One of the more disingenuous ways of framing this issue. Farmers do not ‘rely on’ this satellite. At best it provides them with ancillary information about global carbon levels that ultimately has nothing to do with farming or them directly.
I don't see what argument you're trying to make. This satellite is producing data that is a common good (not unlike the Bureau of Labor Statistics data). There are lots of use cases for such data. Just because one use case doesn't cover the whole cost to collect the data doesn't mean it's irrelevant to point out the loss.
Actually, I think the problem here is that he's reducing it to a cost-benefit analysis that applies to a single corporation alone. Corporations are notoriously short-sighted and generally unable to plan for or see into the future more than 1-3 financial quarters.
Facilitating investment in long-term things that benefit the country or humanity as a whole is literally one of the reasons we have governments. Putting men on the moon didn't make any profit, but a whole slew of discoveries and inventions that happened before that could happen definitely made improvements to everyone's lot.
No. This statement doesn’t reflect the reality of how private interests have ever worked, especially in the USA. If the idea here is to defend the modern US war on reality it isn’t getting far because it has no basis in the history of any publically funded research that was exploited by private interests.
I enjoy the "climate" of discourse this administration has bought to the table, everything requires massive levels of justification now. Of course, the funding for this mission would've been approved by congress, so initially it was justified, but ...not anymore...
For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and many private agricultural consulting companies use the data to forecast and track crop yield, drought conditions and more.
Here's an idea, why doesn't the administration tell us why it's ending the programs?
It is unclear why the Trump administration seeks to end the missions.
Discussion (106 points, 1 day ago, 70 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44799468
Or (69 points, 19 hours ago, 26 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44807419
Or (29 points, 1 day ago, 4 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44796597
One of the more disingenuous ways of framing this issue. Farmers do not ‘rely on’ this satellite. At best it provides them with ancillary information about global carbon levels that ultimately has nothing to do with farming or them directly.
The article states that the satellite data is also used for crop yield predictions.
This can be important for pricing things like futures contracts which farmers very much do care about.
If the information is that valuable, a private company would have put the satellite into orbit.
My guess is it’s valuable, but nowhere near the $750M price tag it cost to put it up there.
I don't see what argument you're trying to make. This satellite is producing data that is a common good (not unlike the Bureau of Labor Statistics data). There are lots of use cases for such data. Just because one use case doesn't cover the whole cost to collect the data doesn't mean it's irrelevant to point out the loss.
You can't reduce every single thing humans do to a cost-benefit analysis. Nor should you privatize everything that can be even remotely profitable.
Our society today worships at the altar of the dollar, which is destroying it from the inside.
Actually, I think the problem here is that he's reducing it to a cost-benefit analysis that applies to a single corporation alone. Corporations are notoriously short-sighted and generally unable to plan for or see into the future more than 1-3 financial quarters.
Facilitating investment in long-term things that benefit the country or humanity as a whole is literally one of the reasons we have governments. Putting men on the moon didn't make any profit, but a whole slew of discoveries and inventions that happened before that could happen definitely made improvements to everyone's lot.
No. This statement doesn’t reflect the reality of how private interests have ever worked, especially in the USA. If the idea here is to defend the modern US war on reality it isn’t getting far because it has no basis in the history of any publically funded research that was exploited by private interests.
I enjoy the "climate" of discourse this administration has bought to the table, everything requires massive levels of justification now. Of course, the funding for this mission would've been approved by congress, so initially it was justified, but ...not anymore...
For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and many private agricultural consulting companies use the data to forecast and track crop yield, drought conditions and more.
Here's an idea, why doesn't the administration tell us why it's ending the programs?
It is unclear why the Trump administration seeks to end the missions.
Does America just run on Trump's vibe now?