bonifartius 𒂼𒄄 @bonifartius@social.cleverlibre.org

treibers are installed! :)

@dewomser is doch eh egal, oder? spd, cdu, grün, fdp. am ende gibts eh nur wieder wirtschaftsliberalismus und der bürger wird abgeschröpft wo es nur geht, weil sich der bürger nicht wehren kann. ernstzunehmen ist eigentlich nur die linke und (ausgerechnet!) die partei wenn es um bessere zustände für die bürger geht.

@thor i could really use a day browsing random tech books.. maybe i too should plan a trip to my "local" (well 30km) library :)

@FailForward i also found the graphic interesting where the statement was "i have doubts if i can keep my standard of living" and the agreement to this was recorded by who voted for which party. compare the agreement of voters for green to the agreement by left and afd voters.

@freemo
> Which social science discipline do you think doesn't have good commercial opportunities?

i can't quite think of one which has. maybe there are some places for people in advertising and politics? that's about the only place where they are commercially relevant i can think of. if you know more, i'd be interested about it ;) the people i know are either in academia or working in some job but not as researchers.

> That said any discipline where there arent commercial opportunities in the first place is the very area where there is no financial interest in "buying off" the scientists.

i'd say it's less about "buying off" in those disciplines but about political reasons.

like i've said, i don't think many scientists are really "in someones pocket" but that they may have to keep in mind that the funding is from people who might have an agenda, so they choose their research topics accordingly.

i'd really like to see science without politics. as i've previously written, i'm a bit too romantic in that regard ;)

@freemo
> Go work in research scientist and see for yourself.

i was in a research group in university. that was in CS and with a multi-year research grant where the premise was to do basic research, nothing controversial.

> You have to remember 99%+ of scientists in research are making 1/3 of what they could make just going to work for the commercial companies directly. These scientists were never in it for the money.

imho, problem of social science disciplines is that there is almost no place people can go outside of academical context which often _is_ heavily depending on funds from state adjacent sources.

people doing natural science have much more options regarding who pays them. so yes, those who are in academia there are by choice - and they have a bit more leeway on the topics they research as the people with the money want to keep them doing research.

i never was insinuating that the people directly are in for the money. just that if they want to continue doing what they love, they probably choose topics which are not overly controversial, even if it interests them. "don't bite the hand which feeds you". i think that there is a bit of pre-filtering regarding that those who choose to go into research are likely not the ones with overly controversial (not nut-job style, just not mainstream) ideas, because they know it would be very hard to secure funding.

guess i just am too romantic regarding how science should be done ;)

@grips

@freemo i think how the whole funding thing plays out in reality depends on the discipline.. there is enough funding for all kinds of bullshit in computer science (just throw blockchains on it!) while in other disciplines like social ones the funds are almost exclusively from nation adjacent entities which by nature are more interested to have research which is more "in line" with their own interests. combined with the already science hostile environment of cancle culture it's rather problematic. natural science is a bit less suspiciable (idk if this is the right word) for this of course, as the research matter isn't as controversial directly. i'd venture that it has gotten harder to do research on e.g. fission reactors in the west though, even if it's still a relevant topic.

as i've said, not a problem of science, but of society imho. maybe i just see the whole topic too black and white :)

@Moon @Telvannichad @kino

@freemo was more of a heads up ;)

@freemo going to that instance looks like it is set up for crypto spam, a handful of new profiles with no or one post :) but yeah, as long as i don't get direct messages it's not really relevant and can be handles by myself :)

@freemo
you'll just get no funding anymore in the future ;)

the problem is that publicly funded science is depending so heavily on getting funds "per project". the fixed sum to spend on whatever you deem to think is interesting is rather limited.

@Moon @Telvannichad @kino

@freemo solagg.com seems to be a cryptocoin spam instance, already got two follows by spammy profiles

@freemo @Moon @Telvannichad @kino

science done right works rather well. it's just that "science" currently is so dominated by the interests of money that it's process doesn't work anymore. if you don't have the "right" results, your funding is cut etc.

it's really not a problem of science but of society.

and i say this as environmentalist: nothing will get better for the environment with them.

the german green party is full of lying cheats. they want to fix climate change by making the lives of the common people harder, while the industry will never be touched. technology is hailed as the solution not the problem by them. they said yes to wars. they said yes to making the live of unemployed harder. fuck the german green party. never forgive, never forget.

@Shiroyasha rereading my post, maybe i should just go for a career in toothbrush sales xD