In this area, but potentially more impactful, would be buying academic publishers and using that as a lever to reform academia. Would be very keen to see an analysis of that.
+1. SSC argued that there was not enough money in politics, and I wonder to what extent the same argument applies to academic publishers. How much would it cost to buy top journals in every field? How much would it take to by Nature, or Science?
Indeed. No idea on the numbers, but my hunch would be buying (some part of) Elsevier, or one of the other academic publishers, would be more cost-effective than buying a coalmine—another bold-but-maybe-not-actually-crazy megaproject.
You can reduce carbon emissions but ceasing mining, in a nuclear war you could hide in it, and in a post-apocalyptic world it would provide a good source of energy.
Your very own Swiss-army coal-mine! It can also be used as a hidden lair for secret planning, a well-heated winter home, and if you make a couple of changes to your strength training, a place to turn your personal exercise/workouts into valuable coal that you can sell for money.
Ah, cool. Good to see someone is thinking about this. I do wonder if, with sufficiently large resources, buying out a publishing company would nevertheless be more impactful, or even worth doing anyway, even if less impactful. But I have thought about this for about 10 seconds.
In this area, but potentially more impactful, would be buying academic publishers and using that as a lever to reform academia. Would be very keen to see an analysis of that.
+1. SSC argued that there was not enough money in politics, and I wonder to what extent the same argument applies to academic publishers. How much would it cost to buy top journals in every field? How much would it take to by Nature, or Science?
To be clear, SSC argued that there was surprisingly little money in politics. The article explicitly says “I don’t want more money in politics”.
That’s right.
Noting that this is a question I’m also interested in
Indeed. No idea on the numbers, but my hunch would be buying (some part of) Elsevier, or one of the other academic publishers, would be more cost-effective than buying a coalmine—another bold-but-maybe-not-actually-crazy megaproject.
Wait — what use do you have in mind for a coal-mine?
You can reduce carbon emissions but ceasing mining, in a nuclear war you could hide in it, and in a post-apocalyptic world it would provide a good source of energy.
Your very own Swiss-army coal-mine! It can also be used as a hidden lair for secret planning, a well-heated winter home, and if you make a couple of changes to your strength training, a place to turn your personal exercise/workouts into valuable coal that you can sell for money.
I’d prefer starting rival and better institutions for peer review. And funding reviewers to do this. See Bit.ly/unjournal
Ah, cool. Good to see someone is thinking about this. I do wonder if, with sufficiently large resources, buying out a publishing company would nevertheless be more impactful, or even worth doing anyway, even if less impactful. But I have thought about this for about 10 seconds.