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

Everyone at NSF overseeing the Platforms for Wireless Experimentation is gone

discuss.systems

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 587 posts

Re: Everyone at NSF overseeing the Platforms for Wireless Experimentation is gone

#491

Post by mindslight »

rayiner wrote: post #476
clcaev wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress often specifies the criteria by which grants are made, qualifications and funding priorities. Sometimes these can be very specific, eg "earmarks".

Sometimes they do. But often they do not. Look at the appropriations bill for USAID: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8771... . > UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT > Funds Appropriated To The President > For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of section 667 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $1,214,808,000 (increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000), of wh…

You're focused on the money while ignoring the actual motivating legislation of the original Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. From a quick scan:

> Under the policy guidance of the Secretary of State, the agency primarily responsible for administering this part should have the responsibility for coordinating all United States development-related activities

"Guidance". Not direct command. The primary criteria of the agency is to carry out what Congress directed by making the Act. If I'm following your argument in this thread, you mean to say that doing so requires execution, is thus executive power, thus putting it under the full command of the President.

> SEC. 104A. ø22 U.S.C. 2151b–2¿ ASSISTANCE TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS.

DEI is a bit of a straw man, but there is an entire section on HIV/AIDS! That's a goal spelled out by Congress, which is meant to be executed independent from the desires of a would be president-king. Obviously the executive has leeway in how to interpret the grey areas ("guidance"), but the wholesale disruption/pausing/scrapping is illegal.

It's truly a travesty because the Republicans control both houses of Congress! They could easily pass legislation suspending USAID, and/or legislation for widespread audits of agencies culminating in DOGE. But they haven't.

Re: Everyone at NSF overseeing the Platforms for Wireless Experimentation is gone

#492

Post by turtlesdown11 »

rayiner wrote: post #264
_heimdall wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is based on a too literal interpretation of democracy. Attempting to run a democracy in a non-literal way seems like a recipe for disaster. That seems to imply that citizens get to cast a vote and have their voice heard...unless those in charge decide the citizens don't know what is best for them. As a country we picked Trump. For better or worse we made that bed and we now have to lie in it.

Folks on the left would do well to remember that the same unelected bureaucracy that declared “resistance” to Trump would destroy an AOC or Sanders presidency too. Ultimately, it’s a good thing if electing the President can effectuate drastic changes in the executive branch, because that’s the only real lever voters have for affecting the largest and these days most powerful branch of government.

The "deep state" is just a scapegoat for stuff people don’t like or understand. It’s a way to dodge real issues. There’s no secret conspiracy—just a lot of people doing their jobs in a messy system.

Re: Everyone at NSF overseeing the Platforms for Wireless Experimentation is gone

#493

Post by mindslight »

try_the_bass wrote: post #339
mindslight wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The levers of accountability could have been pulled any time, so it stands to say that they were still accountable. Perhaps they weren't held accountable as much as you or I would have liked. But the authority was there. But either way I don't really see what greater point you're trying to make.

Just that there is no practical difference between "seeming unaccountable" and "being unaccountable", especially if, as you say, "the levers of accountability could have been pulled", but weren't. If the departments aren't being held accountable, they are, by definition, acting unaccountably. You seemed to disagree, and be trying to make a distinction where no practical difference can be found. You also seem to agree…

The distinction is precisely in what criteria they're held accountable for, in the context of politics with many differing interests. Your cry about "being unaccountable" pertains to what you personally think they need to have been directed to do but weren't.

The mechanism is there. If Congress is not passing new legislation to change agency actions, that de facto means that Congress is content with the current actions. They have been accountable to Congress, and Congress has been content to let them keep doing what they're doing.

Re: Everyone at NSF overseeing the Platforms for Wireless Experimentation is gone

#494

Post by mindslight »

_heimdall wrote: post #316
mindslight wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... which has been allowed and caused by the Republican congressional obstructionism going on since the 90's. Bush, Obama, and Biden could have reduced their own use of executive power, but they couldn't undo it - rather it was Congress that would have had to reign them in and shrink executive power. Just as the current Congress is ultimately allowing Trump's ongoing authoritarian power grabs, rather than passing law…

Are you arguing that only Republicans have controlled Congress singe Bush Jr was in office? Or that Congress held primary decision making authority behind the number of executive orders signed by presidents since then?

No and no. I'm referring to Gingrich's attitude of never crossing the aisle leading to Congressional gridlock. And how a functioning Congress could have easily passed laws nullifying most executive orders (especially the ones grabbing extra power). It was precisely the power vacuum of Congress that enabled the strong executive.

Re: Everyone at NSF overseeing the Platforms for Wireless Experimentation is gone

#495

Post by freejazz »

_heimdall wrote: post #182
digitaltrees wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not far away from dying. I would argue that it’s already too late. The trump administration has shown that it can seize the power to control spending which is constitutionally an exclusive power if congress and courts can’t and won’t do anything about it. We are past a constitutional crisis, republicans had a theory of a unitary executive and prove they can stream roll other branches. Now trump and others are ta…

Trump is continuing a trend that has been going on since at least Bush Jr. Presidents for a couple decades now have been moving more power into the executive branch. Obama and Biden both talked about undoing this, but neither did. The Patriot Act still exists, three letter agencies still have authority to spy on American citizens, and immigration laws still defy what's written on the Statue of Liberty (I think most h…

>Trump is continuing a trend that has been going on since at least Bush Jr. Presidents for a couple decades now have been moving more power into the executive branch.

Are you familiar with the constitution? It describes which powers belong to the executive and which don't.

Re: Everyone at NSF overseeing the Platforms for Wireless Experimentation is gone

#496

Post by freejazz »

dylan604 wrote: post #309
rayiner wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system has specific, well-defined checks and balances. For example, Congress can limit the executive’s control over spending by enacting specific appropriations bills with concrete line items. But it hasn’t done so for decades. It has done things like appropriate single $1.7 billion line items for USAID, leaving it to the executive’s discretion how to spend it with only the vaguest guidelines. Congress having don…

> And your point about immunity is misinformed. The Supreme Court held that the President has immunity for official acts. We'll have to agree to disagree here. You'll never convince me that a phone call from a candidate trying to convince someone to "find" extra votes is an official act of office. Nor is assembling a league of fake electors because the official ones will not bend the knee

No, but thanks to the Supreme Court, it will have to be litigated through to them for anyone to know for sure.

Re: Everyone at NSF overseeing the Platforms for Wireless Experimentation is gone

#497

Post by seanmcdirmid »

mnau wrote: post #453
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe China will start accepting international PhD students? I don’t see anyone else who could pick up the slack.

No point unless coupled with ability to immigrate. Why would China educate foreigners only to see them leave? There is no payoff. It makes sense in US because of for-profit universities and easier immigration. That is not situation over there.

The US doesn't really have many for-profit universities, and those that are for-profit don't attract a lot of international PhD students. We do (or did?) have a lot of research to be done, and we would never be able to do it without international PhD students (including from China and India).

China has some immigration, and people will be attracted to stay if the research jobs are good and accessible. If China takes over the USA's role of the preeminent world power, they will have access to and need to leverage world talent to do so.

Re: Everyone at NSF overseeing the Platforms for Wireless Experimentation is gone

#498

Post by vkou »

kelnos wrote: post #400
pstuart wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 4 years the people will vote again. There's legitimate concern that won't be a viable option, and the admin has hinted that will soon be the case.

Fortunately the federal government doesn't run or control elections, so the current administration doesn't really have a say here.

The federal executive also doesn't set budgets, or choose which congressionally mandated departments will be open today, yet it's 2025 and it is doing exactly that. And back in 2020, it was conspiring to send fake electors to cast votes for itself, and to fix vote counts in Georgia. (Which you seem to think is also not a responsibility of the federal government, but the courts have called it an official, unprosecutable act, so here we are.)

Why do you think that a government that is not bound by the need to follow the law, and has already demonstrated malicious intent will... Actually follow the law?

Re: Everyone at NSF overseeing the Platforms for Wireless Experimentation is gone

#499

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

Mathnerd314 wrote: post #184
jbaber wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't do this if there were lives at stake. e.g. turning off circuits in a hospital to see which ones are really necessary. It's a very strong claim to say no lives depend on any federal funding.

All of the important programs have temporary restraining orders. That's actually the standard the judge applies, "is there a possibility of irreparable harm?" (e.g. lives lost). It's not perfect but no system is.

Having a temporary restraining order isn't the same as complying with it. Multiple judges have ruled that they are not.

Re: Everyone at NSF overseeing the Platforms for Wireless Experimentation is gone

#500

Post by snowwrestler »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #148
snowwrestler wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it saving money if the cost is just shifted elsewhere? Why does it matter where the work is done except for empty ideological signaling?

The cost would be borne by the consumers of Telcos / wireless services rather than by all taxpayers. The Telcos would allocate funding / resources based on their financial position and their needs. I dunno, tbh maybe the government can do a better job at right-sizing the service and running it efficiently than the private sector could? Maybe! But it feels like most arguments along these lines would also apply to the…

What we are talking about is basic research, e.g. developing the physics and computer science behind networking. It’s common for governments to fund those types of investigations, and private companies often prefer it that way.

It is risky in that the work is open-ended and “wins” are hard to predict. But when they are found, they benefit everyone. And then industry can swing into action commercializing it.

Post reply on HN