Thoughts on privately funded research. “And once billionaires have provided funding for the “hot areas” they find particularly promising, why should the NSF spend money on the seemingly less important areas that are left? (Projects, obviously, shouldn’t be double-funded.) And if the NSF is stuck with left-overs, how can it argue to maintain or grow its budget? Or, put another way, it’s great that individuals care enough about public goods that they are willing to contribute financially toward their funding, but if it helps others feel like it’s ok not to treat them as public goods (i.e., not to fund them through taxpayer money), then it risks creating a very short-sighted society where most people will not have the money to fund the public goods and will not care.”
What to know about crypto assets. Well explained.
No senator spoke against the proposal. The entire Senate debate and vote on an issue that had stymied lawmakers for decades ultimately consumed less than three minutes of floor time.
In praise of academic spouses. Thanks, Maria!
Mike Gill and I can relate:
“There is a lot of potential in this area, but we are in the very, very early stages of true artificial intelligence and machine learning,” HackerOne’s Rice told me. “Our tools for detection have gotten very, very good at flagging things that might be a problem. All of the existing automation today lags pretty significantly today on assessing if it’s actually a problem. Almost all of them are plagued with false positives that still require a human to go through and assess (if) it’s actually a vulnerability.”
Surge pricing at the national parks. “The best deal in the U.S. remains unchanged: $80 for the annual all-access America the Beautiful pass.”