531–540 of 676 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What researcher in their right mind would move their research and their future to the USA to join this clown rodeo? what about private companies making profits luring researchers?
Private companies don’t do basic research.
To steel man this move You could argue peer review has become a mechanism to encourage incrementalism. That it doesn’t reward big leaps. And the public isn’t getting ROI on science funding compared to 50 years ago. Peer review is a closed system of expertise that doesn’t let you challenge the core tenants - some might say theology - of the field. It’s basically a cartel for keeping a field of study alive, regardless…
Are you arguing that or not
Also: tenets
>some might say theology - of the field
Some might, I'm sure! Are you saying that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, any research related to weapons programs. Jobs/grants in the fields of laser research, AI, material sciences, mathematics, chemistry and aerospace are safe... so long as you dont talk to outsiders.
Friends on ML/AI hiring committees at top tier university are seeing foreign profs turn away record offers. Same for applied math relevant to material science. I expect you are right at the most specialized end of the spectrum (and certainly industrial labs in those areas), but I wonder if anyone can speak directly to where we are still globally competitive.
But for bringing elite minds from outside the country? Heck no. Sure, for the right price they will come, but few want to bring their families to actually stay. Ask someone like a surgeon or physicist whether they want to work in the US or Canada/UK. They will say something like "ya, to make bank for a few years, but long-term I would rather live in Toronto than New York, Vancouver rather than Seattle." The perception of the US by people outside the US is not something America pays much attention to these days. It is suffering.
Among other things this proposal attempts to prevent:
1. prevention of DEI related grants
2. prevention of grants promoting anti-american ideologies
3. prevention of gain-of-function research (think covid-19)
4. prevention of ai-powered social media censorship research
5. prevention of FEMA dollars going to help undocumented immigrants
6. prevention of foreign aid dollars being spent in africa on gender ideology
It would but restrictions directly into the grant awards give strong tools to the USG to suspend the grant and prevent the money being dispersed via a subrecipient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3
The sex requirements for procreation are orthogonal to the spectrum of sex variation observed. https://archive.is/2025.02.21-160254/https://www.scientifica...
There are two developmental pathways for sexual reproduction: - one produces small mobile gametes - one produces large immobile gametes
There can be plenty of variation in how an individual organism in different species ends up on one pathway or the other, there can be plenty of variation in how an individual organism on either pathway develops, and there can be plenty of variation in how an individual on either pathway behaves. But in sexually reproductive organisms, there are only two pathways.
A male who wants to obey stereotypical feminine stereotypes in behaviour and dress is free to do so, but it doesn’t make him any kind of female, or a different kind of male.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insinuating that the administrative state is racist by genetic fallacy while longing for a return to the era of Jim Crow is hypocritical enough for me to disregard his opinion.
The administrative state wasn’t merely created by the same progressives that gave us eugenics. It has its roots in the same dim view of the common man and how much agency they should be given. Woodrow Wilson and other progressives were deeply skeptical of democracy. He wrote about the how the “unphilosophical bulk of mankind” didn’t know what was good for them. And his solution to that was to have the government run…
How is enforcing the two greatest anti Jim Crow laws (VRA and CRA), somehow, equivalent to returning to Jim Crow itself?
> the administrative state
I’m trying to understand better, but it just seems like you are very opposed to merit based hiring in government and I don’t understand why. I understand your appeal to history, but what could be a better approach than hiring on merit while also making those employees accountable to political appointees? Just replacing the entire ranks of government every 4 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> As if seeking out the best of the best to collaborate with, independent of their checkboxes, was somehow undesirable The best of the best involves people from underrepresented groups. These policies exist to counteract the cronyism and “doesn’t look like me”-ism inherent to the way people make choices. We know people don’t hire and collaborate with the best of the best, because when looking for the best they see it…
In fact, we see this now in Silicon Valley where 80% of workers are foreign born. Not a representative group of Americans by any stretch, and we see a lot of negativity towards folks Silicon Valley will never interact with as a result. And who are the wealthy bigots? Not the richest people in the history of the world. No, those other bad folks in the poor states who deserve it. They aren't under-represented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With a few exceptions like Switzerland, American levels of compensation for highly qualified people just can't be matched anywhere in the Western world. Gross compensation yes. But if you begin deducting stuff like the absurd American housing costs, private healthcare, saving up for deductibles, the need to own, insure, fuel and maintain a car to do everything because almost nothing is accessible by public transpor…
I've done that math too and the other reality is that most of those costs are optional in the US. It is 100% possible for me to have a high salary in the US and save most of it while temporarily exposing myself to larger risks. And it is far more useful for me to be able to say and show that I have a high salary, for access to credit and resources, private investments that give me the best shot of escaping a permanen…
That's the thing. Temporarily. Sure, you can save on healthcare with a high deductible and in-network-only plan. But then, all it needs to wipe you out is a bad traffic accident - say, you run a red light by accident, get t-boned at high velocity and airlifted to the next hospital. You're at fault, the hospital is out of network, the HEMS ride isn't covered anyway. Your car is toast, you're out of work for months and fired sooner than later.
In Germany? HEMS is covered by your health insurance. You get full pay for 6 weeks (and 70% afterwards) while out sick. Your boss can't (realistically) fire you without an insane lot of effort that most don't bother. All in all, you only have to eat the cost of the totaled car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The president is elected, the bureaucrats that were making the decisions before were not, that's the difference. >BTW your “believe it or not” is quite condescending. Do you talk to people in real life like that? Yes, especially when they're the sort of people who support taking my tax money to fund idiotic and outright racist "research".
> the bureaucrats that were making the decisions before were not Russ Vought was not elected either.