I like your critique! I must admit that I was very unhappy with the org but already left it at the time when I wrote this post.
However, I want to push back on some of your points. The Fraunhofer Society indeed conducts somewhat basic research, although the results are much more predictable than in the case of say foundational physics research. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and I am not sceptical of it. In the post I wanted to point out that the organisation has an unhealthy relationship with grantmakers. This leads to a situation where there is no incentive for the institution to actually provide any valuable research results. I have a better understanding of game theory now and would improve upon the post, if that would be considered helpful.
I think this would be really valuable! Linch really liked your post and note that he has good judgement and is well respected.
In the post I wanted to point out that the organisation has an unhealthy relationship with grantmakers… no incentive for the institution to actually provide any valuable research results. I have a better understanding of game theory now
I’m no one important, and I could be the only person who has this opinion:
I find that if I didn’t agree with someone’s judgement on a deep issue like institutions, when they add applied math (graph theory, control theory, bayesian statistics, game theory, etc.) this often won’t change my opinion. I could be wrong about this, and I would like to learn if I am. I just like to state this up front.
improve upon the post, if that would be considered helpful.
I think you should post a new post, or write the changes as a comment.
Almost no one will notice an old post being changed.
I like your critique! I must admit that I was very unhappy with the org but already left it at the time when I wrote this post.
However, I want to push back on some of your points. The Fraunhofer Society indeed conducts somewhat basic research, although the results are much more predictable than in the case of say foundational physics research. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and I am not sceptical of it. In the post I wanted to point out that the organisation has an unhealthy relationship with grantmakers. This leads to a situation where there is no incentive for the institution to actually provide any valuable research results. I have a better understanding of game theory now and would improve upon the post, if that would be considered helpful.
I think this would be really valuable! Linch really liked your post and note that he has good judgement and is well respected.
I’m no one important, and I could be the only person who has this opinion:
I find that if I didn’t agree with someone’s judgement on a deep issue like institutions, when they add applied math (graph theory, control theory, bayesian statistics, game theory, etc.) this often won’t change my opinion. I could be wrong about this, and I would like to learn if I am. I just like to state this up front.
I think you should post a new post, or write the changes as a comment.
Almost no one will notice an old post being changed.