Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 484 posts

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#21

Post by jjgreen »

nc__nc wrote: post #16
ngcc_hk wrote: post #11

Given the nuclear bomb in China was helped by out-going chinese. Given china is a world power which is communist and totalitarian in nature. Can China be treated by Soviet Union? Yes you can. By allowing china playing the hand I can got yours but you cannot go to my market, even if you are not that political one should be very careful. Bad to be racist. Sorry to lose the war yes war to communists and totalitarians. B…

Quoted post unavailable.

Though you could probably pass for Prime Minister ...

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#22

Post by mcherm »

hwers wrote: post #12

I mean what you do in these situations is just have NY times write an article like this on you that you can point to in job applications and any reputational damage is probably nullified.

> any reputational damage is probably nullified

In this case, Professor Chen lost his research grants. He lost several grad students. He lost a year's worth of progress in his field. Do you think this NY Times article nullified those effects?

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#25

Post by tsol »

hwers wrote: post #12

I mean what you do in these situations is just have NY times write an article like this on you that you can point to in job applications and any reputational damage is probably nullified.

I think this only works about 1 out of 1000 times. The rest are too unknown to get articles written about them

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#26

Post by neither_color »

Last week, the government dismissed the case against Dr. Chen, which alleged that he had concealed seven Chinese affiliations in applications for $2.7 million in grants from the U.S. Energy Department. Prosecutors announced that they had received new information indicating that Dr. Chen had not been obliged to disclose those affiliations, undercutting the basis of the case.

I feel like this part could use more details. The charges were for not disclosing his affiliations, but those affiliations existed nonetheless? Edit: I'm not implying there's anything shady he did or that he wasn't falsely accused, just trying to parse this.

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#28

Post by nc__nc »

jjgreen wrote: post #21
nc__nc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Though you could probably pass for Prime Minister ...

How? Boris seems to be in full support of receiving these emigrating HKers regardless of their English proficiency.

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#29

Post by ARandomerDude »

gambiting wrote: post #18
ngcc_hk wrote: post #11

Given the nuclear bomb in China was helped by out-going chinese. Given china is a world power which is communist and totalitarian in nature. Can China be treated by Soviet Union? Yes you can. By allowing china playing the hand I can got yours but you cannot go to my market, even if you are not that political one should be very careful. Bad to be racist. Sorry to lose the war yes war to communists and totalitarians. B…

I honestly don't understand what you're saying. >>Sorry to lose the war yes war to communists and totalitarians Like, what does that even mean?

All your Soviet Unions are belong to us.

Re: In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

#30

Post by refurb »

neither_color wrote: post #26

Last week, the government dismissed the case against Dr. Chen, which alleged that he had concealed seven Chinese affiliations in applications for $2.7 million in grants from the U.S. Energy Department. Prosecutors announced that they had received new information indicating that Dr. Chen had not been obliged to disclose those affiliations, undercutting the basis of the case. I feel like this part could use more detail…

Agreed. It seems like the details matter here.

Were the affiliations suspect but not reportable?

Or were the affiliations unremarkable and not reportable but prosecutors screwed up?

Post reply on HN