White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by Analemma_ on Friday March 03, 2017 @10:02PM (#13788929)

This is one of those comments that sounds profound if you give it a cursory glance, but actually makes no sense whatsoever.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by jon_richards on Saturday March 04, 2017 @09:16AM (#13790956)

I may have butchered the quote a little bit (not a famous quote, just something told to me once).

"If you spend too long convincing someone of a problem they can't see, they start to see you as the problem" gets the meaning better. It doesn't mean to give up, it just means that you are making yourself their enemy and thus probably making it harder to get your message across (look at the studies on showing scientific evidence to anti-vaxxers).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by mirimir on Friday March 03, 2017 @10:05PM (#13788942)

Oh come on, sure it makes sense.

It means that you failed to communicate effectively. Or that communicating to them was not an effective strategy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by Apes on Friday March 03, 2017 @10:18PM (#13788991)

Or the person you are communicating to has a conflict of interest and has a strong incentive to feign ignorance. Usually referred to as being "corrupt" for short.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by mirimir on Friday March 03, 2017 @10:33PM (#13789049)

In that case, "communicating to them was not an effective strategy".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by mikeash on Friday March 03, 2017 @10:41PM (#13789087)

"Their strategy is not effective" is quite different from "they are the problem."

Anyway, what would you propose that they do?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by mirimir on Friday March 03, 2017 @10:51PM (#13789126)

If B is ignoring A, for whatever reason, then A can talk to others. Or more generally, do whatever it takes to workaround B.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by mikeash on Friday March 03, 2017 @10:54PM (#13789134)

A does talk to others. It still hasn't worked, and now B is trying really hard to make A stop telling everybody about this stuff.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by mirimir on Friday March 03, 2017 @11:01PM (#13789167)

So A has to get rid of B, or make them irrelevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by mikeash on Friday March 03, 2017 @11:04PM (#13789176)

How? B has all the power. It's easy to say "get rid of them" but how do you actually do it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by mirimir on Friday March 03, 2017 @11:30PM (#13789272)

Maybe B has overwhelming power now. But if B's position is untenable, that will eventually become apparent. And yes, that may take far too long to be of any good.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by tremon on Saturday March 04, 2017 @09:08AM (#13790927)

But if B's position is untenable, that will eventually become apparent.

Sure. That's why B is investing heavily in its military.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA by mirimir on Saturday March 04, 2017 @06:34PM (#13793523)

I thought that this subthread was about US politics. That's so knife-edge that it could flip in four years. But yes, if the US goes full-moron, and takes a military approach to climate mitigation, all bets are off :(

[ Parent | on HN ]