Plenty of people register businesses at their home address. It entirely depends on the nature of the work as to whether it requires a change of use from the planners or invalidate insurance etc
In the UK they moved to a single diagnosis in 2013. Before this it was autism and Asperger's. They found however that diagnosing people with the less extreme condition meant that they received less help from schools and local government.
This is 99% the answer. Politics (government funding, and also private insurance funding) is the tail wagging the dog. Medical community is assigning labels not based on relevant scientific taxonomy, but based on what opens purse strings. Until politics starts to respect science and constituents, doctors and parents and teachers have no choice but twist the scientific language in order to obtain the funding they need to care for their kids.
It is partly what "opens the purse strings" but also what makes a given diagnostic and treatment protocol available.
30 years ago you could be what is called autistic now, and you would have probably been diagnosed Asperger's, or "mentally retarded" actual words of the diagnosis.
For the Asperger's you would probably have been sent on your way, with an 80% chance of divorce, a 20-80% depending on who you trust higher chance of suicide than your neurotypical peers, and zero help. If you were "retarded" you would go on disability and into a group home if your parents couldn't take care of you until you died.
With an autism diagnosis you get treatment, and if you get enough early enough, a 50% chance of being indistinguishable from your neurotypical peers by adulthood.
So, you are right. It is much more about money than scientific taxonomy.
But we made the rules.
If doctors are following them to get best outcomes for their patients, aren't they doing their jobs?
So it comes down to our medical system being a mess.
You just paper swap with another uni. Oxford can hand it's engineering paper to Cambridge and see if it's hard enough etc. Not hard to do, it's just peer review for exam papers
Exam difficulty can't be assessed solely on the paper, the difficulty is also a function of the curriculum - if they teach to the exam, covering only a few topics which are then examined, then the exam is easier than if it selects questions from a broader curriculum.
Are you defining "worth it" as whether there is a profit to be made at some point? How much would you have paid for the higgs? Are some pieces of science best left in the dark because they cost too much?
YES. There is no limit to the cost of modern science, but resources are still scarce in the real world and we cannot afford to spend unlimited funds on projects that will not pay off in human flourishing in the near future. To answer your first question that is the profit to be made and it absolutely is necessary to consider when directing tax dollars which could otherwise be spent feeding starving people or curing dying people. I would have paid $80 for the Higgs.
While you are correct to say that scarce resources means we can’t do everything, pure/fundamental research like the LHC tends to have extremely high payoffs several decades after it is completed. Nobody knows what exactly, if we did we could focus on that stuff in particular, but its one of the best things we can do to grow the economy.
(Also, if everyone in the EU paid $80 for the Higgs, that’s about three LHCs depending on where in its history you take the exchange rate).
Actually, good basic research has a much quicker payoff scale, like 10-20 years. Transistors, fiber optics, lasers, paid off almost immediately- and were invented ON PURPOSE by the way, in order to facilitate better communication for AT&T. And I would pay $80 because I'm personally interested, but I'm the 1%, and I don't think you should force people to pay for it, therefore you should revise your estimate to .03 LHCs.
You’re taking a bunch of things deliberately invented to solve an existing problem as an example of fundamental research paying off quickly?
Counterexamples: one of the early prime number researchers was proud that his work had no use at all, and now it’s the foundation of a major class of encryption. That was a century or two.
Or, Maxwell published “A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism” in 1873, and it took another 30 years to become voice radio.
Of course, as the LHC only discovered the Higgs in 2012, even your 10 year lowball would be four years in the future.
"Groundbreaking science is too expensive, we are only capable of investing in one thing at a time!!!"
Like it on not, science and research is what powers humanity flourishing, if you want to get your pitchfork out about misused resources, go complain about corporate tax cuts or money invested in pointless ad-tech, not science.
> Like it on not, science and research is what powers humanity flourishing
Not all science and research though. That's the whole point of my argument - we should direct funds towards projects that actually have tangible benefit to humanity in the future. I will eat my shoe if any application of neutrinos comes about in the next 50 years. Transistors? Great - those weren't invented by accident, and John Bardeen certainly deserves his two Nobel Prizes.
Considering we have already have cheap things to detect nuclear proliferation, such as seismic detectors that have proven effective w/ North Korea and how expensive a neutrino detection system would be to build, I don't see any marginal benefit to humanity there. Considering the fact that you would need to build a beamline for any transmission of a neutrino message and a 5 ton detector to receive it (unlikely to be reduced since it's so hard to stop neutrinos) I'll stick with my > 50 year timeline for neutrino message passing being used in any practical sense. Maybe they could put it in a nuclear sub, but the design process would take 50 years, thanks to similar incentives built into the military industrial complex.
Seismic can only detect an explosion. Neutrino can detect the construction. If the threat comes from someone who has reactors and already knows how to make bombs, seismic is too late.
A 5 ton detector isn’t particularly implausible in a whole range of scenarios.
If your company isn’t tiny your engineers generally shouldn’t be deciding priority. Unless your company is small enough that the engineers have a clear view of all the priorities of the business all we are capable of is saying “This seems really important to us.” And then that has to be weighed by people who have the bigger picture.
But outside of a very small company to me it’s a bigger crime to waste engineer time with all the meetings necessary to give them that full perspective. When I started at my current company I was the only developer and I worked directly with the CEO and our single marketing person. Back then I helped decide priority. Now the company is too big for that. I don’t have time for all the manager and marketing and business planning meetings to be able to decide priority.
As far as defining features, we can propose them like anybody else but I think I already explained why usually it makes sense for them to come from whoever owns that piece of what you’re doing. But this of course again depends on the structure of your company.
