141–150 of 293 posts
This is genius. If you assume that the Trump Administration did this to show their base that they're serious about deporting foreigners to garner election votes, then you can conclude that they've managed to do that with as much publicity as possible at virtually no cost financially. It's likely they knew this would never go through and didn't want a knockdown drag-out fight in the courts. However, they still capital…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They sure do. We have a White House filled with white supremacists and career grifters. All of these people think they're doing good things; they just have a different idea than I do of who deserves "good things".
> We have a White House filled with white supremacists and career grifters I know right? Lots of white supremacists everywhere in the White House with the grand wizard as POTUS spewing 'this hate' all over the place /s. Meanwhile in the 'peaceful' CHAZ/CHOP, they also reported that their experiment turned out to be a pretty good thing for eveyone as 'a summer of love'. /s It's too easy to label and categorize anythin…
This is genius. If you assume that the Trump Administration did this to show their base that they're serious about deporting foreigners to garner election votes, then you can conclude that they've managed to do that with as much publicity as possible at virtually no cost financially. It's likely they knew this would never go through and didn't want a knockdown drag-out fight in the courts. However, they still capital…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was election year red meat for Trump's base, which his campaign has explicitly made their sole focus. It lets them tell the true believers that Trump tried to keep the evil foreigners out but the liberal deep state traitors stopped him, that's why they need to keep supporting Trump. That's what's behind all of these absurd attacks on immigrants, queer people, etc that instantly get struck down.
Yeah, in some ways this was the perfect outcome for that kind of posturing. Anecdotally, it seems to me that an actual drop in international student numbers would likely have hurt colleges in Republican-controlled states worse than Democrat-controlled ones. American students armed with student loans would still flock to top universities to make up for the international student shortfall, and I can't think of a top 10…
Another example of the haphazard throw-it-against-the-wall approach of what our country has chosen to have as our national experiment. This cannot be good for either side. Do we want to live in a system where if you hadn't been paying attention to the news for 1 week, we might have kicked >100,000 people out of the country? Is this ADD-style, whoever yells the loudest, social and political system working well for any…
As a guy with inattentive-subtype ADHD, I've long suspected there are fairly strong curb-cut benefits[1] to re-structuring organizations to work better for ADHDers. Might this be true of American political life? Initial suspicions:
1. Reduce the interface-complexity of government. Improve encapsulation. This may mean that government does _more_ in certain domains. I moved from the US to the UK in 2016 and the impact that a cross-cutting interface simplification like the NHS's "free at point of care" has just astounding. Income taxes over here are also much more clear, even if you are running a 1-person small business but especially if you are just an employee. I think is worth paying some higher monetary taxes if government can impose a lower tax on Working Memory.
For more on the idea of "Interface Complexity", see A Philosophy of Software Design by John Ousterhout.
2. Improve baseline health outcomes with some more wholistic (yet still evidence-based) interventions. A broad swath of Americans are stressed and often sleep-deprived. This is not conducive to thoughtful decision-making. Or epistemically-sound interpretation of information.
3. Improve access to mental health care. A whole bunch of Americans are descended from people who...
A. were so excited by the prospect of extravagant wealth that they would abandon their community and kinship group to live and work among strangers.
B. belonged to physically (sometimes sexually) abusive households for multiple generations until 1865. And then they got married to people who grew up in abusive households. (some of my own family history)
C. escaped from abusive & traumatic situations and traveled across an ocean to a land of strangers.
D. were so willing to break with social norms (or join social-norm-breaking subcultures) that they would abandon most of their possessions and travel across an ocean to a land of strangers.
E. were so fearful about the prospect of a government, regional, or neighborhood conspiracy that they decided to move across an ocean -- before there was sufficient evidence for most people around them to try to flee!
4. Reduce the social norms that promote catastrophizing. Currently, those who seek a return to specificity, clarity, or ask "is this reflected by the observable facts" in political discussions are often told they are pedantic, privileged, or tone-policing. We need a culturally-accepted way to return to a calm, measured way of thinking about policy -- not because policy is some intellectual game that doesn't matter. The stakes are genuinely life-or-death, because the stakes are life-or-death and that requires a calm mind with an eye seeking a clear understanding of a possibly-horrifying reality. It is good to be willing to say whatever will return to clarity and fact-focus with conviction and counter those who shame people for saying it.
5. Reduce the incentives to nuisance alarms in the news. Not sure how to do this.
6. Improve the number and quality of resources available for people of many professions to learn honest rhetoric and in particular to learn the how to clearly describe the "why" of their profession's policy recommendations. "Start with why" is the interpersonal version of well-regulated dopamine signals.
[1] https://medium.com/@mosaicofminds/the-curb-cut-effect-how-ma...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn’t they? Your question doesn’t make sense to me
You can't just sue because you are displeased with something - you need to have suffered, or will suffer direct harm from the thing(this is called locus standi). I'm guessing OP is saying that Harvard/MIT would not be harmed from this, only the students would be harmed(so they would need to be the ones to sue, not the college). It kind of makes sense - if everything is online courses, it doesn't matter to Harvard whe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you expand on this please? What countries are these campuses in?
Here is one: https://nyuad.nyu.edu/en/
I wonder how they'll compare tuition wise and whether that would incentivize foreign students to stay home. New York is a very expensive city but it is also a different experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning lobbying which is going to be a difficult battle for sure
“Lobbying” as the reflexive reason for all political ills is tiresome, especially considering aggressive lobbying by universities is likely what caused this reversal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning lobbying which is going to be a difficult battle for sure
“Lobbying” as the reflexive reason for all political ills is tiresome, especially considering aggressive lobbying by universities is likely what caused this reversal.