Re:Interview with Scott Aaronson
by fitzwatermellow on Saturday April 23, 2016 @12:56PM
(#11556312)
News to me that he is moving to UTexas in Austin to build a center for quantum computing and theory. Terribly exciting! With the impetus being a state funded allocation of $4B+ for basic research. It really begs the question: are our governments spending way too little on moon shots? And what could have been accomplished in the last two generations if the focus had been on pure science rather than military technologies?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Interview with Scott Aaronson
by cowsandmilk on Saturday April 23, 2016 @01:07PM
(#11556359)
> the focus had been on pure science rather than military technologies?
I find your question a little funny in that Aaronson has said the DOD is where much of the funding for his research will come from for the next 5 years[1].
So, the $4 billion in Texas likely funded his recruitment package, but it is the military that is funding his research.
Re:Interview with Scott Aaronson
by fitzwatermellow on Saturday April 23, 2016 @01:30PM
(#11556465)
What constitutes a "good return" on research dollars spent? Is it mere value created? Or a breakthrough in fundamental human understanding? I'm actually quite intrigued now to mine some real data!
I don't know that's really measurable except over very long periods of time. A discovery may be "interesting but useless" for many decades until engineering catches up, whether through improvements in engineering technology or subsequent discoveries that make the first discovery more actionable.