Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants • Hacker News Board

Re: Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

#311

Post by NalNezumi » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 9:24 AM UTC

agentcoops wrote: post #161

diggan wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but not at all unexpected given who’s running it To be fair, this has felt like the natural consequence of the "maximize capitalism without regarding the downsides" maxim the US seems to have been operated under for a long time. Corporations have been (indirectly) running the country for some decades at this point, it's just way more obvious and in the face now when a "businessman" sits as president.

While I would agree with you generally, in this case we’re talking about decisions that are precisely not desired by either business or investors. Which is to say, I think the American people and institutions are in a much worse place than at the whims of business alone: caught between an evangelical cultural coup and unrestrained capitalism. It’s actually surprising to me that the evangelicals appear to be dominatin…

If you learn that many business influencer are actually deeply Christian (many famous business, self help books is just sugarcoated Christian principles books[1]) you'll understand that those two are highly overlapping, and not separate political entities

[1] https://youtu.be/A_hH-JkXD_c?feature=shared

Re: Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

#312

Post by exe34 » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 1:11 PM UTC

soraminazuki wrote: post #252

eterm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be a comforting thought, but the reality is that it takes decades for these things to have an effect, and there's no guarantee that transitioning to a low trust and high corruption society will result in the removal of the autocrat. See North Korea or Russia. People have been claiming they're on the verge of collapse for decades but the reality is that they just keep going.

Isn't that a bit too optimistic? Even before Trump, neoliberalism has wrecked the lives of the majority of Americans for decades at this point. See healthcare, housing, food safety, water supply, electrical grid, public transportation, broadband access, worker protection, wealth gap, and I'm sure I'm missing a lot more. Is the reason we're in this situation.

Trump is the end stage of that transformation. Only now there's no changing course.

Re: Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

#313

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 1:22 PM UTC

teiferer wrote: post #307

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're technically correct (the best kind etc) because they said "voted for people other than Trump" not "voted for Harris". Voted for Trump: 77.3M Voted for Harris: 75M Voted for other candidates: 2.6M Harris + others = 77.6M, which is greater than Trump's 77.3M

So, clearly about half the vote went to Trump. Stop splitting hairs please, there was enormous support for this. Whether there was an epsilon above or below some arbitrary 50% threshold is insubstantial to this discussion.

If we lose pedantry, we lose the spirit of HN.

I think there's also a lot to unpack in "support for this". What is 'this' precisely? Many of Trump's policies and actions get poor results in polls.

The die hard ride or die for Trump types that are fully on board with everything are definitely not half the country.

Re: Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

#314

Post by tsoukase » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 1:32 PM UTC

niemandhier wrote: post #128

Every phd student of Terence Tao is probably welcome at the Max Planck Institute For Mathematics: https://www.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/application Usually you need 2 letters of recommendation, I’d strongly assume that in the case of Tao one is enough. Generally please consider the new „ Max Planck Transatlantic Program“: https://www.mpg.de/25034916/max-planck-transatlantic-program

Yep, Germany takes back scientists she had lost two generations ago. And this over and due to a similar subject! O tempora, O mores.

Re: Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

#315

Post by Eisenstein » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 2:54 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #217

Eisenstein wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible to not speak in riddles please?

I am confused why you see that as a riddle. Group X does action A_x due to belief B_x. That B_x isn't logical or whatever doesn't matter. Members of group X generally don't know that group X is wrong, and instead think their own biases are common sense etc. People are not perfectly rational spheres in a vacuum. That you can substitute in a lot of different values for X, doesn't change any of this.

Nothing they commented mentions any of the processes you did. A statement in which people need to figure out the specifics in order to make an interpretation is generally thought of as a riddle.

Re: Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

#316

Post by teiferer » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 2:58 PM UTC

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #313

teiferer wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, clearly about half the vote went to Trump. Stop splitting hairs please, there was enormous support for this. Whether there was an epsilon above or below some arbitrary 50% threshold is insubstantial to this discussion.

If we lose pedantry, we lose the spirit of HN. I think there's also a lot to unpack in "support for this". What is 'this' precisely? Many of Trump's policies and actions get poor results in polls. The die hard ride or die for Trump types that are fully on board with everything are definitely not half the country.

> If we lose pedantry, we lose the spirit of HN.

Haha true! Though if the pedantry gets in the way of the big picture then it's counter productive, one may argue.

> I think there's also a lot to unpack in "support for this". What is 'this' precisely? Many of Trump's policies and actions get poor results in polls.

Fair point. It's the person that got the votes and it could be argued that people should have known what they voted for, even if many votes surely were cast more in the spirit of voting against the other side, and it's a common effect that once a side is chosen then the mind downplays the drawbacks of the "own" side in an effort to justify the choice.

Re: Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

#317

Post by Eisenstein » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 3:03 PM UTC

qcnguy wrote: post #259

Eisenstein wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we assume that the administration is acting in good faith when all evidence has shown otherwise?

Because the stated rationale is logical, predictable and matches what the colleges have been doing. This outcome was widely predicted years in advance and would be happening even if Trump had never been born.

Even if were to accept those things as true, stating things which are true is not the only indication of good faith. It is a widely used tactic to use rules only followed by one side against that side. Example (feel free to replace "I" with "my supporters" here): If I believed that anything I did in my interest was acceptable, but you believed that you were bound to work in the interest of the public, then I could claim that you giving your son a government job was corrupt and you would be bound to defend that, whereas if you claimed giving my son-in-law and my daughter government jobs was corrupt I would just ignore you.

Re: Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

#318

Post by ModernMech » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 4:23 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #280

ModernMech wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't though, unless your funding depends on him. Or your broadcasting license. Or your public assistance. Or your citizenship.

There's a difference between rights and privileges. If the government gifts you $1000 a month because they like you so much, that's a privilege. Privileges can be taken away. If the government gives you $1000 a month because it's the law, then they can't take it away without breaking the law (or changing it first). Public funding for specific universities is not the law, so the government can stop giving it to someon…

Your opinion is based on the constitutional republic of the past. In the authoritarian dictatorship that Trump is building, there's no difference between a right and a privilege because rights don't exist, only privilege for those who have the approval of the dictator, which may be revoked at any time. This whole "rule of law" idea you're professing is antiquated and a relic. The new world order is: might makes right.

Re: Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

#319

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 4:35 PM UTC

teiferer wrote: post #316

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we lose pedantry, we lose the spirit of HN. I think there's also a lot to unpack in "support for this". What is 'this' precisely? Many of Trump's policies and actions get poor results in polls. The die hard ride or die for Trump types that are fully on board with everything are definitely not half the country.

> If we lose pedantry, we lose the spirit of HN. Haha true! Though if the pedantry gets in the way of the big picture then it's counter productive, one may argue. > I think there's also a lot to unpack in "support for this". What is 'this' precisely? Many of Trump's policies and actions get poor results in polls. Fair point. It's the person that got the votes and it could be argued that people should have known what…

Yeah, and people are drastically [under|mis]-informed generally.

I saw a poll the other day with a question like, "since 1990, has violent crime increased or decreased?" with the usual significant / somewhat options in each direction plus a neutral option.

There's clear data that shows a substantial reduction in violent crime in the US since the 90s. Despite that, slightly over half the respondents answered that violent crime had significantly or somewhat increased.

Only 9% of respondents gave the "significantly decreased" answer that aligns to the data.

Re: Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

#320

Post by wisty » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 9:30 PM UTC

jaredklewis wrote: post #303

wisty wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why suggest math PhDs unless it's in bad faith? Wouldn't economics and sociology PhDs have both more room for bias in their work, and tend to have power over the economy and society? "Experts" have a lot of sway over the public sector and legal system. The public sector has increased to take up a huge percentage of GDP, and the legal sector has also arguably expanded a lot in power. The perception is that a huge amou…

> Why suggest math PhDs unless it's in bad faith? Maybe because this thread is about a math PhD (Terrence Tao)? I’m also surprised you believe academic economists have much power. These days, most politicians from both parties in the US proudly reject more or less all of mainstream economics. Sometimes, the work of academic economists can have some small influence on decisions at the Fed, so I guess that is something…

If only politicians mattered why doesn't Trump sack virtually everyone in DC?

The government is a large organisation and its middle management is both vast and powerful.

And this huge middle management is obliged (arguably) to listen to academia unless otherwise instructed by politicians (who are too few in number and mostly not talented in steering large organisations so much as they are used to just going with the flow and taking the credit).