Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

Re:Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100 by bsder on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @07:32PM (#12553196)

Only by turning almost 10% OF AN ENTIRE COUNTRY into doing nothing but producing an atomic bomb.

That's not 2 billion dollars, that's 2 TRILLION dollars.

So, basically, redirecting the US military budget. I approve.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100 by rory096 on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @08:42PM (#12553459)

Source? Estimates I see for the Manhattan Project from a quick google range from .25% to .41% of GDP.

[0] https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34645.pdf

[1] http://mitchellhowe.blogspot.com/2006/02/want-manhattan-proj...

[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.09054.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100 by akiselev on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @09:10PM (#12553580)

He's likely thinking of the urban myth that over 10% of the US's power generation was used for the Manhattan Project [1] and confusing it with the cost of the project, for which estimates vary but is around $2 billion total (1945 GDP was $2 trillion).

[1] http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR11/Session/H13.4

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100 by bsder on Thursday September 22, 2016 @08:54PM (#12561568)

I'm also referring to the fact that estimates put in that almost 1 in 11 people in the US were involved in some facet of atomic bomb development.

The point being that atomic bomb development required a gigantic commitment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100 by robotresearcher on Thursday September 22, 2016 @12:10AM (#12554287)

> That's not 2 billion dollars

The Manhattan project cost about $2B in 1940s money; equivalent to around $26B today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

[ Parent | on HN ]