Or even research experience. In many fields industry is now years ahead and academia lacks the funds and the man power to compete. AI and biotech are two examples.
I wouldn't say this is the case, though it probably looks like this at a superficial level, and is a trendy soundbyte that seems to have gotten a life of its own lately. Plus a lot of what you call 'industry' is in fact driven by universities, e.g. via collaborations or spin-out companies. Deepmind, e.g., a notable example when people point to Google as a research lead in the field, was effectively almost exclusively driven by Oxford academics through their university positions (at least in the beginning, I haven't kept up).
The bigger problem is universities (are forced to?) behave like corporations more and more as opposed to academic institutions, in order to survive silly politics (national and not) but without having the requisite corporate infrastructure and corresponding personnel. Instead, all jobs are offloaded to academics, and made part of their "progress and development report" or whatnot as the main driving factor. Which then dilutes the quality of both teaching and research, cuts down on creative time and replaces it with mountains of bureaucracy and counterproductive deadlines, forces people to cut corners just to keep up with it all, and eventually burns them out.
Example: we have recently been asked to enter a cleaning rota for the office, because management fired the cleaners. And I think it's ridiculous and a sign of things to come, but I do it anyway. I don't know if refusing to clean will somehow find its way on your probation record as "not good academic citizenship", but it's not something I'll refuse to do anyway because I know everyone's in the same boat and I don't want to cause trouble for my team. But, then this behaviour gets normalised, and honestly, at this point academics might as well start mowing the lawn and cleaning the toilets too.
But academia still has better structures / people built around attacking the more 'creative', less profit-driven problems, whereas industry is has different incentives, which seriously constrains where that research can go in its own way. And a lot of the time, when you look under the hood, industry claims are little more than hot air trying to get a quick buck, or they're the last little brick building on years of academic work and then going full PR and taking all the credit; whereas academia does things "slow" and steady for a reason.
Dude, I went through the European PhD system and it's not as glamorous as you depict it. First of all, you forgot to mention that the norm is to give contracts of 50% to 75% FTE. Secondly the hours worked and the vacation time is a complete forgery that you are basically forced to sign. Although the contract is nice on paper, in practice the norms and expectations are different. Thirdly, unlike in the US, in Europe you often don't have a graduate school (although it is a thing) so you are in a very vulnerable situation where you invest 3 to 5 years of the best years of your life and during those years your graduation is completely at the mercy of that supervisor.
There is no “European PhD system” in terms of funding, or the duties expected of a PhD student other than the production of the dissertation. Different countries around the world do it differently, and that is true even within Europe.
The French are onto the right track. If Europe is to recover economically and to win some market share in tech, I fully expect it to come from the French.
I understand the frustration Europeans have with watching america get richer and richer while experiencing lower rates of growth themselves, but Europe is doing pretty damn well in almost every respect except comparison to the US and China. But if you also want to sell your society out to the thick-skulled morons that run our market, go right ahead.
Europe is in many respects more market oriented and capitalist compared to the US. This is entirely not the issue.
And, I'm not sure why I need to spell this out to you, but both public and private life in Europe run on money that has to be generated by a healthy economy, which, we cannot expect, when Europe stops being competitive with respect to the US and China.
Thinking this is just about tech salaries is very first order thinking.
EDIT: Maybe I should add some context, and I'm sorry if I come off a bit condescending in my reply to you. We are facing governments who have no clue how to solve our economic woes, but who certainly have a plan on how to act: austerity measures. So all those nice things you associate with the European economic model are precisely the things that might cease to exist.
I guess I'm trying to point out that, again, Europe doesn't have economic woes to begin with compared to most people on earth. Competing on growth comes with extreme cost that has manifested as social and economic instability in the US. Our wealth inequality is much more severe; our poverty is much more damaging; our education systems have been steadily failing for the last forty years; our higher education systems are beginning to show extreme stress in an entirely different manner. Perhaps the sort of miasma that hangs over society that everything is just broken and the people to blame are often on tv is universal, but it's never been more obvious to me that there's a very, very different economy for the rich and PMC than there is for the rest of the country, more so here than most places.
Perhaps we can agree that the sort of people that gravitate to the top of the political-economy in both our societies cannot be trusted.... but I think this is a much easier case to make here where the protections against said people never had the full time to develop.
Imagine two people in a tug of war. One person is determined to pull the other as far as possible to his side. The other person is determined to stay still. Not give in, but also not apply too much effort to pull the other person to his side. Who is going to win?
We disagree fundamentally on the dynamics of the worldwide economic system. Growth is necessary. It is imperative for survival. Without growth your "steady state" local economy will be out competed. And especially at a time when Europe's geopolitical relevance is waning and when the world is entering a multipolar world order, we definitely do not want to find ourselves in such a weak situation. China and Japan both ran such centuries long experiments in the past and neither one of those experiments was successful.
To me it seems like the Democrats have a very weird hierarchy and Musk couldn't do any inroads there, because the incumbents at the top of that hierarchy consider him an outsider. So his options were to either suck it up and accept his status within hierarchy, or champion a Republican candidate which, if elected, would immediately propel him to the very front of the decision making.
Lots of people seem to flip hard right after #metoo calls out their behavior. Musk had the horse for handjob thing and announced he was a Republican something like the day before it published after they had contacted him about it for the story.
Maybe he just got tired of dems doing stuff like saying that GM had been leading the way on EVs, and not mentioning Tesla at all, because it wasn’t politically expedient? Or trying to structure the rebates to benefit the big 3 more than Tesla. Etc etc.
Who said anything about morality? Do you usually favor people who are habitually unfair to you? He has a few companies that he needs to lead, and being cut out of portions of federal rebates because they want to curry favor with unions directly harms his efforts.
That’s probably the main reason, but it’s just got to be especially grating when that decision is couched in patriotic language, and your company is making cars that are much more “Made in America” than any of your competitors.
The credits are structured to bring battery and EV manufacturing on-shore, which is pretty crucial to the US for a bunch of reasons. They require a percentage of the battery materials to come from the US or allied nations, and final manufacturing to be done here. Some Tesla vehicles initially didn’t qualify because they were made in China. As of July of this year I believe all Teslas except for one model are now eligible for the full credit.
ETA: As I recall, Tesla had used up its $7500 credits from previous legislation (prior to the IRA) because they had sold so many cars. The new legislation restored the full $7500 and was basically a gift to Tesla in that sense. Turning this into a victim story for Tesla really does not make sense.
Ah I wasn’t aware that any US Teslas were coming from China, I thought those all went to Europe/Asia, while we mostly got Fremont/Austin.
I was referring to the period when there was a piecemeal credit amount based on a few factors, one of which, iirc, was having final assembly conducted in a unionized factory.
They have of course been massive beneficiaries of federal subsidies, including a massive boost early on from the DOE Loan Programs Office, this isn’t to say they’ve been a victim overall, but it seems there’s been an attitude shift, and the legacy carmakers are getting more love from the current admin despite contributing only token efforts to the transition.
Getting the legacy automakers to transition is an existential priority for the US. They represent hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the US, and a huge fraction of our industrial capacity (which is our ability to support national defense.) This isn't about doing people a nice favor, it's about saving the US auto industry (which seems determined to self-immolate.) Also, Tesla has already received vast government subsidies in the form of direct tax credits and EV purchase credits from other manufacturers.
because it has positive economic externalities and avoids the moral hazard of enabling hucksters.
i have no problem with investment, but investing in an obviously stupid startup just cause they were launched by a friend's kids doesn't seem like a way to allocate capital that Adam Smith would appreciate.
To a lot of outsiders it honestly looks like to some extent Israel controls US foreign policy. It's not a good look. Why does the US have to tiptoe so much around this issue? Why does Israel have such leverage? What is this leverage?
I always say, imagine if it was France instead of Israel. Then you see how crazy the situation is.
A strong West-allied military in the Middle East is extremely valuable.
If France started a war of aggression, the US would also 100% stand with France, especially if it started with France being hit with a terrorist attack. I’m not sure what you are trying to say.
From my layman's perspective, it's because a lot of people in the US just plain support Israel. I think that's because of religious connotations but again I don't really know. I've even seen an Israel flag being flown in the same yard as a Trump 2024 yard sign, here in my tiny northwest Iowa town.
Because critics always say what they don't want but rarely think through what they do.
The very likely case of Palestine replacing Israel would be a rapidly anti-US, anti-Western, anti-Democratic government and a loss of a very valuable port in the middle east due to the, y'know, rapidly anti-US issue.
Also depopulating Israel of Jews would almost certainly result in another Holocaust. Because Hamas - the most likely-to-govern organization for Palestine - has long enshrined Jew murder in its charter.
The far-right parties are on the rise in most EU countries. But in most EU countries they have not managed to make it into government in enough numbers to be relevant, yet.
But the rhetoric of the centrists/moderates has been shifting towards the right as well, on the topic of immigration, and especially with regards to certain ethnic groups.
The people want to be undisturbed and untaxed by rampant mental illness too, but the average person won't acknowledge that recreational marijuana use (with today's potency levels) contributes to declining mental health.
That logic doesn't really hold. I'll speak generally and not about this specific administration:
If the <current government> was doing good things that the people wanted during the entire term, then they would not need to resort to moves like this alleged one when the vote is coming up. It's only if they're not doing good things that the people want that they would dangle something shiny to the electorate.
This is a directional error. Roe protected liberty. Federal criminalization of weed impedes liberty. While ending both of these things returns policy to the states, one necessarily reduces liberty while one necessarily increases liberty.
The political group largely responsible for this has been consistently underperforming in nearly every election since it happened, so I’m not sure what point you’re driving at.
OK, but at the time of Roe v. Wade, I don't think the majority of people wanted abortion legalized, either. I'm not sure the majority of people wanted gay marriage legalized (at the time).
But even more: You don't want the judges to be focused on what the majority want. That's not the rule of law.
Yes, I'm objecting to the premise that "democratically accountable governments do(ing) good things that the people want" describes the process by which Roe v. Wade was repealed. It was not democratically accountable, and it was what only a subset of the people wanted.
The Supreme Court is not an example of democracy working, it's a purposely anti-democratic institution.
A panel of judges appointed and confirmed by elected officials. An electoral plurality did want it repealed. And based on current polls, there is not a majority who think it's important enough to change it back. Even if there's an opinion poll saying most people want abortion rights, that's effectively moot if they don't vote that way.
Abortion bans have been extremely unpopular in every state where they have gone on the ballot. Even deep red ones. I'd be curious to see what happens if every state holds a referendum on it.
Current polls indicate that "[t]wo-thirds of the public, including majorities of Democrats (86%) and independents (67%), support a law guaranteeing a federal right to abortion."
By current polls, I mean the ones showing Trump even or slightly ahead of Biden despite him being directly responsible for Dobbs. If 2/3 of the public wanted abortion rights, Biden would have 2/3 of the popular vote, but he won't get anywhere near that. Hence, most people don't want Roe reinstated. QED.
>If 2/3 of the public wanted abortion rights, Biden would have 2/3 of the popular vote, but he won't get anywhere near that. Hence, most people don't want Roe reinstated. QED.
That isn't the way people work. Or voting. Or polls.
It is the only practical measure of true public opinion. You can also, by extension, infer that roughly 47% of Americans think sexual assault is acceptable and that democracy is undesirable. It may not be what they say or even what they think but it is reflected in what they do.
It isn't practical by any means, it's unnecessarily reductionist, even when one doesn't consider the numerous innate biases involved in polling.
People are multidimensional but American Presidential politics forces them into a binary decision. Yet there are numerous reasons why people who support abortion might not vote for Biden. They may support abortion but not believe Biden is a credible choice to defend abortion rights. They may support abortion but vote against Biden to punish the Democratic Party for their response to Dobbs. They may support abortion but reject the Democratic Party altogether. They may support abortion but find activism at the state level more effective, and find other things like Biden's support for Israel more objectionable. They may support abortion but also support Trump, because pro-choice Republicans do exist, and their only options will be to vote Trump or not vote and all. And most people won't even vote at all.
>It may not be what they say or even what they think but it is reflected in what they do.
No. It may be comfortable to see people in such black and white terms, but the premise that unless one votes for Biden, one doesn't support abortion regardless of what else one says and does, is ... not even wrong levels of wrong.
Yes, this is exactly the problem with our "representative" democracy. For example, one polarizing issue this year may be whether a voter is willing to accept a candidate who acts like a mob boss or not, regardless of any other issue that the candidates are trying to stand on. Worse yet, elected candidates then have difficulty knowing which of the multidimensional issues mattered to their voters because all the information has been lost by the polarizing election system.
I understand that people are complex and can have subtlety and nuance to their personalities but I can only judge them on what they do. If someone kicks me in the shin, there could be 1000 reasons leading to them thinking it was a valid decision but ultimately they still just kicked me in the shin.
I'm sure 0% of Trump voters would tell a pollster they approve of sexual assault but their actions indicate they do.
You are making the mistake that people understand how our government works or are paying much attention at all. I've video of some voters blaming Biden for the overturn of Roe v Wade because it happened during Biden's term. If voters were properly informed across the board Biden, and most democrats, would win in a landslide. There are many active forces, foreign and domestic, which put serious effort and money into deliberately misinforming the populace, because they are incredibly selfish, and care only for their personal gain, regardless of how many are harmed, and to what degree.
Yes, it's good for the government to not be tyrannical, but I'd argue that when the majority of people increasingly and collectively want things that are net negatives for society like recreational drug use, it's a red flag that society is in decline.
I think recreational drug use is demonstrably good for society and part of all succesful civilizations. Take caffeine, sugar, alcohol and tobacco as the primary examples. All potent drugs and all taken habitually and en masse by all the most successful societies in the world.
More like all the most successful societies value personal freedoms. Personal freedoms are clearly good for society and a big one of those is recreational drug use of which tobacco use is quite common.
Having a government which restricts personal freedoms too much for the sake of "societal good" may work in the short term or for specific issues but is clearly a negative in the long and broad terms. See the "west" of today for evidence of personal freedom combined with not-overly-restrictive-legislation being the most successful method of handling these things.
You seem to be conflating a distaste for demonstratively failed policy, like as prohibition, with an appetite for what you are calling "recreational drug use".
They absolutely were. Between 25% inflation, the student loan relief failure, two proxy wars and the current beating of college students across the country, the current administration would have been facing record low turnout in November.
I would be surprised if there is not some string attached to this that doesn't take place until after November. That's a good thing though, becuase it was seeming more and more like the current administration was sabotaging itself. The Democrats need the youth vote.
Young people always have bad turnout anyway, so it doesn't matter if they find a new excuse to have it.
(Also they did do student loan reform via SAVE and have forgiven about 9% of loans IIRC. Probably shouldn't have though, it's inflationary, and as you can see from the above poll nobody even appreciates it.)
