<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Exact Results for Ionization of Model Atomic Systems · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0708.0635/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0708.0635/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Exact Results for Ionization of Model Atomic Systems — mentioned by yummyfajitas</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6506288</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0708.0635:6506288</guid><pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 02:29:47 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The situation is worse in inflated dollars -- even if we&amp;#x27;d held the budgets steady in real dollars, we&amp;#x27;d be losing to inflation. Read the graphs. We increased funding 50% in real (i.e. &amp;quot;constant FY 2012&amp;quot;) dollars, in nominal dollars it increased marginally more (inflation wasn&amp;#x27;t that important). The bulk of the increase was in the NIH - look at the second graph which breaks it out by agency. Defense R&amp;amp;D includes a lot of basic science, I have no idea where you get the idea it doesn&amp;#x27;t. For example, this paper of mine (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.0635.pdf) has support from the Air Force. A lot of…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0708.0635/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.atom-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
