• Steve@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You may not realize this, but the twitter money still exists. The former owners of twitter have it under their mattress right now, why don’t they build a supercollider?

        • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree, those dicks definitely could be doing better with their money and we should take it away from them for societally useful things.

      • Acters@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dude literally owns a boring company, he could have ate the cost of digging the tunnel to specifications and still have more money than buying xitter

        • Necromnomicon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yea but his boring company isn’t particularly useful for anything other than stymieing public transportation programs by acquiring contracts with cities and then doing nothing with them. Almost like he has an interest in selling more cars than expand public transit… allegedly.

          • Fuck spez@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not even allegedly. I could be wrong but I thought he admitted publicly at one point that was the whole idea behind The Boring Co. It might have even been on Rogan. Anyone remember or have a clip? Jamie, pull that up.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fucking hell, we can’t get a tramway for 10b CAD around here and a 12km tunnel under a river was going to cost half a 100km collider 😐

    • SrTobi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?

    • arin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Upkeep might be expensive, but 22 billion is probably lower bound estimation, highly likely to 5x that at least

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This initial budget estimate is 44x the 500M initial estimate of the jwst for comparison. Jwst eventually ballooned to 20B, but I’m guessing this would similarly balloon over time as well.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s actually surprising that NASA only has 50% more budget than a single particle accelerator, given the huge number of cutting edge projects NASA is working on.

      • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Money spent fighting a morally justifiable war with Russia that we aren’t actually having to fight is money well spent IMO.