|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
It only took $700 million dollars in gifts to Toyota to attract those 4000 jobs over. It is unclear if the state will be picking up the tab for training the workers too.
|
On January 13 2018 06:33 Herpin_Along wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 05:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 13 2018 05:31 Herpin_Along wrote:On January 13 2018 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:On January 13 2018 05:16 NewSunshine wrote:On January 13 2018 05:12 Mohdoo wrote:
Norwegians are doing just fine. They'd LIKE to live here, but let's not pretend they are suffering right now. Even then, I don't see a whole lot of reason why someone living in Norway would want to come to America. They have UHC, actual maternity/paternity leave, actual work-life balance with shorter work-weeks than we do, less crime, and a much better education system. Maybe if they just really can't stand the cold? Anyone working in science should want to leave Norway for the US immediately. Norway is kind of a joke when it comes to scientific advancement. So is most of the world compared to the US. Japan only has a single scientific journal worth using for more than wiping your own ass. Assuming they are looking to be on the cutting edge or whatever. But as a whole, living in Norway will significantly disable your career progress compared to working in the states. Dude wtf are you talking about, host country "prestigious scientific journals" is such a silly way to evaluate performance in science. At the least a bit better of a metric would be pubs per capita, but that's not even very good due to lack of info on the strength of the publications. See here for a brief ranking of per-capita publications, anyways: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18767/research-publications-per-capitaA better metric might incorporate the quantity of citations of those publications or maybe even something like technological patents, but in either case "scientific strength", like most poorly defined yet complex issues, is a difficult thing to quantify. Edit: Looking at later posts from you, you seem to be discussing things in absolute terms, which frankly I think is a bit silly. Absolute number of scientists is obviously going to differ between Norway and the US, but you're comparing a country of 300 million to one of 5 million, its comparing apples to really big oranges. Finding some kind of per-capita measure is going to more accurately reflect relative scientific strength. What that metric would be I have no idea, but you can probably get a general sense from looking at publications, citations, publications in top tier journals, patents, researchers per capita, $ per citizen spent on funding, etc. But in the field I work in Scandinavian countries do just fine and are leaders in a lot of areas of research that are particularly applicable for them. Publications per capita aren't relevant. Just look at China. I don't think many countries manage to be as much of a joke in the international chemistry community than China. You're focusing on the wrong thing. # of Nobel prizes would be a lot closer to showing reality. No one cares if you published. People care if you publish something special. In terms of becoming a truly distinct, globally recognized researcher, no one comes close to the US. For people (unlike me) who are focused on reaching the top of the mountain, there is no other place to be than the US. Yeah, I don't disagree with you that publications per-capita is a gross oversimplification, just like the host country of the high-tier journals. I'm just saying that Scandinavian countries do just fine in many areas of research. Edit: Looking at your other posts, you seem to be focused on absolute numbers, but that's comparing apples to really big oranges. Any kind of relevant comparison is probably going to look at something on a per-capita basis, its unreasonable to compare a country of 300 million to one of 5 million in terms of output, that's like saying Americans. Instead of looking at absolute number of scientists, for example, you should be looking at scientists per thousand people, or something like that. Similar to citations, patents, funding, universities, nobel prizes, publications in high-tier journals, etc. (there's like a million things you could examine). Although it doesn't capture everything (research clusters come to mind), this almost seems so obvious that I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding some of what you're saying... Also lots of countries have world-renowned researchers, I'm not sure why you're saying that that only Americans have the highest "cap"? I guess you're probably talking about high-tier principle investigators with huge budgets and laboratories conducting groundbreakign research, but those do exist in other countries. Again, its a per-capita thing. Anyhow this isn't the most productive discussion so I probably won't post again on it.
It is kind of funny how often these discussions burn down to not counting stuff per capita, and then deriving wildly stupid results. If you don't measure thing that scales with population per capita, the statistic you have as a result will always be mostly an indicator of how many people live in a country.
That would be like me calling americans fat because the total mass of americans is way higher than the total mass of germans. It is incredibly stupid to do that.
Also, the US has more than double the amount of murders per year that San Salvador has. Thus San Salvador is the safer country of the two.
|
|
|
Norway28873 Posts
If you are trying to make any type of standard of living comparison based on statistics then obviously you need to look at per capita statistics..
|
No, Drone, you need to look at statistics per capita, obviously. It is the only true merit of statistical accomplishment.
|
|
|
On January 13 2018 07:09 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 06:33 Herpin_Along wrote:On January 13 2018 05:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 13 2018 05:31 Herpin_Along wrote:On January 13 2018 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:On January 13 2018 05:16 NewSunshine wrote:On January 13 2018 05:12 Mohdoo wrote:
Norwegians are doing just fine. They'd LIKE to live here, but let's not pretend they are suffering right now. Even then, I don't see a whole lot of reason why someone living in Norway would want to come to America. They have UHC, actual maternity/paternity leave, actual work-life balance with shorter work-weeks than we do, less crime, and a much better education system. Maybe if they just really can't stand the cold? Anyone working in science should want to leave Norway for the US immediately. Norway is kind of a joke when it comes to scientific advancement. So is most of the world compared to the US. Japan only has a single scientific journal worth using for more than wiping your own ass. Assuming they are looking to be on the cutting edge or whatever. But as a whole, living in Norway will significantly disable your career progress compared to working in the states. Dude wtf are you talking about, host country "prestigious scientific journals" is such a silly way to evaluate performance in science. At the least a bit better of a metric would be pubs per capita, but that's not even very good due to lack of info on the strength of the publications. See here for a brief ranking of per-capita publications, anyways: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18767/research-publications-per-capitaA better metric might incorporate the quantity of citations of those publications or maybe even something like technological patents, but in either case "scientific strength", like most poorly defined yet complex issues, is a difficult thing to quantify. Edit: Looking at later posts from you, you seem to be discussing things in absolute terms, which frankly I think is a bit silly. Absolute number of scientists is obviously going to differ between Norway and the US, but you're comparing a country of 300 million to one of 5 million, its comparing apples to really big oranges. Finding some kind of per-capita measure is going to more accurately reflect relative scientific strength. What that metric would be I have no idea, but you can probably get a general sense from looking at publications, citations, publications in top tier journals, patents, researchers per capita, $ per citizen spent on funding, etc. But in the field I work in Scandinavian countries do just fine and are leaders in a lot of areas of research that are particularly applicable for them. Publications per capita aren't relevant. Just look at China. I don't think many countries manage to be as much of a joke in the international chemistry community than China. You're focusing on the wrong thing. # of Nobel prizes would be a lot closer to showing reality. No one cares if you published. People care if you publish something special. In terms of becoming a truly distinct, globally recognized researcher, no one comes close to the US. For people (unlike me) who are focused on reaching the top of the mountain, there is no other place to be than the US. Yeah, I don't disagree with you that publications per-capita is a gross oversimplification, just like the host country of the high-tier journals. I'm just saying that Scandinavian countries do just fine in many areas of research. Edit: Looking at your other posts, you seem to be focused on absolute numbers, but that's comparing apples to really big oranges. Any kind of relevant comparison is probably going to look at something on a per-capita basis, its unreasonable to compare a country of 300 million to one of 5 million in terms of output, that's like saying Americans. Instead of looking at absolute number of scientists, for example, you should be looking at scientists per thousand people, or something like that. Similar to citations, patents, funding, universities, nobel prizes, publications in high-tier journals, etc. (there's like a million things you could examine). Although it doesn't capture everything (research clusters come to mind), this almost seems so obvious that I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding some of what you're saying... Also lots of countries have world-renowned researchers, I'm not sure why you're saying that that only Americans have the highest "cap"? I guess you're probably talking about high-tier principle investigators with huge budgets and laboratories conducting groundbreakign research, but those do exist in other countries. Again, its a per-capita thing. Anyhow this isn't the most productive discussion so I probably won't post again on it. It is kind of funny how often these discussions burn down to not counting stuff per capita, and then deriving wildly stupid results. If you don't measure thing that scales with population per capita, the statistic you have as a result will always be mostly an indicator of how many people live in a country. That would be like me calling americans fat because the total mass of americans is way higher than the total mass of germans. It is incredibly stupid to do that. Also, the US has more than double the amount of murders per year that San Salvador has. Thus San Salvador is the safer country of the two.
It’s a country now?
|
Sorry, i meant to type El Salvador. That's the country. San Salvador is the capital city of that country. Why do people have to name stuff in a way that is so easy to confuse. The statistic i quoted was one of El Salvador.
Still, i apologize for my mistake.
|
Steering his white Dodge Ram while wearing a tan knit cap, a drab green Carhartt coat and a smear of brown livestock feed on his cheek, Terry Goodin jounced over frozen-hard mud toward his 100 head of beef cattle. “Make sure they’re all four legs down and not four legs up, in this kind of weather,” he told me in his southern Indiana drawl. The temperature overnight had dipped toward zero. Now, midmorning, it stood at 16 degrees. On the rear of his old pickup truck was a “Farmers For Goodin” bumper sticker, and rattling around his head were thoughts of what he was going to say the following week in a starkly different setting—up in Indianapolis, at the regal limestone capitol building, in his introductory speech as the leader of his caucus in the state legislature.
He wanted to talk about the importance of public education, affordable health care and a living wage, and the moral necessity of addressing the opioids scourge. Six days later, dressed in a sharp suit and a striped tie, he would stress those priorities—and also deliver a declaration of identity:
I am a Democrat. I am a Democrat from rural Indiana.”
That Goodin, 51, who has held political office for more than 17 years, felt the need to say this out loud speaks to the divisions bedeviling the Democratic Party. A father of three and the superintendent of a 500-student school district, Goodin is the last Democrat in Indiana who represents an entirely rural area. A member of the Indiana Farm Bureau, the National Rifle Association and the Austin Church of God, he’s an anti-abortion, pro-gun, self-described “Bible-poundin’, aisle-runnin’” Pentecostal. This unusual profile for a Democrat makes him a species nearing extinction within the national party, but it’s also the very reason he keeps getting reelected here. This paradox is why he is prominently featured in a report set to be made public Thursday by the leadership PAC of third-term congresswoman Cheri Bustos.
The report, “Hope from the Heartland: How Democrats Can Better Serve the Midwest by Bringing Rural, Working Class Wisdom to Washington,” lands at a moment, of course, when Democrats are riled up with activist energy but also wrestling with themselves about the direction of their party—their most reliable areas of support having receded to cities, coasts and college towns. In contrast, this report is based on interviews with 72 Democrats who hail from none of those places but rather largely agricultural, blue-collar areas in the vast, eight-state center of the country. It will be distributed to local and regional party leaders as well as the most important Democrats on Capitol Hill. Bustos shared an early copy exclusively with POLITICO.
Politico
|
|
|
In early December, when the news broke that Rupert Murdoch was preparing to sell his movie studio and television assets to Disney, Donald Trump placed an urgent call to the 86-year-old mogul. While Fox News was not one of Murdoch’s assets included in the Disney deal, some observers were speculating that as he passed the torch to his more liberal sons, they might unload the network—a prospect that deeply concerned Trump. According to a person briefed on the conversation, Trump was relieved when Murdoch assured him that he would not be selling Fox News.
...
According to conversations in recent days with current and former Fox executives, producers, and hosts, Trump looms almost as large in the minds of employees as Ailes did. Fox hosts regularly get calls from Trump about segments he likes—or doesn’t. “When you worked at Fox, you knew that at any moment Roger Ailes was watching. Every day was like a job interview with Ailes. Now it’s the same way for Trump,” says a veteran Fox News contributor. According to sources, Trump doesn’t explicitly dictate talking points the way Ailes did, but over time, the effect can be similar. “What he usually does is he’ll call after a show and say, ‘I really enjoyed that,’” a former Fox anchor told me. “The highest compliment is, ‘I really learned something.’ Then you know he got a new policy idea.”
...
Now, some prominent voices at Fox openly seem to be aiding the Trump agenda. In recent months, hosts such Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters, and Jeanine Pirro have promoted wild conspiracy theories about Trump being the victim of an F.B.I.-led coup. In December, The New York Times reported that Pirro had a one-hour Oval Office meeting with Trump where she denounced Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
www.vanityfair.com
|
On January 13 2018 05:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 05:18 KwarK wrote:
Probably for the best that you're not in HR Mohdoo because I don't think "look, we have so many qualified applicants that I figured I could still get a variety of well qualified candidates if I narrowed the selection to just white men while saving everyone a lot of time" would fly. lol why are you pretending I am applying racial filters to job hiring? I specifically said education level. You're being a little silly today. Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 05:19 Ghostcom wrote:
Well last year it was like 502 Norwegians that immigrated last year so it's not like they are flocking to the place.
EDIT: Bullshit about science only being cutting edge in the US. Plenty of cutting edge research happening elsewhere, including Norway. And US academia is really not preferable due to the publish or perish bullshit going on. Collaborations can take you plenty far. What specific branch of science do you work in? You don't need to work in academia to work in stem. Don't forget all the tech companies based in the US. Intel's entire R&D thrust is in the US for a reason. Certain countries here and there have good work being done in little areas here and there, but by and large, your ability to grow and advance as a scientist is significantly greater in the states. There's a big difference between a country being in 90 percentile and being at the top. The gap is still really, really big today. As I said, Norway does some good work. So do lots of countries. But the opportunities in the US are incomparably better.
Samsungs entire R&D thrust is in Korea for a reason too...
You're a bit deluded if you think the only relevant science is being done in the US. And wtf does Japanese journals have anything to do with anything? Elsevier is Dutch and Springer is German. Does that make papers in them automatically Dutch and German papers? Because then I think about 70% (something around that percentage) of relevant science is Dutch and German.
You're right that the only relevant language for scientific publishing is English. But that doesn't mean you can't publish that paper written in English from Japan, Germany or Mozambique.
|
What "thrust" means in that regards? I happen to know that both Samsung and Intel have huge R&D sites outside of Korea/US respectively.
|
In regard to Trump wanting norwegian immigrants rather than those from 'shithole' countries - when Norway sends people to the US, we dont send the best, although some, I suppose, are good people. 
That said, arguing about the nationality of science is nonsensical, seeing how mobile academics in my experience need to be. Yes, there are a lot of job opportunities for highly educated people in academia in the US (obviously - its a large country with lots of jobs), which attracts non-american scientists for shorter and longer stays.
Are the results of their science tied to american institutions? Yes. Is it done by american scientists? Not neccessarily. Are they educated through american universities? Not neccessarily.
If anything, the US excels at brain-draining the rest of the world, in effect having other countries fund the person in the age of loss (childhood and adolecense with education) while poaching them in the age of gain (post-education, into working age).
|
I love that the WSJ reports the President of the United States paid a pornstar $150,000 to shut her up, and it doesn't even interrupt the conversation.
|
On January 13 2018 17:55 Silvanel wrote:
What "thrust" means in that regards? I happen to know that both Samsung and Intel have huge R&D sites outside of Korea/US respectively.
Not sure on Intel, but while Samsung definitely has big R&D centers outside of Korea (I worked for one), by far the most interesting R is centralized in Korea, and while there are labs that do state-of-the-art research outside of Korea, this is still coordinated from Korea. IBM, on the other hand has far more decentralized R&D labs. There's down sides to that too, but the whole company is simply organized in a far more decentralized manner.
|
On January 10 2018 11:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 11:14 mierin wrote:
This is something I have always been curious about...as a white dude who recognizes how shitty a hand black people are dealt in the US, why in the world are most of the black people I know the most religious? It's just mind boggling. Why is it mind boggling? Is God for goodies or something?
It's mind boggling because God is supposed to be good/fair/etc. Why would such a God allow these circumstances to exist, and if he did why be worth worshipping?
|
On January 13 2018 20:39 Leporello wrote:
I love that the WSJ reports the President of the United States paid a pornstar $150,000 to shut her up, and it doesn't even interrupt the conversation.
I think we’ve established that Danglar thinks it’s totally ok the president is a narcissistic idiot, and that we think it’s unbelievably serious.
At that point, nothing can make me dispise Trump any more than I do already, and Danglar would keep thinking he did great by voting for him if we discovered he kills kittens with a spoon every morning, so why bother talk about it. The guy is a pond scum and one of the grotesque charades history pulls from time to time but there is no point even talking about his shennanigans anymore. Someone who doesn’t think at that point that it’s tragic a man like that got there won’t ever change his mind.
|
On January 13 2018 21:19 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 11:52 Danglars wrote:On January 10 2018 11:14 mierin wrote:
This is something I have always been curious about...as a white dude who recognizes how shitty a hand black people are dealt in the US, why in the world are most of the black people I know the most religious? It's just mind boggling. Why is it mind boggling? Is God for goodies or something? It's mind boggling because God is supposed to be good/fair/etc. Why would such a God allow these circumstances to exist, and if he did why be worth worshipping?
This conversation was from three days ago. I'll try to summarize two points you're probably familiar with and one of which was already posted: God seen as the comforter in times of trouble, and the world as chaotic place affected by sin, to which the ultimate aspiration is entry into the afterlife designed to be perfect.
The broader-topic religious debate has been going on for millenia. The roots of your question come from 300BC if not earlier. If that's your real question (rather than why African Americans joined what we now call historically black denominations), there's several books written precisely dealing with that question.
|
On January 13 2018 20:39 Leporello wrote:
I love that the WSJ reports the President of the United States paid a pornstar $150,000 to shut her up, and it doesn't even interrupt the conversation.
He's already a playboy and known to be maritally unfaithful with past wives. This one is just why he paid her at all and what she could've known. In today's news cycle, that's barely a day of headlines until he does something on the order of calling some countries shitholes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
