Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by stonogo 1261 days ago
They clearly describe having built an experimental device and outline expectations for improvement of the process. All technology is "potentially useful," until someone uses it.

As far as "marketing," the labs are contractually required by the government to do this. Average 'impact rating' and so forth are part of the performance evaluations. As far as "playing the DOE game," there are a lot of voices in the critical path of getting significant funding from the Office of Science, many of them generally healthily skeptical. I'm not aware of very many charlatans achieving high-level management positions or controlling significant funding.