/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16037717]

Physicists: We study torus-shaped cows.
Mathematicians: We study PDEs on the surfaces of bnuuys.
Should mathematicians and physicists be allowed to waste taxpayers' money like this?

[Anonymous No.16037722]

bnuuy

[Anonymous No.16037726]

I wish my taxes went into bnuuy PDEs. But instead they are spent on wars, censorship, propaganda and Pfizer.

[Anonymous No.16037743]

>>16037717
I would sleep better a night if substantially more of the worlds wealth went into such works.

[Anonymous No.16037750]

>trying to frogpost
>internet goes down because the gubberment sent all the money to bnuuys

[Anonymous No.16037763]

>>16037726
>>16037743
Y'all don't get it.
>>16037750
This guy gets it.

[Anonymous No.16037766]

>>16037717
I am more alright with mathematicians using tax payer funding to study potentially frivolous things for 2 reasons:
1) pure mathematics results often end up being useful in applied sciences down the line in unpredictable ways
2) pure mathematics doesn't cost nearly as much as physics research. When you spend tax payer dollars on some mathematics project, at most you are paying for man hours and some moderate computing power. Physicists often demand incredibly expensive equipment just to end up churning out useless bullshit about quantum silly string.

[Anonymous No.16037777]

>>16037766
math gets a little less than 1/3 of the funding of physics. $700m is still quite a lot though. It's probably mostly for simulations because they can cost a lot of money
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24307

[Anonymous No.16037780]

>>16037777
$700m is actually a lot less than I was expecting. That's barely anything in terms of tax payer funding. There are individual public universities with an annual operating budget larger than that.

[Anonymous No.16037783]

>>16037717
I would vote to shovel taxpayer money into a furnace if given the opportunity. That would be better than the military and welfare recipients getting it.

[Anonymous No.16037791]

>>16037717
DoD money went into this. Probably going to be used to make deadlier drones or something. Something to think about.

[Anonymous No.16037795]

>>16037717
Okay this is the thread where I ask
With all the trillion billions of tax dollars paid by CEOs each year and so on
And googolplexes of useless studies
And how "medical research" is exempted from all censorship and all standards of human decency
And how so much scientific literature gets published freely available to those who know online

Where are some good places I can find scientific pictures and videos of women peeing? There must be some sort of stock video of woman test subjects peeing on camera out there for some dumbass useless study.

[Anonymous No.16037822]

>>16037777
>>16037780
All you really need to make progress in math is pen and paper, and maybe a few desktop computers.

Math, by its very nature, requires almost nothing in terms of funding and produces no immediate monetizable results at the same time. Go to any college and I guarantee you the math building will be old as fuck and shabby. The engineering departments on the other hand will be quite modern.

[Anonymous No.16037854]

>>16037722
pnuuλ

[Anonymous No.16037931]

>>16037717
I'd rather spend it on science than pretty much anything else they spend it on.
>taxpayers' money
You mean government funds. Taxpayers' money is when it's spend on bad things. Science is great, you should try it.

[Anonymous No.16038082]

>>16037780
>$700m is actually a lot less than I was expecting
no it wasn't

[Anonymous No.16038095]

>>16037777
How the fuck does Physics get more funding than Materials Science?
>>16037795
You can find hidden cam videos on major porn websites. No need to recur to scientific resources.

[Anonymous No.16038573]

>>16037717
physicists can do whatever they want because they have leverage. If you want to keep a technological society you have to do what they tell you to do. Physicists are not day laborers you can just abuse.
This means you will spend all the money they ask from you, otherwise kiss your technological world goodbye

[Anonymous No.16038589]

>>16037717
Computer Scientists: We study teapots.

[Anonymous No.16038708]

>>16037763
>Y'all
Please don't use that ghetto vernacular again. /sci/ is a high iq civilised board.

[Anonymous No.16039440]

>>16037717
>bnuuys
why is this so funny?

[Anonymous No.16039573]

>>16038095
But hidden cam vids are blurry, censored, morally questionable, I want my porn clinical yet still by amateurs.

[Anonymous No.16039780]

He’s been through a lot.

[Anonymous No.16039808]

>>16037822
And yet the math departments will write the language that applied science then later needs to learn for their problems.

There's a huge open question in ML right now on how to define information limits for sequential ML based inference systems (classifiers, estimators, clustering that receives data in an online fashion rather than in batches). Many of the recent papers which attempt to address this question inevitably find themselves reaching back towards 1970's probability theory, theory of Brownian motion and SDE's, and 1980's random matrix theory.

All of these had their fundamental breakthroughs happen in mathematics in an abstract sense far before we had any clue what subjects they'd be useful for now 50 years later.

[Anonymous No.16039820]

>>16038082
There are approximately 1,600 public universities in the US, almost all of which will have a math department, and most of which will have active researching faculty. These researching factulty will have a very large chunk of their research funded by the NSF unless they are in an area of applied math that is easier to get private funding sources. That's $437k per school per year if we assume that all of it is going towards research professors (it's not).

If we assume approximately $20k per year tuition (on the lower end for public universities) then this amounts to the equivalent of about 20 students per school per year. This doesn't include equipment, operational and administrative expenses, cost of training new grad students and undergrad REU's, etc.

That number also doesn't count the absurd amount of graduate student funding (both at public and private schools) which the NSF engages in. A really large chunk of that money (probably upwards of 20%) will go towards funding undergraduate REU's, and early graduate projects/tuition.

[Anonymous No.16039955]

>>16038573
I mean, you gotta admit not all physics research contributes equally to technological development. Some of it is just guys fucking around with lasers and then writing some papers with funky maths. Occasi

[Anonymous No.16040043]

>>16037717
who said anything about taxpayers, 2/3s of the Federal budget is borrowed at this point. The total tax receipts barely cover our payments on the debt so we have to borrow more to operate.
As far as academics, 90% of them are imposters who need to get tossed out, a fun bunny project on the side is not disqualifying but it depends what else they do

[Anonymous No.16040460]

>>16037726
The only reason you can do a bnuuy PDE on your PC is because the USAF needed to invent CAD and CFD to design stealth aircraft and simulate nuclear explosions without violating the test ban, you stand on the shoulders of the giants