11 thoughts on “Throughput: Gutting Science for the LOLs

  1. The politicization of science has resulted in science becoming political.

    Unfortunately, this replicates over and over and over and over and over and over and over

    1. Nope. Science is not becoming political. “Interpreting science.” “Utilizing self-serving versions of science.” “Nit-picking segments of science.” “Bowdlerizing science.” “Ignoring science.” “Refusing to fund science.” “Denying established science.” Yup, all that is political. But science is not becoming political. We can (and lots of us seemingly want to) make science disappear under a sea of muck, but it’s still there. And (if we ever find the will again) we will be able to re-access it. Fingers crossed. (Well, luck exists as well).

      1. Agree 100%. Take climate crisis deniers. They aren’t actually denying the science – mostly. They just don’t like the policy choices that derive from it. Which is funny to me because there could be billions to be made in mitigation, adaptation , and even prevention.

        1. What’s even worse is they want to deny the choices to everyone else, even when the choices are being made for adaptation purposes. In the American West, where water supplies will be more erratic, replacing water-cooled thermal power plants with solar and wind is good planning. There are limits to how clean you can make a gasoline ICE. In urban areas, even before the power grid is cleaned up, electric cars make it possible to shift emissions in both space and time.

        2. I was thinking more about stuff like “Scientific American setting itself on fire” or the whole Covid thing where we moved from “Safe At Home” to “Protesting Injustice Is Public Health”.

          Stuff like that.

  2. If I remember correctly, a risky assumption at my age, there was an episode of The Adventures of Superman in which the bad guys got their hands on a scientist who had discovered a way to turn lead into gold. Sadly, the process required a large quantity of platinum, which, apparently, cost more than the resulting gold.

    1. The process at CERN produces radioactive gold-203. Half life is 60 seconds, and it decays to mercury-203. That mercury isotope is also radioactive, has a half life of 46 days and decays to thallium-203, which is stable. Unstated in the medieval lead-to-gold conversion problem is that you need gold-197, the only stable isotope.

  3. ThTh6: Exciting and depressing times for ground-based observations. In addition to the Rubin instrument, the Extremely Large Telescope is making steady progress. I recently saw simulated images of what they expect from the adaptive optics in the ELT, and they were stunning. OTOH, StarLink has thousands of satellites up, Project Kuiper has (finally) started launching what will be more thousands, as has China. If I were starting out in the field, I think I’d focus on software to stitch together the parts of the images w/o satellite streaks.

      1. …at least if we can’t predict hurricanes…

        As JB so often says, there ought to be a way for the ECMWF people to monetize their work. From memory, back when Sandy was moving north, for a few days they were the only ones forecasting the sharp left turn into the Long Island Sound.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *