Comment Re:We don't need so many PhDs. (Score 2) 150
More pressure to get results generally gets more results, yes.
And some fraction of those results won't be good ones, true.
BUT - the whole way science is set up is self correcting, so the bad results... just plain don't work. So you won't ever be harmed, by, say, getting the wrong diagnosis from a Theranos machine. Because it just doesn't work. Instead, people will have egg on their faces, get fired, waste money. (hey wait, wasn't Theranos a business side venture not academia? Surely that must make it immune to
But: more research means more results overall, some fraction of which is good, so, more overall good work out there, more useful stuff for humanity.
Not mentioned elsewhere in this thread: the fact that grad students do much of the actual research work out there. They're motivated, learning, and make the whole process go (and then go on to be the next generation of scientists, both inside and outside of academia). Fewer students directly scales to less research output. Research output, in the exact modern sense of the phrase we're talking about, is why we're not still living in the 1940's. The Unabomber is sad about that. Why are so many slashdotters?
Comment Re:What do you do with all those batteries? (Score 1) 110
Comment Re:Also EVs are all crap good for nothing because (Score 1) 135
Comment Re:I don't get it (Score 4, Informative) 22
Stuff falling in is really falling quite a long way. If its path doesn't intersect the event horizon, ie, it "misses" the black hole: it either smacks (really hard) into other stuff down there that's also not quite fallen in, or slingshots back out. The event horizon being comparatively small, a lot of stuff ends up either in a very hot accretion disk around the black hole, or being blown back out in jets or winds.
This is why black holes are the hearts of some of the most energetic astrophysical objects in the universe: powered by stuff almost falling in, and all that gravitational potential energy turning to kinetic energy turning to thermal energy.
Comment Re:Well... (Score 5, Insightful) 303
The "new eyes" thing is why the membership rotates on a regular basis.
But now, if you were someone whose opinions might be valuable... why would you bother wasting any time contributing to the board, knowing the rug could get randomly pulled for no reason? So, no actually open "eyes" will end up on whatever might get recreated in its place. Wonder what might be the over/under on the number of Fox news talking heads on the new board?
Comment Re:US, Mexico, and Venezuela ... (Score 1) 364
The rest of the US Navy has drones and fast boats covered. Mines were the main unknown. The US Navy has cleared mines from Hormuz several times in the past.
However, the squadron of USN minesweepers stationed in the Gulf for this purpose were decommissioned shortly before the Special Military Operation started. Talk about good planning...
Comment Re:Power consumption (Score 1) 68
Comment Re:Science forgotten (Score 1) 69
Batteries not included: Please remember, the lunar night lasts 10 Earth days.
Part of the interest in a lunar south pole location for the base is one could put the panels on a ridge which sees the sun the whole time. Of course, then they'd have to be rotating, more things to go wrong: but even just some spifft rotating ones would help a lot with the night-time problem.