|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 27 2026 04:15 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 02:12 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2026 18:11 dyhb wrote:On April 26 2026 13:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 26 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:
Presumably the latest in a series of time travelers trying to kill Trump. Secret Service never reveal any details on the shooters because of the implication. Is this something that will be like the time his ear was shot off and magically healed without any deformation? Or the time some guy just happened to be walking near his golf course the exact time he was there with a weapon? Or that one time... Assassination attempts always bring out the crazies… Although if you’re gonna go there, you might as well go full Jewish space lasers and gay frogs prove a depopulation agenda. Or imagine there's a massive election fraud conspiracy going on that justifies taking away millions of peoples ability to vote. Absolutely, and don't forget that the 2000 election was stolen as well!
It would be just insane to point out how many republican attorneys that were working on that case ended up becoming supreme court justices.
|
California's Teacher of the Month sent a manifesto just before charging the Hilton ballroom, which has already been released in full by the NY post.
In it, he:
1) makes a strong case for the new East Wing ballroom
2) derides others for displaying arrogance and incompetence, before failing to martyr himself or inflict a single casualty at all among his named targets
3) says he's okay with shooting journalists if necessary because they are complicit for attending a dinner
4) says maybe he shouldn't be the one to do this since he's mixed race (?) - not sure if this meant he thought the white part of himself should stay out of the lane or what
5) says he will spare Kash Patel only (more racialist thinking, although there are recent rumors Kash is to be out soon like Bondi)
6) profusely apologizes and expressions confliction indicating he knows what he's doing is wrong and ashamed he radicalized himself just to apply for a Darwin award
+ Show Spoiler +Hello everybody!
So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today. Let me start off by apologizing to everyone whose trust I abused.
I apologize to my parents for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for “Most Wanted.”
I apologize to my colleagues and students for saying I had a personal emergency (by the time anyone reads this, I probably most certainly DO need to go to the ER, but can hardly call that not a self-inflicted status.)
I apologize to all of the people I traveled next to, all the workers who handled my luggage, and all the other non-targeted people at the hotel who I put in danger simply by being near.
I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this, to all those who suffered before I was able to attempt this, to all who may still suffer after, regardless of my success or failure.
I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it. Again, my sincere apologies.
On to why I did any of this:
I am a citizen of the United States of America.
What my representatives do reflects on me.
A man in a graduation cap and gown with a "Class of 2025" stole sitting outdoors.
And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.
(Well, to be completely honest, I was no longer willing a long time ago, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it.)
While I’m discussing this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.)
Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest
Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t*
Hotel Security: not targets if at all possible (aka unless they shoot at me)
Capitol Police: same as Hotel Security
National Guard: same as Hotel Security
Hotel Employees: not targets at all
Guests: not targets at all
In order to minimize casualties I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls)
I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.
Rebuttals to objections:
Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek.
Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration.
Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.
Objection 2: This is not a convenient time for you to do this.
Rebuttal: I need whoever thinks this way to take a couple minutes and realize that the world isn’t about them. Do you think that when I see someone raped or murdered or abused, I should walk on by because it would be “inconvenient” for people who aren’t the victim?
This was the best timing and chance of success I could come up with.
Objection 3: You didn’t get them all.
Rebuttal: Gotta start somewhere.
Objection 4: As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this.
Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack
Objection 5: Yield unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Rebuttal: The United States of America are ruled by the law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to a great many people since I will not be likely to be able to talk with them again (unless the Secret Service is *astoundingly* incompetent.)
Thank you to my family, both personal and church, for your love over these 31 years.
Thank you to my friends, for your companionship over many years.
Thank you to my colleagues over many jobs, for your positivity and professionalism.
Thank you to my students for your enthusiasm and love of learning.
Thank you to the many acquaintances I’ve met, in person and online, for short interactions and long-term relationships, for your perspectives and inspiration.
Thank you all for everything.
Sincerely,
Cole “coldForce” “Friendly Federal Assassin” Allen
PS: Ok now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone.
Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo.
What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing.
No damn security.
Not in transport.
Not in the hotel.
Not in the event.
Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance.
I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.
The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.
Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.
Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed shit.
Actually insane.
Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done.
Can’t really recommend it! Stay in school, kids.
Coupled with the unhinged social media footprint of "coldforce" and the fact that he will be singing like a canary after being caught and immediately charged, this should put to rest the suggestion the attack was a false flag that involved depriving Trump of the valuable chance to roast a captive audience of liberal journalists for an hour. But if someone believes it's a conspiracy that Trump got and recovered from covid in 2020, at a certain point you can't even lead a horse to water.
|
On April 27 2026 04:29 oBlade wrote:California's Teacher of the Month sent a manifesto just before charging the Hilton ballroom, which has already been released in full by the NY post.In it, he: 1) makes a strong case for the new East Wing ballroom 2) derides others for displaying arrogance and incompetence, before failing to martyr himself or inflict a single casualty at all among his named targets 3) says he's okay with shooting journalists if necessary because they are complicit for attending a dinner 4) says maybe he shouldn't be the one to do this since he's mixed race (?) - not sure if this meant he thought the white part of himself should stay out of the lane or what 5) says he will spare Kash Patel only (more racialist thinking, although there are recent rumors Kash is to be out soon like Bondi) 6) profusely apologizes and expressions confliction indicating he knows what he's doing is wrong and ashamed he radicalized himself just to apply for a Darwin award + Show Spoiler +Hello everybody!
So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today. Let me start off by apologizing to everyone whose trust I abused.
I apologize to my parents for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for “Most Wanted.”
I apologize to my colleagues and students for saying I had a personal emergency (by the time anyone reads this, I probably most certainly DO need to go to the ER, but can hardly call that not a self-inflicted status.)
I apologize to all of the people I traveled next to, all the workers who handled my luggage, and all the other non-targeted people at the hotel who I put in danger simply by being near.
I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this, to all those who suffered before I was able to attempt this, to all who may still suffer after, regardless of my success or failure.
I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it. Again, my sincere apologies.
On to why I did any of this:
I am a citizen of the United States of America.
What my representatives do reflects on me.
A man in a graduation cap and gown with a "Class of 2025" stole sitting outdoors.
And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.
(Well, to be completely honest, I was no longer willing a long time ago, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it.)
While I’m discussing this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.)
Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest
Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t*
Hotel Security: not targets if at all possible (aka unless they shoot at me)
Capitol Police: same as Hotel Security
National Guard: same as Hotel Security
Hotel Employees: not targets at all
Guests: not targets at all
In order to minimize casualties I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls)
I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.
Rebuttals to objections:
Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek.
Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration.
Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.
Objection 2: This is not a convenient time for you to do this.
Rebuttal: I need whoever thinks this way to take a couple minutes and realize that the world isn’t about them. Do you think that when I see someone raped or murdered or abused, I should walk on by because it would be “inconvenient” for people who aren’t the victim?
This was the best timing and chance of success I could come up with.
Objection 3: You didn’t get them all.
Rebuttal: Gotta start somewhere.
Objection 4: As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this.
Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack
Objection 5: Yield unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Rebuttal: The United States of America are ruled by the law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to a great many people since I will not be likely to be able to talk with them again (unless the Secret Service is *astoundingly* incompetent.)
Thank you to my family, both personal and church, for your love over these 31 years.
Thank you to my friends, for your companionship over many years.
Thank you to my colleagues over many jobs, for your positivity and professionalism.
Thank you to my students for your enthusiasm and love of learning.
Thank you to the many acquaintances I’ve met, in person and online, for short interactions and long-term relationships, for your perspectives and inspiration.
Thank you all for everything.
Sincerely,
Cole “coldForce” “Friendly Federal Assassin” Allen
PS: Ok now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone.
Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo.
What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing.
No damn security.
Not in transport.
Not in the hotel.
Not in the event.
Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance.
I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.
The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.
Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.
Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed shit.
Actually insane.
Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done.
Can’t really recommend it! Stay in school, kids. Coupled with the unhinged social media footprint of "coldforce" and the fact that he will be singing like a canary after being caught and immediately charged, this should put to rest the suggestion the attack was a false flag that involved depriving Trump of the valuable chance to roast a captive audience of liberal journalists for an hour. But if someone believes it's a conspiracy that Trump got and recovered from covid in 2020, at a certain point you can't even lead a horse to water.
Nothing will be put to rest as you well know. 
Isn't it curious that the secret service has failed so spectacularly in preventing attacks in Trumps second term? Either they have become incompetent at finding these guys before they strike. Or maybe they aren't incompetent...?
This post brought to you by someone who finds it hilarious that Republicans have no issues with daily fake news and conspiracy theory posts on their stomping ground (granted I can usually only verify the ones about Europe or the rest of the world because they are so obviously wrong) but oh so upset when the conspiracy theories goes the other way around.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest.
Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious.
I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new
|
On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different?
UK science used to punch well above it's weight, but I'm not sure that's the case any more. Brexit was a disaster particularly for science, and now there are budget cuts across UKRI and a shift from fundamental science (the thing Britain traditionally excelled at) towards more applied research (let's just say not the sort of thing you are known for). My friends over there are going spare.
The situation is analogous in some ways to the US. Restrict researcher influx, cut budgets, re-align vision from long term gains to maximising short-term returns. These things all have consequences.
I mean, I get that people are indifferent and don't see the point when they're struggling themselves. The problem is that science and research are a long-term play. It's what one of the main points of the article was saying, it's the human capital, you don't just re-grow it in a few years if you decide to cut it. The members of your team are not easily replaceable, each of them is the result of over a decade of investment.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 27 2026 04:54 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 04:29 oBlade wrote:California's Teacher of the Month sent a manifesto just before charging the Hilton ballroom, which has already been released in full by the NY post.In it, he: 1) makes a strong case for the new East Wing ballroom 2) derides others for displaying arrogance and incompetence, before failing to martyr himself or inflict a single casualty at all among his named targets 3) says he's okay with shooting journalists if necessary because they are complicit for attending a dinner 4) says maybe he shouldn't be the one to do this since he's mixed race (?) - not sure if this meant he thought the white part of himself should stay out of the lane or what 5) says he will spare Kash Patel only (more racialist thinking, although there are recent rumors Kash is to be out soon like Bondi) 6) profusely apologizes and expressions confliction indicating he knows what he's doing is wrong and ashamed he radicalized himself just to apply for a Darwin award + Show Spoiler +Hello everybody!
So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today. Let me start off by apologizing to everyone whose trust I abused.
I apologize to my parents for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for “Most Wanted.”
I apologize to my colleagues and students for saying I had a personal emergency (by the time anyone reads this, I probably most certainly DO need to go to the ER, but can hardly call that not a self-inflicted status.)
I apologize to all of the people I traveled next to, all the workers who handled my luggage, and all the other non-targeted people at the hotel who I put in danger simply by being near.
I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this, to all those who suffered before I was able to attempt this, to all who may still suffer after, regardless of my success or failure.
I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it. Again, my sincere apologies.
On to why I did any of this:
I am a citizen of the United States of America.
What my representatives do reflects on me.
A man in a graduation cap and gown with a "Class of 2025" stole sitting outdoors.
And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.
(Well, to be completely honest, I was no longer willing a long time ago, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it.)
While I’m discussing this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.)
Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest
Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t*
Hotel Security: not targets if at all possible (aka unless they shoot at me)
Capitol Police: same as Hotel Security
National Guard: same as Hotel Security
Hotel Employees: not targets at all
Guests: not targets at all
In order to minimize casualties I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls)
I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.
Rebuttals to objections:
Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek.
Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration.
Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.
Objection 2: This is not a convenient time for you to do this.
Rebuttal: I need whoever thinks this way to take a couple minutes and realize that the world isn’t about them. Do you think that when I see someone raped or murdered or abused, I should walk on by because it would be “inconvenient” for people who aren’t the victim?
This was the best timing and chance of success I could come up with.
Objection 3: You didn’t get them all.
Rebuttal: Gotta start somewhere.
Objection 4: As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this.
Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack
Objection 5: Yield unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Rebuttal: The United States of America are ruled by the law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to a great many people since I will not be likely to be able to talk with them again (unless the Secret Service is *astoundingly* incompetent.)
Thank you to my family, both personal and church, for your love over these 31 years.
Thank you to my friends, for your companionship over many years.
Thank you to my colleagues over many jobs, for your positivity and professionalism.
Thank you to my students for your enthusiasm and love of learning.
Thank you to the many acquaintances I’ve met, in person and online, for short interactions and long-term relationships, for your perspectives and inspiration.
Thank you all for everything.
Sincerely,
Cole “coldForce” “Friendly Federal Assassin” Allen
PS: Ok now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone.
Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo.
What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing.
No damn security.
Not in transport.
Not in the hotel.
Not in the event.
Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance.
I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.
The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.
Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.
Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed shit.
Actually insane.
Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done.
Can’t really recommend it! Stay in school, kids. Coupled with the unhinged social media footprint of "coldforce" and the fact that he will be singing like a canary after being caught and immediately charged, this should put to rest the suggestion the attack was a false flag that involved depriving Trump of the valuable chance to roast a captive audience of liberal journalists for an hour. But if someone believes it's a conspiracy that Trump got and recovered from covid in 2020, at a certain point you can't even lead a horse to water. Nothing will be put to rest as you well know. Isn't it curious that the secret service has failed so spectacularly in preventing attacks in Trumps second term? Either they have become incompetent at finding these guys before they strike. Or maybe they aren't incompetent...? This post brought to you by someone who finds it hilarious that Republicans have no issues with daily fake news and conspiracy theory posts on their stomping ground (granted I can usually only verify the ones about Europe or the rest of the world because they are so obviously wrong) but oh so upset when the conspiracy theories goes the other way around.
If anything I’m surprised they catch as much as they do given well, guns being legal and it only taking one lapse for disaster to strike.
Plus I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume there’s an atypically high number of folks who’d like to shoot this particular Presidential incumbent, would be assassins are probably queuing up like uni students when they hear Bonnie Blue is on campus.
There’s a certain tragic irony that of all the American institutions that functions rather well, it’s one who many wouldn’t mind being incompetent.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 27 2026 06:17 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? UK science used to punch well above its weight, but I'm not sure that's the case any more. Brexit was a disaster particularly for science, and now there are budget cuts across UKRI and a shift from fundamental science (the thing Britain traditionally excelled at) towards more applied research (let's just say not the sort of thing you are known for). My friends over there are going spare. The situation is analogous in some ways to the US. Restrict researcher influx, cut budgets, re-align vision from long term gains to maximising short-term returns. These things all have consequences. I mean, I get that people are indifferent and don't see the point when they're struggling themselves. The problem is that science and research are a long-term play. It's what one of the main points of the article was saying, it's the human capital, you don't just re-grow it in a few years if you decide to cut it. The members of your team are not easily replaceable, each of them is the result of over a decade of investment.
Yeah I can see certain parallels (albeit also differences). I’ve probably fewer science buddies than some of you guys, but do know a few and they tend to be similarly frustrated.
On the bolded, just to clarify, fundamental science = doing science shit and pushing things at a more fundamental level that may incidentally bring with it utility, and applied research is more leveraging science to tackle a particular problem, potentially with an eye to a more obvious initial commercial leveraging? Just so I’m clear there!
Re short-termism more generally, do you have any pet theories or hypotheses in that domain, and what’s potentially changed in the last 10/20 years?
I could see, for example the AI arms race hoovering up resources that could be deployed elsewhere, although probably not to the degree that your linked article was investigating
|
On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new
What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt.
This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?).
I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree.
|
On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree.
The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr.
|
On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr.
Exactly! It's sad that you can pick any single sector of American industry and it's somehow being dismantled by someone in this administration, all while they get some kind of kickback. They China bogeyman is the only thing they can use with their voting base. And it works every time. But if a D mentions that a R is responsible for the mess we're all in collectively, they're being elitist or some such nonsense.
|
On April 27 2026 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. Exactly! It's sad that you can pick any single sector of American industry and it's somehow being dismantled by someone in this administration, all while they get some kind of kickback. They China bogeyman is the only thing they can use with their voting base. And it works every time. But if a D mentions that a R is responsible for the mess we're all in collectively, they're being elitist or some such nonsense.
Or even worse: Blaming Republicans = Not blaming the Chinese = Must be allied with the Chinese = Communist.
|
On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr.
No one really has much of a clue what China does. And they likely aren‘t that strict with ethical limitations on experiments. It‘s not an individualist culture.
Not all progress is necessarily good progress. It carries risks.
The issue is that it spirals into destructive competitiveness if countries don‘t follow a standardized set of rules.
|
On April 27 2026 09:46 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. No one really has much of a clue what China does. And they likely aren‘t that strict with ethical limitations on experiments. It‘s not an individualist culture. Not all progress is necessarily good progress. It carries risks. The issue is that it spirals into destructive competitiveness if countries don‘t follow a standardized set of rules.
Good points. If only more people / organizations / countries were cooperative, rather than combative and competitive.
|
On April 25 2026 10:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 10:13 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 08:35 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:09 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 02:29 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 00:34 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat?? This is why you get the responses you do. They’re what you deserve. You got question you got, because you just tried to explain to oBlade that there is massive republican/conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments, by quoting conservative Democrat from 1901. That just doesnt make sense, let alone argument. On April 25 2026 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat?? A conservative, you mean? https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5676#113502 So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901? On April 25 2026 00:59 WombaT wrote:
@Razyda there you go, I hope you’re grateful for the a single sentence in Chat GPT hours of research…
Voter disenfranchisement in the United States refers to ways in which eligible citizens are prevented—intentionally or indirectly—from registering to vote or casting a ballot. It’s not usually one single policy, but a mix of laws, administrative practices, and structural issues. Here are the main mechanisms:
⸻
1. Voter ID Laws
Some states require specific forms of identification to vote.
* Supporters say this prevents fraud.
* Critics argue it disproportionately affects low-income voters, elderly people, and minorities who are less likely to have qualifying IDs.
⸻
2. Voter Roll Purges
States regularly remove names from voter registration lists.
* This can happen due to inactivity, address changes, or errors.
* Problems arise when eligible voters are mistakenly removed and only discover it when they try to vote.
⸻
3. Felony Disenfranchisement
In many states, people with felony convictions lose voting rights—sometimes permanently.
* This disproportionately affects certain communities due to disparities in the criminal justice system.
* Policies vary widely by state (some restore rights after release, others don’t).
⸻
4. Limited Polling Access
This includes:
* Fewer polling stations in certain areas
* Long wait times (sometimes hours)
* Reduced early voting periods
These barriers tend to affect urban areas and minority communities more heavily.
⸻
5. Gerrymandering
This is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries.
* It doesn’t stop people from voting directly, but it can dilute the impact of their vote.
* Political parties in power often draw districts to favor themselves.
⸻
6. Registration Barriers
* Strict registration deadlines
* Limited online registration access (in some states)
* Complicated processes for first-time voters
These can discourage or prevent eligible people from registering.
⸻
7. Mail Voting Restrictions
Rules around absentee or mail-in voting vary by state.
* Some states require specific excuses or impose strict deadlines.
* Rejected ballots (due to signature mismatches, etc.) can also disenfranchise voters.
⸻
8. Misinformation and Intimidation
* False information about voting dates, eligibility, or requirements
* Aggressive “poll watching” or law enforcement presence
These can discourage turnout, especially among vulnerable groups.
⸻
9. Language and Accessibility Barriers
* Lack of multilingual ballots or assistance
* Inaccessible polling locations for people with disabilities
⸻
Big Picture
Disenfranchisement in the U.S. is often debated politically. Some measures are framed as protecting election integrity, while others are criticized for suppressing participation. The real impact tends to depend on how these policies are implemented and who is most affected. Not sure why you @ me here? You have previously said disenfranchisement can’t happen because it’s illegal (it isn’t ) Assuming you are not aware of some of these things, I got an LLM to make a short summary based on a prompt consisting of a single sentence. Take it or leave it, no skin off my dick like. It’s a thread full of people who broadly know what they’re talking about (and me), it’s like you’re actively trying not to learn anything on any of the topics you pontificate on Oh I see, that wasn't my point, apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that abusing Voter ID would be illegal, as in they wouldnt be able to go like: White men get it for free White women must have written permission of a husband and pay 1k dollars Black folks must have certificates from 3 white families signed by attorney and pay 100k. Thats what I meant. Sure, you can’t do those things but did you read the Chat GPT summary I posted? IIRC you’re a Pole living in the UK, so you’ve probably never lived in a place where these things are really a question. In the US, they can be. Which is the concern people have. Bear in mind how elections functionally are administered aren’t nationally standardised and are at the discretion of states. At a localised level, all it takes is a voter roll purge at short notice and a lack of convenient facilities to re-register and you’re fucking with the ability of people to exercise their democratic rights. I did read this summary, it is irrelevant to my argument, because very people your summary mentioned wouldnt be able to get voter ID. As in people unable to vote would still be unable to vote. As for second paragraph "Irish need not apply"? Regarding remaining two paragraphs: this are not the voter ID issues, like... at all. This are particular states voting laws. Like, people who wouldnt be able to vote wouldnt get voter ID, which seems like entire purpose of it. How is it irrelevant to your argument? What the fuck are you even talking about? What IS your argument? Fucking hell are you genuinely incapable of assimilating new information or what, Jesus H Christ
My argument is that there is no legal mechanism allowing distribution of voting ID to be discriminatory.
On April 25 2026 21:21 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 13:47 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 20:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
There are plenty of issues with Democratic politicians and the Democratic party. Pushing for insecure elections is not one of them. Your retreat from "election integrity" to "oH nOw dEmOcRaT PoLiTiCiAnS aRe pErFeCt!?!?!?!?!?!?" is a clear goalpost-moving concession on your part, and it's probably the closest we'll all get to you apologizing for being the most recent poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. They are pushing for insecure elections while refusing to put any form of ID to vote. I'm not moving the goalpost, I said republicans want ID for personal gain (votes) and Dems don't want it for the same reason, people who don't see that are in my opinion naive. It's the same argument. So... you don't have a source for the bolded? And instead of backing up your claim, you thought it'd be a good idea to provide a non sequitur, since the lack of a photo ID doesn't actually mean "the US has one of the least secure systems"? And we know this is true, because your assertion - "the US has one of the least secure systems" - is actually completely false. You're right that there have been "multiple studies"... but they disprove your statement. The United States's election system and general election integrity are nowhere near the bottom. In fact, they consistently rank in the top half of countries, with scores like 11/12 and 9.17/10 depending on which metrics are being used and who is doing the research. Not perfect, but still very secure... Elections outside of the 1st world are a shit show, of course they are going to rank higher than in places where people steal ballot boxes with machetes in a pickup and the votes are counted by the president's cousin, and that is pretty much what happens in all the rest of the world. However the system itself isn't secure because not even a photo ID is required, having a Photo ID would make elections even more secure, or even better a federal voting ID with a better security measures than a driving license. There is very little downside, the cost is minimal and you get better security in your elections. Is the cost minimal? I must say I don’t know, you seem awful confident to assert it is Federal voting ID I don’t think you’ll get too many objections from the thread, I may be wrong and consider me corrected in advance if so. The problem there is that Republicans aren’t going to go for it and will complain that it’s federalising elections and muh states rights I dunno how many times we need to do this dance until you realise that photo voter ID isn’t actually the thing people are concerned about
Have you read the thread? It is mysterious republicans abuse which nobody is able specify.
Feel free to make a poll.
On April 26 2026 14:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2026 13:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 26 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:
Presumably the latest in a series of time travelers trying to kill Trump. Secret Service never reveal any details on the shooters because of the implication. Is this something that will be like the time his ear was shot off and magically healed without any deformation? Or the time some guy just happened to be walking near his golf course the exact time he was there with a weapon? Or that one time... It’s established that Hitler had a number of unlikely escapes from assassins and it is established that the one thing to do with a time machine is go back in time and kill Hitler. Though it is theorized that those attempts must fail due to causality, nobody is going back to prevent the actions of some guy who died as a baby. From our perspective the person to go back and kill is Hitler because he’s Hitler. But time travel hasn’t been invented yet. What if in the year it is invented the consensus is to go back and kill Trump? From our perspective it would look like there were a series of weird assassination attempts that he kept inexplicably surviving. And the Secret Service would cover it up because you don’t want it getting out that all these people trying to shoot your boss are all time travelers, that’s not a good look. Now I’m not saying it’s definitely true, but it’s definitely true.
I agree. Not retarded people went and got Netflix shares. Rest went for Trump after he actually became president as this would "simplify" their task, I mean it is not like they could take out Epstein, because I guess raping kids is non issue....
Obviously they would never go for Hitler, I mean who would they compare Trump to?
|
On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr.
This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government?
|
On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr.
Here's another example. Trump admin dismisses NSB members. Behind a paywall but other sites have information. National Science Board is directs the National Science Foundation and they do a lot of research (MRIs, cellphones, etc).
|
On April 27 2026 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government?
Dunno, but i thought the same with Bush Jr. and Trump 1. I am sure you guys will find a deeper hole in a few years.
|
On April 27 2026 07:05 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 06:17 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? UK science used to punch well above its weight, but I'm not sure that's the case any more. Brexit was a disaster particularly for science, and now there are budget cuts across UKRI and a shift from fundamental science (the thing Britain traditionally excelled at) towards more applied research (let's just say not the sort of thing you are known for). My friends over there are going spare. The situation is analogous in some ways to the US. Restrict researcher influx, cut budgets, re-align vision from long term gains to maximising short-term returns. These things all have consequences. I mean, I get that people are indifferent and don't see the point when they're struggling themselves. The problem is that science and research are a long-term play. It's what one of the main points of the article was saying, it's the human capital, you don't just re-grow it in a few years if you decide to cut it. The members of your team are not easily replaceable, each of them is the result of over a decade of investment. Yeah I can see certain parallels (albeit also differences). I’ve probably fewer science buddies than some of you guys, but do know a few and they tend to be similarly frustrated. On the bolded, just to clarify, fundamental science = doing science shit and pushing things at a more fundamental level that may incidentally bring with it utility, and applied research is more leveraging science to tackle a particular problem, potentially with an eye to a more obvious initial commercial leveraging? Just so I’m clear there! Re short-termism more generally, do you have any pet theories or hypotheses in that domain, and what’s potentially changed in the last 10/20 years? I could see, for example the AI arms race hoovering up resources that could be deployed elsewhere, although probably not to the degree that your linked article was investigating
Yes, like you say. More applied in the sense that you are now expected to have a clear killer application in mind or a company on board when you apply for funding. That tends to kill fundamental research into how things work. For why this is bad, imagine if the people making metal organic frameworks (which was just a cool bit of chemistry at the start) had been denied funding because they had no clear application in mind.
We don't have have to go into pet theories here, it's pretty much in your face. People want to see immediate returns on their investments, everything must have an immediate quantifiable effect on "growth" or it's useless and needs to be cut. It's the doge approach applied across the board. In the US it's because the anti science, yolo crowd is at the wheel. In Britain it's because they need to overcome the damage Brexit did. In general, when things get a bit tougher, research and funding for the arts tend to be the first things to go, they're not seen as essential.
|
On April 27 2026 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government?
On April 27 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government? Dunno, but i thought the same with Bush Jr. and Trump 1. I am sure you guys will find a deeper hole in a few years.
To be honest, I'm not sure how much worse it could get. I think a significant line that's been crossed by Trump is that he's explicitly appointed people with zero credentials or experience. I think even GWB generally cared about being surrounded by people who kind of had at least a little expertise in their respective fields.
I guess maybe an even worse case might be if a new President doesn't even want a Cabinet and just says they'll do everything on their own? Not enough people pay attention to executive branch positions outside of the president and vice president, so maybe too few Americans would care?
|
I don't even understand how that's even possible, truly. No vetting, no kind of bar that needs to be cleared by an apolitical party. President appoints, they can shit the bed however they like. Bizarre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
