Why science only has itself to blame for its own slow, ignored death

No one thinks more long-term than academics, yet they're almost never taken seriously (lul insert reference here). They're dreamers and planners by trade. These are by definition the most knowledgeable people on the planet and their warnings and policy advice are often ignored. These people have devoted their life to creating new knowledge in a particular field yet their expertise is rarely called upon and routinely ignored in politics and within the general population, for example in health. 
This is not the public's fault. This is the result of science's inability to sell itself; the impact of bad advertising. This demonstrates the seriousness of the ability to communicate and share ideas effectively. The lack of clear communication between science and it's funders (taxpayers) is slowly killing science.

In my opinion, this is probably the biggest reason why society takes so long to change (lul reference), because what we have is already has is at least working right now, it's worked historically up until this point, and it's better than it ever was, but nothing is dire enough to change right now. So society is slowly trickling along. But why is it so slow? We have our safety gear on and we're running down the information superhighway yet things take ages to change, despite overwhelming evidence that there are better/cheaper alternatives (reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

Instead we (politicians, society, all of us) listen to people who have lots of money and have vested interests in generating more, because for some reason the ability to generate wealth means your opinion is more valid than someone who has forgone great wealth in pursuit of knowledge. That is what I find so dumbfounding. There is nothing more truly noble than exploring; trying to discover new things and create new ways of doing things. Science's credibility issue is science's fault. It makes sense that others will fill the vacuum. 

To think, most of our modern knowledge was created using taxpayer money from Government grants (this is a good thing) + charities + trust funds. So public money results in new knowledge, which is never adopted, then academia is criticized for not being 'translational enough'. A good investment is bad if you forget to cash out.

The death of science will barely result in a sound or squeak. A small whimper may creep out while no one is bedside, and it will only have itself to blame...along with the the poorly done jobs of science journalism and science communication. 

There are people out there communicating effectively in this new era such as Derek Muller, Vsauce, Vihart; I'm definitely missing more, but we also need academics. Brady Haran's Numberphile, Periodic Videos, and Sixty Symbols work hard to bridge the gap between academics and the public to great avail.

But it's not enough. Richard Dawkins, a science communicator for sure, but I'm not too sure of his effectiveness and ability to persuade those not already of the science persuasion.

We need more responsible science reporting. Clickbait 'CURE FOR CANCER DISCOVERED' doesn't help science, it confuses the public. Every two months the community expects a cure for cancer, and because the media/poor science journalism/virality gets away from the original study, we are left with a public that never actually sees the results, they just see broken promises.

It's not fair to generalize about everyone in science, I get that, and it's true that more and more scientists are active on Twitter and more science news websites pop up like BioSky. The Guardian Science and The Conversation all have great science  communication sections and I'm grateful for their hard work. Science communication is a technically demanding job; scientists use technical language because it's descriptive and shorthand for explaining still-formulating/malleable scientific concepts, all of which are built upon a foundational understanding of the rudimentary puzzles that are assumed knowledge. When we simplify, we lose the high granularity that we are seeking to understand or produce. Simplifying can be done no doubt, but it takes a lot of consideration to maintain the precision and actual significance. 

The real tragedy is that the moneyshot for science is usually years later, so people may not see the benefit/point for the rest of their lives.
We need to keep innovating, and development of science and technology is the only way forward. If science doesn't speak up, it affects all of us.

PS. I'm not putting references in, and I could be wrong on some/most/all accounts here.

Adobe's update policy: a solution (solved)

This post details a quick fix for Adobe updater tasks being scheduled every hour of every day. Why does Adobe have a version release policy where they require HOURLY updates all year round? How is that acceptable software development deployment? Why do you feel the need to constantly waste  significant worldwide bandwidth over a program which isn't all that useful/different from other softwares, often ones which have better features and aren't overcluttered and bulky as fuck with ridiculous features that are also simultaneously limiting? Why this exists, I don't know. "It's not a bug, it's a feature" I'm sure, but I don't see it.

1) Open Task Scheduler

2) Click the Task Scheduler Library folder
3) Right-click on ALL THE ADOBE THINGS AND DISABLE THEM

 4) ALL OF THEMMMMMM

I'm okay, I'm okay. Breathe, breathe.