle it with extreme care or take entire spools with a buyer ready, fiber is essentially worthless to them since it can’t be melted down and reused like copper.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A real puzzler⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Ah, a classic. ALF truly is timeless.