The problem the tweet is pointing out is that research scientists are mostly concerned about getting and keeping funding since their jobs and the jobs of those working for them depend on it. Thus they’ll target research questions that are deemed sexy by those in control of the funds. This can lead to a few areas being over-researched and other worthy areas of inquiry being underfunded. Plus that over-researched work can be of questionable quality and importance since a lot of less-good scientists get funded due to the overabundance of funds.

So we’re going to ambush oil billionaires while they’re shopping for appliances?

Yo better check your fuel prices: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/09/21/why-uranium-prices-are-soaring

Plus imagine how expensive uranium will get once we start relying on nuclear. It’ll be the new oil.

To those complaining about streaming services, I’ve been using free alternative streaming websites for years and haven’t had an issue.

True, but if you’re not going to subscribe regardless then why not?

The “it’s not economical” argument is used very often for numerous topics and it always begs the question: not economical compared to what? Is the purportedly more economical choice accounting for every externality it creates? Is it only economical because it already exists? Are there reasons we should stop doing the economical option? Lastly, what unaccounted for benefits might materialize if the uneconomical choice was pursued anyway?

So in this particular situation, we’re comparing the costs of building and operating high speed rail lines in the US to maintaining highways, hundreds of thousands of vehicles, airports, and planes. We should also account for the externalities created by using this infrastructure, so a shitload of carbon emissions plus the negatives of car culture and flying is just an awful experience.

We should also consider what may happen if high speed rail was built anyway. I bet there would be so much more medium distance travel, people would be going on day trips to cities they wouldn’t have considered before. Previously unknown and forgotten areas of the country may be revitalized. Who knows what cool stuff could happen.

Anyway, it really sucks when people use the “iT,s nOt eCoNoMiCaL” argument because it’s probably not true when everything is taken into account.

Even if the USA was to start a massive federal level HSR program tomorrow, it would likely be several disconnected networks which may never connect across the Rockies.

So what? You gotta start somewhere

Does this plan require good returns on investments? Cuz 15K × 20 years doesn’t equal 500 to 700k. Isn’t that how a lot of boomers got financially wrecked? Putting all their money into 401Ks or housing only to have them lose a ton of value every time there’s a once in a lifetime financial crisis? Hopefully this doesn’t sound sarcastic, they’re honest questions.

Obviously you don’t need one, but for those who may benefit: I’ve been using a weird 3 prong to 4 prong plug adapter for several years now without trouble. It has a ground wire that you plug into the ground slot of a nearby outlet, so it’s quite safe.