YCombinator funds solar startup’s, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.
It’s doesn’t fund LENR but LENR has it’s questionable history. It’s likely that
The Breakthrough Energy Coalition by Gates and other billionaire’s suggests 6 possible paths.
Have you been keeping up with LENR . I’ve not been because I don’t think it is very worthwhile. But I would like it to be (a small) part of the view of any energy strategy.
There are multiple ways to think about funding LENR or ESP research. But I don’t think making a subforum about “what would be if LENR is real” is the best way to go about it.
But I don’t think making a subforum about “what would be if LENR is real” is the best way to go about it.
If some people within the community of “people of trying to solve the energy problem” sincerely thought it was worthwhile to spend some time and energy to try and replicate it (or do some other experiments with deuterium in palladium) there should be space for them to discuss that replication attempt. So that people who come later can see it.
I don’t think there should be a space for people to rail against big energy or have conspiracy theories without concrete attempts to replicate it.
There are multiple ways to think about funding LENR or ESP research.
This is not about just deciding whether to fund things. At the lowest leaves of the forums would contain the discussion of the research in the trenches. Having a paper trail of all the discussion from the highest strategy to mundane implementation details seems valuable. Managing that without partitioning it in some fashion seems hard. Partitioning on fundamental disagreements would allow people to pick the partitions relevant to their current research interests. So a researcher in bacterial biofuels could pick a high level forum for summaries but keep an eye on mid-level water management strategies (as biofuels require significant water sources) and be actively involved in the “bacterial bio fuels as the most likely source of clean energy” forum. They wouldn’t have to be involved in the discussions between the pebble bed reactor people and the thorium people.
I realize that some of my previous comments weren’t as good as they could have been. Specifically about the person going into fusion and forgetting about everything else. It was an exaggeration. I’ll try and put more thoughts into my comments in future.
I dream of a more pluralistic intelligence based existential risk discussion group and community, where biologists can talk sensibly about brain extension (and its failure modes) without wading through decision theory.
I don’t think there should be a space for people to rail against big energy or have conspiracy theories without concrete attempts to replicate it.
You mean the conspiracy theory that Andrea Rossi frauds his investors?
So a researcher in bacterial biofuels could pick a high level forum for summaries but keep an eye on mid-level water management strategies (as biofuels require significant water sources) and be actively involved in the “bacterial bio fuels as the most likely source of clean energy” forum.
I see no reason why he should spend more time in the “bacterial bio fuels as the most likely source of clean energy” then in the “bacterial bio fuels as an addition to solar for the times when the sun doesn’t shine” group.
Managing that without partitioning it in some fashion seems hard.
You argue for more than just “partitioning it in some fashion”. Reddit has partition with subreddits. StackExchange has partition with subsites and then tags. Arbital’s forum is also supposed to have partition by tag.
You mean the conspiracy theory that Andrea Rossi frauds his investors?
What?… no Where did that come from? I meant the more typical stuff you might find in a LENR forums about big oil companies not wanting you to find out the truth.
Having a subforum for debunking rossi might be interesting if significant amounts of money was going to him or significant attention.
You argue for more than just “partitioning it in some fashion”. Reddit has partition with subreddits. StackExchange has partition with subsites and then tags. Arbital’s forum is also supposed to have partition by tag.
True. I think complete partitioning is bad. You split the commons. My suggestion was a way of making partial partitioning work by splitting around un-productive questions but still keeping some dialog possible.
The idea of a conspiracy theory is that people secretly plot. The perspective I got through online discussions was that Rossi plots together with other people to fake results and thus got his investors money.
YCombinator funds solar startup’s, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.
It’s doesn’t fund LENR but LENR has it’s questionable history. It’s likely that
The Breakthrough Energy Coalition by Gates and other billionaire’s suggests 6 possible paths.
There are multiple ways to think about funding LENR or ESP research. But I don’t think making a subforum about “what would be if LENR is real” is the best way to go about it.
If some people within the community of “people of trying to solve the energy problem” sincerely thought it was worthwhile to spend some time and energy to try and replicate it (or do some other experiments with deuterium in palladium) there should be space for them to discuss that replication attempt. So that people who come later can see it.
I don’t think there should be a space for people to rail against big energy or have conspiracy theories without concrete attempts to replicate it.
This is not about just deciding whether to fund things. At the lowest leaves of the forums would contain the discussion of the research in the trenches. Having a paper trail of all the discussion from the highest strategy to mundane implementation details seems valuable. Managing that without partitioning it in some fashion seems hard. Partitioning on fundamental disagreements would allow people to pick the partitions relevant to their current research interests. So a researcher in bacterial biofuels could pick a high level forum for summaries but keep an eye on mid-level water management strategies (as biofuels require significant water sources) and be actively involved in the “bacterial bio fuels as the most likely source of clean energy” forum. They wouldn’t have to be involved in the discussions between the pebble bed reactor people and the thorium people.
I realize that some of my previous comments weren’t as good as they could have been. Specifically about the person going into fusion and forgetting about everything else. It was an exaggeration. I’ll try and put more thoughts into my comments in future.
I dream of a more pluralistic intelligence based existential risk discussion group and community, where biologists can talk sensibly about brain extension (and its failure modes) without wading through decision theory.
In practice I am exposed to discussion of LENR by LW + the surrounding community.
Metaculus for example has the threads: http://www.metaculus.com/questions/65/will-radical-new-low-energy-nuclear-reaction-technologies-prove-effective-before-2019/ http://www.metaculus.com/questions/18/will-rossis-1mw-e-cat-tests-lead-to-continued-significant-financial-investment/
You mean the conspiracy theory that Andrea Rossi frauds his investors?
I see no reason why he should spend more time in the “bacterial bio fuels as the most likely source of clean energy” then in the “bacterial bio fuels as an addition to solar for the times when the sun doesn’t shine” group.
You argue for more than just “partitioning it in some fashion”. Reddit has partition with subreddits. StackExchange has partition with subsites and then tags. Arbital’s forum is also supposed to have partition by tag.
What?… no Where did that come from? I meant the more typical stuff you might find in a LENR forums about big oil companies not wanting you to find out the truth.
Having a subforum for debunking rossi might be interesting if significant amounts of money was going to him or significant attention.
True. I think complete partitioning is bad. You split the commons. My suggestion was a way of making partial partitioning work by splitting around un-productive questions but still keeping some dialog possible.
The idea of a conspiracy theory is that people secretly plot. The perspective I got through online discussions was that Rossi plots together with other people to fake results and thus got his investors money.
I was using a broader meaning of the words
In general you have forums that engage in that kind of reasoning but they are mostly not forum where anything productive comes out.
Which is why I said: