They’re also unfamiliar with FDA-regulated spaces where it’s not unheard of for VPs and C-suite types to receive fines and jail time and bans from the industry.

It’s a smaller than advertised coil, 6”, causing the problem, which is endemic but not limited to portable hobs. Warped a Lodge carbon steel pan the first time I used induction (2mm thick). Then I dove deeper and saw the issues others had. Since then I moved to a larger coil (first a Max Burton, now a Nuwave PIC Titanium). On reddit, you can find any number of examples of shattered cast iron pans and warped pans and ruined seasoning, and it’s not just portable hobs causing the issues.

The issue with simmer is well-known and rears its head if you’re working with delicate sauces. Most people don’t.

Induction bases don’t fix that gas heats the sides too and if you’re able to use that feature it’s not something you want to give up. And actually, wok cooking on induction is pretty darn good if you have one of the specialty wok hobs, better than a wok ring on gas (but not better than a specialty wok burner).

Again, my point isn’t that induction sucks, it’s that it isn’t superior to gas across the board. My dream setup? One proper induction burner, one induction wok burner, a French top in the center, and two proper gas burners on the other side, all with a giant vent fan.

Induction is fantastic for boiling water, and good for many things, but there's too many shortcomings to declare "superior than gas".

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48042842

Points: 78

# Comments: 58

You're saying that a group having to spend all of its time fundraising has always been true in your lifetime and you link it to your time as a grad student decades ago and earlier when you were an undergrad. Do I have that right? The dominance of fundraising might have been true for your specific experience and viewpoint, but I don't understand your basis for claiming it was universal: it certainly wasn't my experience (R1 engineering, not software) nor my colleagues around that time.

Complaints about fundraising and administrivia have always been plentiful but actual time spent on teaching and service and research were dominant, with the expected proportions of the three legged stool varying based on role and institution. What SubiculumCode and bane and myself are reacting to now is the dramatic shift in how dominant (because funding has been pulled, funding allocation methods have suddenly shifted) and unproductive (fewer summary statements, less or no feedback from SROs and POs, eliminated opportunities for resubmissions) that work has become. The closest I can remember to the current was around the aftermath of the 2008 recession and 2013 government shutdown and that pales in comparison to the disruption of now.

edit: best study I could casually find is Anderson and Slade (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11162-015-9376-9) from 2016 that estimates grant writing at about 10% effort.

One, endowments, this is thoroughly covered by others in past threads about funding on this site and in any number of articles elsewhere. University endowments are directed to specific purposes and largely do not cover basic science, nor can they be redirected to do at will. This is not a discretionary research fund.

Two, the private sector funds projects on time horizons that are far too short for fundamental discoveries to reach a technology readiness level that supports commercial R&D efforts, and in many cases, is unwilling to fund the commercial development too. You're frequently looking at a decade plus for fundamental R&D, with massive upfront costs and no clear commercialization path. Even if you have something that is ready for commercial development, it's still an uphill battle to get across the valley of death with patient capital.

During the doubling of the NIH budget under Clinton and Bush the younger times were great. After, budgets stagnated and things were harder but there was still funding out there. The disruption we're seeing now is a completely different animal: program officers are gone, fewer and less detailed summary statements go out, some programs are on hiatus (SBIR/STTR) and if you have something in the till it was wasted time, &c. NSF is a complete train wreck.

My startup had an STTR in for the last cycle and we can't talk to the program officer about our summary statement, nor can we resubmit, nor are we likely to be funded. That's a lot of lost time and money for a startup that, since we're atoms and not bits, is funded on a shoestring budget. The only time something like this happened in my memory was the shutdown in 2013 and that wasn't even close to the disruption we're seeing now.