You don't actually think that your comment negates my point, do you? The point of the sarcasm is to emphasize that if you already cannot do it with trillions t

You don't actually think that your comment negates my point, do you? The point of the sarcasm is to emphasize that if you already cannot do it with trillions then you certainly are not going to get it done with billions. It's a simple argument that stands entirely on it's own. You first need to provide convincing evidence to the contrary rather than just saying things like "imagine if we gave even more money to something that we already give money too ..." Is HN devolving into 3-year old logic? I swear the last couple of years have been bad.