411–420 of 459 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australians will complain a lot but honestly the future is very bright. Higher exports than imports, government debt isn’t completely out of line and it’s not going exponential like some regions, it has European like public services, a median wealth 2.5x that of the USA, good employment figures. It’s not perfect but i still think it’s pretty good.
Housing is a challenge
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Closer to 27%
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree--we're all paying for it, so it should be justified regardless. And I don't need an optimal number. But the common refrain is essentially that more is always better, and fewer means we're losing our standing in the world. Always. Maybe keeping a lot of them but shedding some percentage is actually more optimal. But I'm open to being wrong. That's why I'm asking for metrics.
If this was intentional workforce reduction, then the agencies affected should show improved efficiency or output with fewer people. We should see faster regulatory reviews, better grant decisions, stronger technical evaluations, just with leaner teams. Instead, what we’re likely to see is degraded capacity, slower timelines, and reduced technical oversight. If that happens, will you acknowledge this was a mistake? O…
There are now 10k STEM PhDs who are (presumably, mostly) not being paid by the federal government, and are now employed in the private sector and contributing more to the federal budget than taking from it. Or retired, as noted in the article.
On the downside, some grants are maybe taking longer to be disbursed? Not ideal, but again: there's some reason we didn't previously have 100k more STEM PhDs. And we could make the same argument: if we had, we'd have faster regulatory reviews, better grant decisions, and stronger technical evaluations.
There's basically no way to argue for any number other than "more." That suggests an unfalsifiable argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two countries can be shitty but the US hasn’t yet put a million of its citizens in jail because of ethnicity. Maybe going there in the future. That won’t white wash what China is.
The US, with around 4% of world population, has around 25% of the worlds prisoners, vastly higher in total and percentage wise than China.
One factor is that the U.S. is the 3rd largest by population and will always skew higher in total prisoners than many other countries.
The other factor which explains the relatively high incarceration rate within the country's population is the investment into policing and reporting. We can take a city like Shanghai for example. They had a population size of around ~24m+ in ~2018-2019 [1] but only had 50k cops [2] (I couldn't find citable numbers for today but the data isn't too outdated). New York City, in comparison, has a current current population size of around ~8m [3] with 33k cops [4].
The 2 countries bigger than the U.S., India and China, also historically have had less investment in law enforcement, especially in rural areas [5][6].
[1] https://tjj.sh.gov.cn/tjnj/nj19.htm?d1=2019tjnje/E0201.htm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Municipal_Public_Secu...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City
[4] https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/about/about-nypd/about-nypd-la...
[5] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3215865/chi...
[6] https://villagesquare.in/rural-crime-and-policing-in-indias-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol, the fully homegrown BYD is destroying Tesla everywhere outside the US where it’s basically banned and you’re taking about Geely and Volvo and behind the scenes. It’s all out there on the stage.
I don't really give a shit about Tesla though. Or BYD for that matter. By my eye, Volvo / Geely cars are the most impressive.
It’s just objective fact that BYD along with Tesla are world class cars and therefore they should be the main discussion point here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bullshit university should not be accredited and BSU should be shut down. An unaccredited school should have no effect on immigration policy
Unaccredited universities are allowed to exist.
That after BSU loses their accreditation they should still be allowed to operate to keep their professors employed?
We were discussing immigration. An unaccredited university should have the same ability to help immigrants get visas as Best Buy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this was intentional workforce reduction, then the agencies affected should show improved efficiency or output with fewer people. We should see faster regulatory reviews, better grant decisions, stronger technical evaluations, just with leaner teams. Instead, what we’re likely to see is degraded capacity, slower timelines, and reduced technical oversight. If that happens, will you acknowledge this was a mistake? O…
No, I accept the outcomes you are claiming are likely. I'm talking about the net results for the rest of us. There are now 10k STEM PhDs who are (presumably, mostly) not being paid by the federal government, and are now employed in the private sector and contributing more to the federal budget than taking from it. Or retired, as noted in the article. On the downside, some grants are maybe taking longer to be disburse…
Are they? Really?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really give a shit about Tesla though. Or BYD for that matter. By my eye, Volvo / Geely cars are the most impressive.
I don’t really give a shit about your opinion though. It’s just objective fact that BYD along with Tesla are world class cars and therefore they should be the main discussion point here.
World class propaganda maybe. Cars definitely not.
I'll give China the Volvo brand. I can see the quality difference at any car show. I remember seeing some other nice looking Chinese cars but BYD (and Tesla for that matter) are objectively awful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
EU is more stable. A sigle person can't declare themselves dictator and unilaterally start applying rules affecting the whole of EU. And the "extreme" tax thing is just pure propaganda. USA pays just as much, but it's not called a "tax", it's just insurance copays (whatever that is), credit card fees, childcare fees, tuitions etc.
Now California is a high-tax state, but given that there's no health insurance included that seems pretty similar to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I accept the outcomes you are claiming are likely. I'm talking about the net results for the rest of us. There are now 10k STEM PhDs who are (presumably, mostly) not being paid by the federal government, and are now employed in the private sector and contributing more to the federal budget than taking from it. Or retired, as noted in the article. On the downside, some grants are maybe taking longer to be disburse…
> and are now employed in the private sector and contributing more to the federal budget than taking from it Are they? Really?
Maybe I don't understand your point.