TricksterWolf t1_jbfjori wrote

It is unlikely that they consider a woman not requiring a man to be innocent.

Fun fact: it is illegal to own more than three sex toys in Texas, but it is legal to own raccoons there. I guess that's why they call raccoons "dildos of the forest".


TricksterWolf t1_j96mbfo wrote

I agree with all of this, though perhaps not as robustly.

I have a friend with a Post-hole Digger in quantum physics. He said he was finally able to get a job when a prospective employer realized somepony with his credentials could perform tasks other than firing a particle beam at a target.


TricksterWolf t1_j96kc3j wrote

Amusingly, a lot of people who dismiss scientific funding don't even blink when the US spends trillions on a new fighter jet whose ignoble function may end up being naught but shooting down a small balloon with a $400,000 missile.

In contrast, data lasts forever and stands to benefit all of us.


TricksterWolf t1_j96juqs wrote

I'm amused that you think the short duration of the Higgs boson is a strike against it when the exact opposite is true.

I agree that collider money may be arguably overspent in terms of funding, but there isn't an easier approach. Particle theory is important. In case you haven't noticed, it allows us increasingly good predictions for quantum materials science, which is exploding in new discoveries right now as we race to build an adiabatic quantum computer that will break existing encryption technology. Your phone probably uses quantum dots; a lot of the tech we use daily has ties to basic particle research. It's easy to be dismissive when you don't understand the point of research, but this is an area that--while arguably overfunded or misfunded--is still very important.


TricksterWolf t1_j96ie74 wrote

This data is mostly used to test existing theory. Eventually we may find a discrepancy that suggests the Standard Model is missing something, though this seems unlikely in the near future as the model has accurately predicted pretty much everything we throw at it.

It's how science works best: you make your boat, then do everything in your power to sink it. The boats that stay afloat, like quantum chromodynamics, quantum field theory, and general relativity, are the ones that continue to work in ever-more difficult situations.


TricksterWolf t1_j96hlcw wrote

This is science in a nutshell (as well as math, in the event you don't think of it as science).

A lot of cancer-fighting treatments don't come from directed research looking for a cure, but rather from pure research gathered in natural studies. So don't write off silly-sounding investigation into, say, the motility of sea urchin sperm.

It's another arena where politicians suck, too. There was a funded study on dog micturition (urination) that I can easily imagine a US politician shouting at the cameras, "We're wasting three thousand dollars on dog pee!", because it's a great soundbite for outrage. In reality the study looked at the fact that all puppies pee sitting down, but curs stand up, which means something changes the instinct. Turns out that neurons in the spinal cords of male dogs physically rearrange themselves to do this. Groundbreaking research can be challenging to fund, in part because it often isn't directed at a solution to a problem in advance. Sometimes we just have to learn more about nature.