Give me five (5) discoveries, inventions or innovations that

>>8393849

>really are important in science

Define 'really important in science'.

>>8393849
Nothing at all, there's nothing. Nothing was invented in the 2000s that even helped anyone really.

Science has regressed, if anything, from excessive concern for rigor, academia becoming overly engrossed in theoretical again, and no good Engineers on the boards to help apply or direct the research going on in universities. And also lack of funding and forced admissions quotas caused a general depression in vision and progress in the scientific community. Everything in the 2000s nearly that was hailed as "new technology" like smartphones, was just refinements and piecewise combination of other technologies developed in the 1980s-1990s, except for certain advancements in telecommunications, like fibre optic cables, signal theory, and design of multiplexers for fibre optics and broadband comms which wasn't around before 2000 and really did require entire new algorithms, research, etc. There isn't really a lot of groundbreaking stuff going on right now.

CRISPR and gene editing may hold some hope but that's on the horizon still, we do not have a practical application of it yet.

>>8393849
memes

File: landing_new_2.0.gif (741KB, 524x348px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 524x348px

Here's one

>>8393879
is landing a rocket vertically even important? What makes this better than fishing the rocket out of the ocean after slowing it with a parachute?

>>8393882
Ocean is salty. Making space rockets resist salty ocean corrosion makes heavy rocket. Heavy rocket is expensive. Expensive rocket is bad

>>8393882
Yeah, and the rocket still hits the ocean pretty hard too, the space shuttle boosters hit the ocean at 60 km/h if I'm not mistaken. It took a long time to get them fit for use again and much of the internal parts had to be replaced

SpaceX hasn't demonstrated reusability yet,but Blue Origin has, so far they've launched and landed the same rocket 5 times without needing to replace anything and showing they can relaunch it within a month

File: 1475646029622.png (215KB, 960x724px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 960x724px

>>8393874
Yeah but AI and machine learning are going to make the world a sci-fi utopia in 20 years

>>8393899
>anything and showing they can relaunch it within a month
And their original turnaround time was 61 days, so they could probably get even better than that

>>8393874
>the problem is rigor

No its not, do you realize that if the courses were more rigorous it would naturally filter out the riff-raff and the poor-performing students who got in on the race card? These are linked inherently, its because college is too easy that nignog mcgee can slide on through to a degree

>>8393889
aluminum (and titanium, the other aero material) isn't that bad in salt water afaik.
SpaceX at the very beginning said they wanted to land on a landing pad, but some agency said they had to demonstrate it on a barge first.

>>8393915
...they landed on a landing pad first though
I don't think anyone else told them to land on a barge

The reason they land on a barge is because landing on a barge consumes less fuel than returning to the launch site. So if they land on a barge they have a better orbital range. Returning to launch site works for low earth orbit shit, like the Dragon supply ship to the ISS, but the regime of most commercial satellites is geosynchronous and to get to that orbit they need to land on a barge

>>8393902
Yeah...while deep learning is based on techniques that have existed for a while, it's only now coming to fruition.

Confirmation than gravitational Eve's actually exist

>>8393931
waves, confirmed by the detection event in 2014, but also <3 good to see some lingering souls still around

>>8393849
Discoveries:
1. iPSC cells
2. DeepLearning
3. Graphene
4. CRISP/Cas9
Inventions:
5. Reusable rockets
6. Cheap genome sequencing
Satisfied?

>>8393909
>its because college is too easy that nignog mcgee can slide on through to a degree
What the fuck does that have to do with science? This type of person isn't going to get into any sort of decent doctorate program where he can fuck research up, he's gonna get outcompeted by some Chinese grad student. Did you put even the slightest bit of thought into your post?

>>8394014
Nope i just read about rigor being good on here so i repeat that mindlessly to spread doubt about p-zombies and get small amounts of satisfaction from tribal behavior

File: d205614c9e64cd4faca77a6553d5869e.png (12KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 160x160px

>>8393996
>Discoveries:

>2. DeepLearning
>3. Graphene

>Inventions:
>5. Reusable rockets

Deep learning

Blockchains

>>8394056

Blockchains ok but deep learning ? Did i miss a big news ?

>>8394071
yep, paper by Hinton and co 2006, about training more than 3-layers networks with smart pretraining. For fucking ages people thought that loss surfaces of neural networks were so complicated, that there never will be a method to train multilayer networks. And suddenly Hinton owned them all. inb4 convolutional networks: shit worked in 90-s, but breakthrough was in the data domain with imagenet2012.

Well, you can add LIGO experiment instead of deep learning if you'd like. Or landing on a fucking asteroid. Or human membrane protein crystallization (real deal started in 2006). Or optogenetics. Or clarify project. Or poincare hypothesis. You name it. The past decade was really awesome in science if you're getting the memes.

>>8394266
>clarify project
whats that?

>>8393874
> Nothing was invented in the 2000s that even helped anyone really.
One of the things everyone should have noticed is how computers got *exponentially* more powerful for a really rather long while.

Most generations required a good bunch of inventions and science to happen and to get to the next one.

>>8394280
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-NMfp13Uug