🇳🇱
Self assembling "wires".. sooooo cool
#EE #electronics #ElectricalEngineering #HV #HighVoltage #Science @Science
that's cool, I don't know why, but it remined me of this (non-sequiter, just cool) thing:
"The result is a motorcycle that looks more like an organic exoskeleton than a machine. That was a very deliberate design goal for APWorks, which programmed the algorithm to use bionic structures and natural growth processes and patterns as the basis for developing a strong but lightweight structure"
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160522-airbus.html
Due to bandwidth limitations, I offer only an example of "organic" skeletons grown using AI to fill in minimal material for maximum structural strength... AI, being "organic" in fabrication with artificial materials is fucking cool. (even with more basics too, like out of aluminum).
It wasn't long ago, it seems, but in the 1990s I watched a guy do a talk on OLED tech and we all just went "cool, some day we can hang our TV on the wall like a picture" and went home to tell my friends who didn't believe me.
When you think of the shit we will have in 20 years, if you are smart, you instantly know, it's going to be totally different, and better in a way you haven't even thought of yet.
@Coyote Yup, paywalls on research is a tragedy and many researchers agree on that. But keep in mind that isnt so much the researchers fault, they need to make a living. The problem is most research in the US is done for profit and very little is 100% government funded. If americans were more willing to use their tax dollars on science rather than other wastes of money then we could actually make more research public.
No see, yea, exactly.
Step one, get funding. Where? EXTREMELY high likelihood of it being the government. That's already kinda bad news, because the competition now involves the political process.
Step B, publish, so you can get more funding, in the system that rewards paywalled publications in the highest regards, for, let's admit, reasons that are financial, and have a huge social inequity involved.
Part III. When government funding rewards what is supposed to be among our highest valued societal content outputs, primarily when the output is restricted to only the powerful and wealthy, the financial gains to society's capitalist system DO in fact break down due to bureaucratic corruption.
Scientific Research, particularly when funded by the government, should not be something we outsource critical, vital, fundamental, parts of out to a for profit entity. That's kinda not how "minimal government" under capitalism was meant to work. That's corruption of a system, but, that's IMHO.
@Coyote No thats not remotely true. Funding in the vast majority of cases must come on the condition that the funding is received no matter the outcome of the study. Moreover you do not get funding specifically for favorable studies. Thats just not how it works.. Why do you think there are paywalls? You are paying for the studies, and the fact that the vast majority of those payments are subscriptions to all studies (not just the ones that agree with your biases) you can not, even if you wished to, pay for studies to be favorable.
Obviously there are always a few exceptions of fraudulent studies. But they are rare and few between and the community is quick to expose them.
Whenever a study **is** funded by a company or entity with a personal interest in the outcome it absolutely must be stated in the study itself and the conflict of interest exposed.
If you ever actually worked on peer reviewed publications in any capacity you'd understand most of what you said is not at all applicable. Most scientist will happily make 1/10th of what they could make just to ensure their work is objective and without backally deals.
Hi, @freemo
Thanks for the stirring presentation on the selfless, brave, pure warriors of knowledge. Yes, I'm being ironic. I know a lot of people who work in the academic sciences (and related government agencies). Some are kind, some are smart, they are all very, very human. Every human weakness is present.
Just to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Or to call out more concrete examples:
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/03/31/reproducibility-crisis-15446
Never said they were perfect. Notice that the replication crisis is focused the medical field, and most especially psychology. This should not at all be surprising for many reasons. for starters it is a less exact field with a lot of unknowns. Second, it is a field where conditions change. An antibiotic that is 99% effective one year might be 10% effective a few years later. That might lead to a lack of replication but it doesnt mean that either study was in error.
Yup, there is a very legit replication crisis in medicine, but biology changes over time, and like you said even things like aspirin change as we as a species respond to it generation after generation, or even decade after decade.
> effective one year and not another
this is common apparently. some lab liked to redo old drug trials from time to time and found that like, aspirin or something was starting to be outcompeted by placebos a few times.