Comments by "bj0rn" (@TheLivirus) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. Too much top-down distribution of resources. Young scientists need to prove their loyalty to old paradigms in order to secure their career. Even senior scientists need to appeal to politics and financial interests to succeed. This is really bad for innovation and progress.
    725
  2. Sure, but forests don't need to be planted, they just need to be left to themselves. Are we willing to sacrifice fertile farmland and attractive housing areas for forests?
    21
  3. Very exciting. I hope this leads to resolution of the "where's the antimatter" question.
    8
  4. 4:50 "I think this is a development to have an ion ..."
    5
  5. Wind turbine, fan, nice!
    4
  6. ​ @ArgumentumAdHominem  I'm no expert on research finance, but I imagine that it would be beneficial to have a balance between rewarding demonstrated research performance and taking chances with unproven researchers who show ambition. Even if 95% of unproven researchers fail, the remaining 5% may introduce innovative ideas which wouldn't otherwise have been given a chance. It could be a mechanism against stagnation.
    3
  7. ​ @ArgumentumAdHominem  Hmm, interesting, I think I agree a little, but not fully on the weight of merit. Maybe "top-down" wasn't the right word. What I was trying to say is that by nature of science it is impossible to know in advance what will succeed. Rather than trying to work around this issue through an increasingly advanced meritocracy, it may be more efficient to just take more chances with unproven researchers. "But how do we then distribute limited resources fairly?" How about: screen with not too high bar, then select randomly.
    2
  8.  @hurrdurr3615  I think you've mischaracterized the problem. String theory attracted some of the smarted and most hard working people and they have been very productive in terms of papers and mathematical innovations. Unfortunately their hard work has not led to progress in physics. This is not a problem of people being lazy or greedy, but perhaps a reminder not to put all eggs in one basket, even if the smartest people say it has the highest potential for success.
    2
  9. I'm a climate change skeptic, but I appreciate Sabine's informative videos.
    2
  10. ​ @Thomas-gk42  I'm also afraid that I may be wrong, that's why I'm a skeptic.
    2
  11.  @Thomas-gk42  Let me expand a bit: I'm pretty agnostic at the moment. I heard good and bad arguments from both sides and I'm not sure what is true. I'm interested in learning more though, in hope that I will be convinced one day, either way. There are also layers to the question of climate: 1. Is it changing? 2. Is the change due to human activity? 3. How negatively will the change affect humanity? 4. Is our current strategy of reducing CO2 feasible? 5. Would it be more feasible to start adapting to the predicted change? Etc.
    2
  12. It's indeed confusing to be told one has academic freedom while the University's survival depends on steering research wherever money leads.
    1
  13. I'm thankful that there are people who believe the darnest things. It's entertaining. I agree that the lack of trust in authority is the issue. Politicians appealing to science to justify unscientific policy does not help.
    1
  14. Wow. Now this makes me more sympathetic to Sabine's nihilism.
    1
  15. Small risk. Ok, no reason for worry.
    1
  16. Also: Trees don't really need planting. We just need to leave the land to itself. The question though is if we really want to do that. As Sabine mentioned, what about all that land we need for growing food?
    1
  17. I didn't subscribe to Sabine for more politics and war. Back to science please.
    1
  18. I don't believe it should be the responsibility of scientists, educators, journalists, etc. to protect the masses against bad ideas. They should just do their part to promoted the good ones. I trust that most people exposed to a diversity of perspectives will eventually find their way to more correct ones. This being said, I can understand the frustration of a science communicator when psuedoscience goes viral.
    1
  19. I think the collapse of trust in science relates to actual misuse and corruption of science for politics, profit and career. It is unfortunate that the work and reputation of honest scientists is dragged along into the mud. What is needed to restore trust in science is to acknowledge the problem, expel dishonest actors, and cut ties with private business and politics. Academia should be funded unconditionally by taxes for public good.
    1
  20. 1:06 "That's the same color you also see in the aurora" I read recently that the aurora is an example of "synchotron radiation" which is emitted when charged particles are accelerated in a magnetic field. If this is true, then the mechanism is not the same as "when electrons hit some of the atoms of the gas in the tube". To be fair, Sabine did not say this, only that the color is the same.
    1
  21.  @DrDeuteron  I'm sure you're right. I'm going to try find the source. I might have misunderstood. Regarding the color, doesn't that depend somewhat on how strongly the particle is accelerated?
    1
  22. So you are saying we need a republic controlled by an intellectual elite? Yeah I wonder why people lost trust in authority.
    1
  23. Thank the lord big pharma are are well prepared, experimenting with artificial variants of potential human-transmitting variants.
    1
  24. 1-4 shows that CO2 rises and that this is expected to come with increased absorption of heat radiation. It does not show that the effect is in the order of what we observe. 5 is pretty convincing though.
    1
  25. So he kind of conflates the issue of carbon in the atmosphere with oil depletion.
    1
  26. ​ @Kulei666  Which science are you talking about? I'm guessing not physics.
    1
  27.  @volkris  Ok, yeah that's even worse.
    1
  28.  @edwardk3  The economy is racist
    1
  29. She is a good teacher indeed, but I think she could have been an even more excellent scientist, if the world let her. She has that independent scrutinous minuset.
    1
  30. By nature of science it is impossible to know in advance where groundbreaking discoveries will be made. No meritocratic system can guarantee success nor eliminate failure. You simply need to take risks in order to make progress in science. This calls for more humility and daring exploration and less trying to foresee what will succeed.
    1
  31. Where does orbiting heavy industry dump its pollution? Into orbit? How is this not going to be problematic over time? Is this really going to make up for the enormous energy required to get resources into and out of orbit?
    1
  32. Lately, I've seen several people arguing that the causal relation of CO2 and temperature is predominantly the reverse (rising temperature has led to rise in CO2), pointing to the time-correlation of the two trends (temperature rise appears to precede CO2-rise). I would like to hear Sabine's perspective on this claim/data.
    1
  33. Let me guess, the "communication strategic roadmap framework alliance investment agenda" is yet another way to transfer tax revenue to companies who are the most cozy with EU politicians.
    1
  34. That's a really effective instrument for removing wealth from the hands of people.
    1
  35. Let's not ask loaded questions. Do we know climate change is caused by humans?
    1
  36. Recked.
    1