It makes no sense. Foreign scientists usually can't work on classified projects because they require clearance that is very difficult if not impossible for non citizens to obtain. Restricting foreign scientists from US labs is in my opinion a stupid move. What am I missing?
"What am I missing?"
That nationalism is the new state doctrin? Foreigners are inferior by definition, so they cannot really help with research anyway, all they want to do is steal secrets. If you think like that, then it makes sense.
God, maybe I could buy if it it came with significant work to repair US education and investment in a domestic science workforce, but unfortunately in the US, these nationalist waves have to also come with a strong air of anti-intellectualism.
It's wild how the President literally said, "I love the poorly educated." It turns out that when you treat a PhD like a deep-state conspiracy and a high school diploma like a Nobel Prize, you just get a country that tries to fix its power grid with thoughts, prayers, and a sharpie.
Where does the FIFA peace prize come in here?
Idiocracy was a documentary sent to us from the future.
In Idiocracy the president hires the smartest guy and is still trying to fix his country rather then intentionally destroy it.
We haven't reached the Gatorade event horizon, yet.
Also, obedience to "right think". Which is why the need to force social media billionaires to tell the feds who is "a political enemy."
[flagged]
Isn't this the type of attitude that is giving cover to the types of actions the OP mentions, i.e. throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
[flagged]
> we are importing foreigners to paper over the fact that we have ruined our own education system.
Are you familiar with any of these scientists we "imported" during the 1930s? Was that also a sign of a failed education system?
- Albert Einstein - Enrico Fermi - Leo Szilard - Hans Bethe - Edward Teller - John von Neumann - Eugene Wigner - Felix Bloch
Yeah, that's the thing, we've always imported scientists. So I'm unsure why HN User terminalshort is trying to connect this tendency to bad education?
From literally the very beginning of the US we have engaged in this practice. I think Priestley himself came here somewhere around 1793?
You literally wrote: "Some anti-intellectualism might be a good thing".
It doesn't get any more anti-intellectual than that, you put it down yourself in blackletter.
It’s not the intellectuals who are pushing standards down. High standards inherently reject people, that’s inherent to the concept. The push for ever higher percentage of the population to get degrees means the average student keeps getting worse, as fewer of them are really seeking to be educated vs get a piece of paper. Public schools are pushed to raise graduation rates due to political pressure and higher education is ultimately a business and then responds to those forces.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Educatio...
You are 100% correct, but it is absolutely a bunch of useless intellectuals and their endless yapping who have pushed this crap on us. You are confusing intellectuals with smart people.
HR can very quickly sort people by levels of education. Most companies don’t give a fuck what someone learned in their history degree, but know on average they’re more reliable than someone that dropped out of college. Some college still puts people in a better bucket than high school graduates, which is a better bucket than high school dropouts.
Which is why the general population is trying to get that piece of paper. The day HR stops caring is the day this changes.
It sounds like you have your own definition of "intellectuals", which appears to mean pretty much the opposite of what it usually means.
I know exactly what "intellectual" means. It's someone who has spent years obtaining credentials in an economically useless subject and looks down their nose at people who would lower themselves to actually do practical work. A brilliant mechanic who can fix anything and has made millions running his business would never be called an intellectual, but someone serving coffee with a phd in English literature would.
Credentials are largely unrelated to being an intellectual. Academics may be the word you’re thinking of.
A mechanic who’s been publishing poetry would easily qualify. Further labs also need people who maintain equipment, it’s a viable and hands on carrier path to maintain electron microscopes and such all day.
That's a completely non-sensical take.
To paraphrase the past, it’s “Amerikaner Physik”.
> Foreigners are inferior by definition
Trump's first and current wife are foreign-born. VP's wife was born to immigrants. So, WTF? Republicans never make any sense.
"Foreigners are inferior by definition" - but USA approach says exactly the opposite. Foreigners are capable, so it is better not to share secrets and technology with them.
[0] Umberto Eco, *Ur-Fascism* https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy. [0]Ah, Schrödingers Immigrant. Stealing all the jobs while leeching off the hard working nationals.
The US approach is fascistic. Fascism demands that enemies of the state be simultaneously incompetent dolts who could never compete with Real Americans who would be a drain on our resources, and hypercompetent idealogues who would steal our precious resources and send them back to a group that wants to harm us.
I assume the reasoning is if they're so capable, why would they need to steal secrets and technology?
I use "reasoning" in the broadest possible sense.
Exactly, why were these guys wandering around on nights and weekends?
Because they likely have no family there and on nights and weekends there is less trouble and noise, so better conditions to get into an uninterrupted flow state to get things done?
Is that really something in need of explaining on a hacker site?
(Or were you ironic? I cannot tell anymore)
[flagged]
Trump hates science anyway, so why not fire all scientists? Problem solved. /s
Isn't what they're basically doing with the massive funding cuts and cover-ups?
- [deleted]
Trump is an actor, he isn't the scenario writer, and as such you never should focus on Trump.
This isn't a surprise when religious conservatism enters a traditional marriage with oligarchic conservatism¹. This is more a classical case of "you keep them stupid, while we keep them poor". If even the Enlightenment is a heresy (Burke e.a), you will have to spin the clock back.
But you can't have your cake and eat it too, so the US will become closer to an Afghanistan, led by increasingly unruly lunatics and warlords. Women's rights, scientific progress, educated people with agency; it's all a threat. The conservative rage becomes violent because what it wants and believes conflicts with reality, so they have to smash that all down, including the progress.
Yes, they rather burn society down than to lose control. That is hard to grasp for decent people, so you see an endless stream of opinions trying and failing to come up with a constructive rationale, but when you can understand that there is a class of people with a non-constructive default mode like the rest of us, things will be much easier to understand.
The book banning has been going on for several years, and now we are in the escalation phase. The resent about women's rights, persecution² of transgenders, harassment of universities and scientists, in short: the Gleichschaltung³, should not be a surprise and has little to do with show- and stuntman Trump. It is unruly conservatism coming to its ultimate conclusion, confronted with shrinking religious control, with results of zero sum economics, with a shrinking voter base, with all gerry-mandering options exploited, and ultimately with having thrown away democracy. The clock is being turned back.
__
1. This is the original definition of conservatism, to "conserve" the status quo of a very small class of owners versus large masses of poor people.
I don't think its about hate, its more like he doesn't believe in taking away something he cannot see with his own eye. Here his idea is that research and development will still continue happening even if overwhelming majority of people responsible for it in the past, will be gone.
Take COVID for example. We were fine with minor breakouts prior to Trump administration. They came in and Trump saw we are spending $3.7 million on safety measures in Wuhan Lab, fund designated by Obama (here comes first red flag right?) By his standard you could not SEE the protection so he wanted to look like Champion and save tax payers 3.7 million by removing that protection. We all know what came next and boy was damage more financially painful than mere 3.7 mil?
Its like a person who doesn't wear a seat belt because they never been in a car accident so they don't see the point. If given power they would remove mandates to wear seatbelts and have insurance companies deal with the outcome.
[flagged]
Got to love the fact that a large amount of users of HN still refuse to see the truth before their very eyes.
The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning.
The US is definitely undergoing authoritarian tendencies, but it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle.
If you start calling everything fascism you are essentially helping those you call fascists because they can easily refute your thesis and gaslight you on the very realities of the authoritarian descent the country is going through.
Thank heavens for that separation of powers, otherwise the President would be declaring wars and levying tariffs willy-nilly, without even bothering to check with Congress first.
Presidents have been doing the undeclared war thing since the end of WWII. Nothing new there, the tariffs and other EOs have maybe increased markedly in the last few presidencies.
George W Bush sought and received authorization for Iraq from Congress.
It's not just the war, obviously. This time the President has immunity levels that are unprecedented. And his cronies in Congress and SCOTUS don't seem inclined to rein him in on much.
What do you call it when the authoritarians start, then? Are we not allowed to call it that until we’re not allowed to go to the courts or to speak about what’s happening?
You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.
Democracy is not an on/off light bulb, it's a material under constant stress that can bend a lot before breaking.
But if you start calling it broken, while it's bending your thesis is easily refutable and you get called out for being a radical whatever.
> You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.
Okay, but that's beating around the bush and a very milquetoast way to describe it.
> easily refutable and you get called out for being a radical whatever.
This is equivalent to being punched repeatedly by a bully and being scared that he'll cry "assault!" when you punch him back. At some point, you cease to exist if you don't act.
What's missing from the general definitions of fascism?
Authoritarianism? Dictatorship? Fascism is a specific form of those that doesn't necessarily map to current forms.
How does it not map? Read Umberto Eco and I don’t really see any point that is not present at all in trumpism. Or, in more words: https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-... .
Fascism is just a nationalism authoritarianism that is very hierarchical and believe in an "interior enemy" (for MAGA it's the deep state) that is the root cause of all their country isseus, and once it's purged the country can take its rightfull place at the top, and you with it.
I agree that US is not fascist yet, the hierarchy isn't set, and the economy isn't close to an extractive autarky, but philosophically, it's close, don't you think? I mean, ranting against traitors all the time is to me a very, very big point in favor of this being fascism.
> believe in an "interior enemy" (for MAGA it's the deep state)
It's their neighbors, not the "deep state". Renee Good and Alex Pretti were the enemy within. People in inflatable costumes or pussy hats are the enemy within. Uppity kids in high school who get thrown to the drown and put in a choke hold. People filming ice on public streets. They are the enemy within to MAGA. It isn't distant and abstract. It's personal.
> ranting against traitors all the time
And the "enemy of the people", rhetoric, and the vermin that corrupts the nation’s blood. I mean, these people are not exactly subtle.
Checks and balances have almost completely collapsed, we've got masked, lawless paramilitary forces executing citizens in the streets, kicking in doors without warrants, spending billions of dollars building concentration camps, ignoring habeas corpus, accelerating media capture by friendly oligarchs, the national security apparatus labeling anyone who criticizes this stuff as domestic terrorists, and you're here quibbling over semantics.
> it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle.
But the Trump administration (a.k.a. the executive branch) is trying to systematically dismantle these things. When people refer to fascism in the U.S. government, they don’t mean the entire government. They mean the Trump administration, which is the face of the U.S. government, has a great deal of the share of power, and is seeking more. The brand of far right nationalism, that the nation is in decline and violence must be used to restore it, along with the economic policies and deference to corporations and the wealthy, are things that make them more fascist than just authoritarian.
Saying that we cannot call it fascism until the transformation is complete doesn’t make sense - if a group of people have beliefs and goals that align with fascism, and are taking steps to impose them, you can call them fascist, even if they have not yet realized the full set of conditions that make the government fully fascist.
> The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning.
So, rhetorical question: was Hitler a fascist during the failed Munich coup? Or did he suddenly became one when he was appointed chancellor? Are we not allowed to see what’s in front of our eyes until they build gas chambers?
Are you using fascism as an ideology or a governing structure?
> If you start calling everything fascism
Ok, but who is calling everything fascism? He's talking about one particular country at a particular time.
The US is not significantly constrained - the current SCOTUS is more like an agreived clerical council than serious arbiter of the Constitution, while Trump has clearly been hoping to do away with meaningful elections (and the failures are more so because of how oddly ineffective/silly his faction can be than real systemic resilience). Similarly, he has majorities in Congress, which are just enough to let him do whatever he wants. I will grant that these MAGATs haven't fully succeeded, but it's more like they're 2/3ds of the way there and oddly bad at parts of the game than separation of powers, the courts, etc., working.
On a different level I've been unsure whether it'sgood to call it facsism. But it's effectively at least a stepchild.
Fascist mythos is simple: you're in the greatest nation, and the greatest "type" of human (genetics for the nazis, cultural for the Italian fascists, christian for some South american fascists early 20th century, your choice, but but beware one type of superiority easily bleed into others), but yet, inferior humans (neighbors) seems to have better lives. It's because of internal traitors(jews and communists mostly, "judeoblochevism" as a word exist for a reason, and it isn't because it was a material reality) that are bringing their own country down. We must purge them to finally take our rightfull place.
Fascism cannot exist without internal enemies, nationalist authoritarianism can. If your president/dictator is whining about internal enemies that infiltrated the government and capitalist society to bring it down, congratulation, it's not simple nationalist authoritarian tendencies, it's fascist tendencies.
Basically: if you add an "interior enemy" narrative to a right-wing authoritarism, you have fascism.
Then better stop them before it comes to that stage.
How?
I'm European, and from my point of view:
- despite the current executive and its lackeys clearly stating they were going to do exactly what's happening (the dismantling of institutions, the violent, word-wise, targeting of any criticism, the tariffs, etc).
- despite the open attack to US democracy on January 6th 2021
Americans voted for all of this to happen.
What's happening isn't exposing a fault in a particular individual, that's way too convenient.
Not only they voted all of this, but keep believing this paranormal constitutional nonsense where winner-takes-all elections where you rule under no oversight, you have no opposition, and don't even depend on your own party support is actually a sane democratic system.
Of all the countries that slid in authoritarianism during the last 4 decades (from the Philippines to Russia, from Nicaragua to Belarus, etc) not one was a parliamentary republic.
All of them, literally all, where presidential republics.
Serbia used to be parliamentary republic. Nominally it stil is. In fact it is currently governed by SNS, former political party turned criminal organization.
> Not only they voted all of this, but keep believing this paranormal constitutional nonsense where winner-takes-all elections where you rule under no oversight, you have no opposition, and don't even depend on your own party support is actually a sane democratic system.
Honestly I’ve been filled schadenfreude with as the American civic religion collapse. Even the right is giving it up as they view it as too obstructionist.
The silver lining in all this is that the American people might come out a bit less retarded. It’s been fascinating to see the explosion of political thought amongst Americans in the last few years.
> The silver lining in all this is that the American people might come out a bit less retarded
I don't buy it, after January 6th and Trump getting re-elected, despite everything it will have to get much much worse before there's a conscious change.
difficult to have a change when you control just about all of the media. every decision now has a “reasonable” explanation and we past the point where people will en masse admit they fucked up. I have numerous friends who voted to the right in 2024 and it is fascinating to hear narrative after narrative and “excuses” why this is all good for us. nevermind that we had discussion in 2024 before election where just about every single reason they debated for voting to right has been shown that it was all BS… I am past the point where I believe there will be a change (it is not helping that alternative to this madness ain’t that great either)
The right have always had racetardism in them, they are just more blatant about it now.
It’s less about any of that. It’s more that I’m glad I won’t have to hear them deify the constitution anymore because they don’t care for it much anymore.
I don't believe that will happen. The Constitution will continue to be paraded as a tool to attack perceived enemies and protect allies. We already see it all over the place when MAGA talks about the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
The hypocrisy doesn't matter to them because it isn't (and never was) about the "ideals" of the Constitution, it is about punishing enemies.
For the political movement in control, the law and the constitution exists as a tool to protect the in group, and to restrict the outgroup.
That's why they get so upset at the elected veterans that did a simple video saying "the law says you must disobey unlawful orders," the reason that such a statement is viewed literally as "treasonous" and worthy of "hanging" according to Trump.
Using the law to restrict those in power goes against their fundamental understanding of law. There is no hypocrisy, just a completely different view of what is criminal: namely the other guys are all criminals.
[flagged]
You've been breaking the site guidelines quite badly in your recent posts. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop this?
Since "by whatever means necessary" is usually a phrase by which people advocate violence, that's particularly not ok here.
Sorry, I deliberately left it open as while violence is a valid solution in extreme cases, but I meant it more as using all the faculties available to us. In any case, I will try avoiding statements that could be seen as violating site rules.
>Americans voted for all of this to happen.
We did. And if anyone would stop to actually analyze it, instead of just insinuating that we're all yucky poopooheads for doing so (in the futile attempt to shame us into stopping), they might come to understand why. Whatever the alternative is to how we're voting, as exemplified by Europe, we don't want it. Maybe there are more options besides those two, but no one's offered those or even described what they could be. Europe certainly hasn't.
>not one was a parliamentary republic.
And thank god that we're not one then. We'd truly be hopeless.
[flagged]
> when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning
The thing is, fascism has always been a bit of a loose term. It doesn't have a strict meaning. It was invented by one guy to name his government, not describe it analytically.
Mussolini invented the word "fascismo" to describe his movement, Fasci Italiani di Combattimeto.
So any use of "fascism" outside this one instance is by loose comparison to his government (because tight comparison would inevitably be unproductive: no government is exact the same as another).
The best we can do in a literalist manner is identify that the etymology is related to fasces, a bundle of rods tied together in Roman times (tying rods together make them far more difficult to snap in half), and recognize that the implication here is that a fascist government is focused on strength through unity.
It was then broadly adopted by Mussolini's adherents.
So, unless we only want to restrict "fascist" to an identifier for Mussolini's party and government, we have motivation to come up with elements of similar politics/government/partisanship by looking at the elements that made up Mussolini's movement:
- nationalism
- right-wing
- totalitarian
- violence as a means of control
etc.
Personally, I like Umberto Eco's delineation of what makes fascism (because he was an intellectual and grew up in Mussolini's Italy): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
He elucidates fourteen elements that make up fascism:
1. cult of tradition
2. rejection of modernism
3. cult of action for its own sake (i.e., intellectual reflection doesn't contribute value)
4. disagreement is treason
5. fear of difference
6. appeal to frustrated middle class
7. obsession with a plot (e.g., "there is a plot by foreigners to destroy us from within)
8. cast their enemies as both too weak and too strong
9. life is permanent warfare (i.e., there is always an enemy to fight)
10. contempt for the weak
11. everyone is educated to become a hero
12. machismo
13. selective populism
14. newspeak
I honestly feel like #11 is the only one we don't definitely have in the US right now. I wold prefer not to waste my time giving examples of the other thirteen, but if someone doesn't think it's obvious, I will respond at some point.
At its essence, if you take these fourteen points holistically, the vibe is "the 'right kind of' citizenry is in a constant state of hatred toward some other, and they should be pressured to take action without thought"
The trouble with this definition is that a large number of points fit the progressive left, too. Based on my experience (especially on pre-Musk Twitter, but in other places as well), 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 apply fairly well.
I think this framework really just describes "tribalism", and not specifically "fascism".
I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar.
But you can really say that “disagreement is treason” means the same thing in fascism and in “the left”? Are you saying, for e.g., that unions and universities execute dissenters as a matter of course? “Fear of difference” under fascism means that differences you can’t control put your life at permanent risk. In the context of tribalism, it means being embarrassed.
So there’s really no comparison between a conservative feeling left out under liberalism to a minority feeling at risk under fascism.
> I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar.
See, this is where I disagree. You can argue that many of these things are "actually happening", but doing so often requires stretching the definitions of these things, or conflating speech with action.
Take your example: I see all sorts of instances where folks on the right have accused others of treason, but there's a significant lack of actual charges. You're conflating rhetoric with action. Rhetoric is dangerous, yes, but the rhetoric we see from the right is just the next escalation in a constant game of escalating rhetoric from both sides.
I mean, calling Republicans "fascists" and "nazis" isn't exactly nonviolent rhetoric, either, especially the latter. There are actual fascists and Nazis among Republicans, for sure, but they don't represent anything close to a majority. There are fascists among Democrats, too!
The rest of your comment is just another great example of inflammatory rhetoric that isn't really representative of a reality that exists outside your own head, unfortunately.
>Based on my experience (especially on pre-Musk Twitter, but in other places as well), 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 apply fairly well.
I'd like to hear your rationale for that. In the meantime, I'll add my comments on those points. But first, let me set a ground rule for myself: this review covers the political left in the United States. A circle of thinkers with no sway over the government isn't considered for whether the left matches the qualities of a fascist government. If that circle does have sway, then sure.
>1. cult of tradition
I cannot think of a tradition the left holds in nearly religious sanctity. This might be a "fish can't see the water" thing, so I'd be happy to learn one.
>3. cult of action for its own sake (i.e., intellectual reflection doesn't contribute value)
You didn't list this one, but I will. The left is prone to subgroups fracturing off and calling for extreme reactions (e.g. "defund the police"), and then not strongly quashing these dumb ideas. I think it's a bias to being inclusive and not wanting to deny anything that comes from an oppressed person. Noble intent, but doesn't always lead down the best path.
>4. disagreement is treason
I think you're conflating "cancel culture" with accusations of treason. Trump has literally accused people disagreeing with him of treason ("Air strikes on drug smugglers is illegal, and you should refuse to do so"). Has a modern Democratic official accused somebody of being treasonous for disagreeing on a political matter?
>5. fear of difference
If anything, the left defaults to celebrating difference. And no, "fear of MAGA" is not enough to qualify as fear of difference.
>6. appeal to frustrated middle class
Yes. Everyone does that these days, but yes. It almost seems like a pointless quality to isolate, because any political party would appeal to middle class frustrations. Maybe the better way is to offer hope. In that case, both parties could do a lot better.
>7. obsession with a plot (e.g., "there is a plot by foreigners to destroy us from within)
The left is sliding down this path with fears about the midterm elections. To be fair, after the 2020 election, Trump did spread lies, prepared slates of fake electors, got Republican representatives to vote against counting voters from certain states, and instigated what ended up being a violent assault on the electoral certification. So it's not as crazy as "Democrats are busing in illegals to vote."
>8. cast their enemies as both too weak and too strong
Democratic officials have called this administration dumb, selfish, and cruel. But not weak.
>9. life is permanent warfare (i.e., there is always an enemy to fight)
After the assassination of Osama bin Laden, who was the enemy during the Obama years? That administration even had the laughable "reset" with Russia.
>11. everyone is educated to become a hero
I can't think of much evidence for or against this. Maybe it's just an American thing to lavish praise on "common people* doing amazing things. Neither party truly praises a humble life, despite mentioning it to cloak bad economic policy in "salt of the earth" rags.
>13. selective populism
I'll have to read the original work to see what this term means.
>14. newspeak
I genuinely would like to know some leftist newspeak. Again, fish and water.
This is an overfit model that contains many basic parts of human behavior and then tags them part of fascism just because the fascists did it.
> You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.
I think you misunderstand fascism. Fascism is not gassing certain minority group of people in concentration camps, that's called crimes against humanity. It might be an endgame to fascism if you are government that is allowed to commit those crimes without consequences, but the road to it is still fascism regardless whether you historically know how it ends. Calling press "the enemy of the people" as Trump did (also known as "Lügenpresse") IS a form of fascism. You don't need to push Democrats and immigrants into gas chambers to be full blown fascist. Overwhelming amount of actions taken by this democratic government ARE what most historians call fascism.
> I think you misunderstand fascism.
I think you're projecting.
Fascism, in political science, has some clear requirements: a government that controls all branches of power, lack of elections and effective ban of free speech and other political parties.
It also requires ideological aspects such as nationalism and far right politics, otherwise fascism would apply to far left dictatorships which didn't have these traits.
And how do you call someone who advocates for the advent of such a government? A fascist. Which Trump and the MAGA right clearly are.
I suggest to learn what projecting means.
You really going to say that Trump and his Administration does not control all branches of power?
During Third Reich neither press was banned nor elections. Look it up, Google is still free to research. Unless of course you want to endup at conclusion that Nazism and Third Reich wasn't fascism.
> You really going to say that Trump and his Administration does not control all branches of power?
That must be why the Supreme Court struck down the primary piece of Trump's economic agenda.
And what did it change? NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Tariffs are still here - this morning I accepted DHL package and had to pay it - and even if - Trump/Vence already said its actually good because we will use another vehicle which will allow us to continue collect the money. So it won't be called tariff - it will be called embargo fee. So yes, Trump continues to control all branches, one way or another.
It’s ridiculous, but it’s OK. Because we have other ways, numerous other ways,” the president said. “The numbers can be far greater than the hundreds of billions we’ve already taken in.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/business/supreme-court-tr...
The nature of tariffs has fundamentally changed. Imports from all countries are subject to the same 15% rate which means no more deals or wielding tariffs as a punishment.
As an example of the likely future of science in the USA, read about Trofim Lysenko.
That word makes a lot of people uncomfortable and many will shut their brains off when they see it. It's a perfect word to describe what's happening, but sometimes describing the characteristics of it is better for engagement.
There are a lot of reactionaries in today's political landscape.
> It's a perfect word to describe what's happening
I don't think it really fits, but the US is sliding towards illiberal democracy.
Fascism isn't really a form of government though, it's a political ideology and aesthetics that we see echoed through different regimes. You can be a democracy on paper while in practice being a single party corporate oligarchy with a cult of personality surrounding the head of state.
Ur-Fascism describes the ideology of MAGA exactly. Clearly there's some apprehension admitting this, it's a strong-man political ideology that has evolved many times organically throughout history. It doesn't necessarily imply that the regime is bad or evil or anything but the problem ends up being that the term exists because governments that adopt this ideology end up converging on the same unsavory behaviors despite any initial differences. That convergence is I think what a lot of Americans are afraid of because we're already doing most of them.
Ultra nationalist, cult of personality, using violence to suppress opposition... you don't see any parallels, really?
EDIT: Illiberalism is a tenet of fascism as well.
You forgot to couple with that the oligarchy. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
So yes, the US has enough of the hallmarks to be considered a fascist state. It doesn't need to tick every single box for that title.
Edit from Wikipedia: Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe.[1][2][3] Fascism is characterized by support for a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[3][4] Opposed to communism, democracy, liberalism, pluralism, and socialism,[5][6] fascism is at the far-right of the traditional left–right spectrum.[1][6][7] What constitutes a precise definition of fascism has been a longrunning and complex debate among scholars.
Ok, but what are the hallmarks of a fascist state?
Look up "On Fascism" by Umberto Eco, it's not that long and was written long enough ago that you can't say it was influenced by any of our current leaders.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Umberto Eco is a great writer, but whenever his list of ways to describe Blackshirts comes up, it fails.
First, it's very fuzzy. You don't have to have all aspects, but many aspects are present in many systems without it being outright fascist.
---
Is 5 out of 14 enough to make something fascist? Are "Appeal to a frustrated middle class", "Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as 'at the same time too strong and too weak'", "Newspeak" and "Obsession with a plot" enough?
I think it confuses rhetorical devices like "Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as 'at the same time too strong and too weak'" and "Newspeak" as hallmarks of Fascism when they are just a tool.
George Orwell famously pointed that calling things "fascist" and "Nazi" is in itself an example of Newspeak, because it's not used to describe a government system that is far-right, authoritarian, and extremely xenophobic, but it's used as a label to say something is Bad™.
It also confuses its populist roots and enemies at the time. "The cult of action for action's sake," and especially anti-intellectualism.
---
Like take Starship Troopers, an extremely fascistic society. Let's score it on Eco's scale. It definitely has "Rejection of Modernism", "Disagreement is treason", "Cult of action", "Fear of Difference", "Life is Warfare", "Everybody is a hero", and "Newspeak". So 7/14.
- Cult of tradition doesn't exist that much per se. Granted, I could have missed it.
- Appeal to the frustrated middle class; as far as we see, there isn't one .
- Obsession with plot isn't really a thing, because the Bugs aren't really a plot; they are a clear and present danger. The internal enemies if any aren't mentioned.
- Casting enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." Bugs are shown more or less realistically, they are a difficult enemy that can be defeated.
- "Selective populism". It's not so much selective populism as state enforced labor to gain citizenship.
- "Contempt for the weak" there isn't much out-group to belong to. The Terran Federation covers the globe, and almost everyone is a citizen. There isn't any contempt for underlings, even if there are military cross branch out-groups. Like real world counterparts jarheads, squids and wingnut.
- If Machismo exists, it's mutated to cover both sexes.
Granted, I might have missed a few, but still, shouldn't Eco's 14 traits light up more for a more fascistic society?
Sure, I see ultranationalism. And if I squint, I can see that a huge chunk of the US population is pro-Trump, but that's not culty overall.
You can still speak against him, as far as I can tell. Compare this to, say, Mao Zedong. If you spoke against him, your life was forfeit, and even that's not fascism.
If this is one of those fuzzy definitions, it definitely isn't on the strong side. Where is the rampant militarism, the worship of death, and of the military?
Where is the rampant militarism
ICE budget increases.
NG deployed domestically several times.
Renaming DoD to DoW.
Invasion of ~2 sovereign nations
There's been quite a lot of worship of the military in america... Also haven't armed forces been deployed domestically a few times in the current presidency?
the worship of death? try all the videos of 'lethal kinetic strikes' on speedboats
> Where is the rampant militarism
ICE
> rampant militarism, the worship of death, and of the military?
See: the recent events in Minneapolis and the massive increase in funding for ICE. You don't have to look very hard to see what the new brownshirts are doing in blue cities and the MAGAs covering for them.
Oh also the federalization of the National Guard and US Marine deployment to Los Angeles. Things move quickly and people forget but that's exactly their playbook: flooding the zone with so much shit that it's hard to keep track.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> You just don’t like anything else than your ideas, because you don’t like us. Sorry to be born.
Why do you think political ideology is an inborn trait? People don't like you because you actively choose to vote for things that bring about pain and suffering. Not because of your innate attributes.
[flagged]
Bro... you need a reality check. I'm the whitest male around. There is no 'anti-white' brigade. Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think siding with the war mongering, child molesting, pump and dumping, christian nationals is the sane move.
I’m white Western born Usa male and have been very progressive and protesting and I don’t relate to you at all. I don’t have a weird belief people hate me because of my skin color or my heritage. Everyone knows you are not your hateful ancestors. You sound like you’re playing victim, which is very common rhetoric from conservatives.
>You sound like you’re playing victim, which is very common rhetoric from conservatives.
It's common rhetoric from both left and right. It's not a strong indicator. Modern Western leftism is entirely based on playing the victim, and is built on the concept of victimhood.
You'll notice that The same dude was in charge in 2016 as 2026. The people warning about fascism were the ones who know what happens to the rhetoric and policies of 2016 when not countered.
If you're talking about the president, no. Obama was the president in 2016.
Your usage of "Your side" is telling. It seems like this is a team sport for you and you've picked a side. Unfortunately you might have sided with fascists.
Isn't this a delightful Catch-22.
If you forewarn about a developing Fascist movement, you're simply taking away the meaning from the word until it's too late and the Fascists take power.
You cannot call anything Fascist, for there may be something more Fascist that may need the power of the word.
But ah! We couldn't call out their fledgling movement full of dog whistles and double speak so no one was aware enough to stop them as a fledgling movement!
"Your side"
So how do we respect each other’s ideals AND make peace?
Probably by not starting with "your side"
Yeah the other side doesn’t over use socialism or communism or terrorist. And conservatives haven’t been refusing to make concessions in Congress and the Senate for decades.
Ah, yes, let's concede just a bit of fascism, not a lot.
[flagged]
- [deleted]
No man, that's called an oligarchy.
Sounds like you're not a fan of socialism.
How's it working out for you, spending a third of your income on rent but not actually having any rights to stay in the property you rent, and a further third on "health insurance" that'll take your money and run, leaving you to choose between a lifetime of debt or just plain dying if you ever get ill?
> Government interference in people's lives is socialism.
No, that's called 'governance'. Literally the whole job of government is interfering in people's lives.
the redditfication of HN continues
There are generous ways to interpret a critique of "redditification".
1. An increase in comments that aim to gather social approval as opposed to advancing a conversation or sharing knowledge -- often including meta commentary on threads e.g., "reddit moment".
2. Topics start to become more general and lose the tech/startup scene focus of the site.
These are legitimate. Reddit threads are stereotypically full of noise and HN should avoid that.
However there's a third form of the critique that I think should be avoided.
3. Too many comments seem to reflect values and worldviews rooted in [socially] liberal ideals.
Because of this, it's probably useful to give some context for what in particular constitutes "redditifcation". That way dang and any other mods can try to address it with particular policy decisions.
The irony is that almost every single one of the countries these foreigners come from would do exactly the same thing were the shoe on the other foot. If running government-funded research to maximize the opportunities for native born people is “fascism,” then every country in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East is “fascist.” Borderless universalism is a niche idea even in the west, and virtually non-existent outside it.
> The irony is that almost every single one of the countries these foreigners come from would do exactly the same thing were the shoe on the other foot.
I'm having a hard imagining Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, or Italy, to name a few countries of the countries from which scientists have come to work on NIST projects putting these kind of restrictions on American scientists coming to work on non-classified research at their labs.
Imagine using this logic in the 1930s when scientists from Germany, Hungary, and Italy were flocking to the US.
Did the advances they helped spur actually maximize opportunities for native born people in the long run?
Would we be better off if we had blocked them from researching in the US?
you present a lot of conviction yet there is not a single source for your opinion that was presented.
He's from one of those countries.
[flagged]
[flagged]
"It’s fair to Americans and that’s what counts."
Well, let's talk in some years how this worked out for you. If you don't want to anymore, we in europe are mostly happy to welcome smart talents.
If not developing domestic scientists but instead importing and developing foreign scientists is the way, why isn’t China doing it?
They do! I'm in academia and they hvae really attractive programs to get foreign academics in, they have special programmes just for this purpose. I don't think a lot of people still want to move to China, due to concerns about language, culture, quality of life, authoritarianism etc. but the government is most certainly promoting it.
I think the point is “it’s fair to Americans that’s what counts” is a nationalistic statement. Maybe it’s the way to go. But it’s not refuting the parent who’s saying the missing piece is nationalism.
I mean what is the point of a government of its people if not to serve those who elected it? It seems bizarre that one would elect a government to benefit others whose governments could give a rats ass about us.
Again that’s a nationalistic point of view. For someone unused to thinking about the world as “us” vs “them” where the designations of “us” and “them” are defined by national borders it can be surprising and seem like there’s missing information. There’s not missing information there’s a values/worldview mismatch.
Who benefited from all the years Elon Musk studied in the US and built his early companies? Certainly not south Africa.
If they can teach/lead us, then we can bring them in. If we have to teach them then we don’t need them and instead can cultivate our own talent.
I’m not against brining in talent that can teach us where we don’t have local talent. We can use them to jump start our own talent. I’m also not against extraordinarily talented business people who can add to the economy.
Elon Musk didn't come to the US as a businessman. He graduated from UPenn. So with your logic he shouldn't have been allowed to come here to get trained.
> I mean what is the point of a government of its people if not to serve those who elected it?
How about to serve the people it represents and governs over, rather than the small, loud, fascist minority that voted for them?
The majority of Americans want to preserve jobs for Americans. It’s a minority of people who would agree with your position. It’s like voter IDs. Even a majority of Democrats would agree with requiring IDs at polling stations. Only a minority are against it, according to polls. In addition many of the poorest of countries require IDs for voting but some people frame it as a fascist opinion. That would imply lots of the world is fascist as they implement ID requirements for voting.
- [deleted]
The majority of Americans don't want to cripple their country's science capabilities, either in terms of funding or talent. Especially not on a xenophobic basis like this. Only a minority of trump voters, who are themselves a minority of Americans, are for this, according to polls[0].
Not sure what you're on about with voter ID, that sounds like a totally different topic you might have meant to post about in a totally different thread, so I'll focus on this one, in which the administration is acting in direct contravention to what The People want.
Then again, maybe this is purely a disagreement of principles. You already indicated[1] that you were in favor of politicians ignoring The People in favor of a minority of individuals who specifically voted for said politicians.
0 - https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/americans-wa...
The idea of voter ID is fine. The problem in the US is the implementation. Those other countries have national ID systems and are good at making sure everyone gets an ID.
In the US there is no national ID. There are state IDs but a significant number of eligible voters do not have one and many cannot afford to get one. Even if there is no direct fee to get an ID it can cost a lot (sometimes over $100) to get the documentation needed. It is made more difficult and expensive by the patchwork record keeping in many states, which can require searching in many different counties for birth records for example if you aren't sure exactly where you were born. I think most states do have statewide record keeping now, but some have not gone through the old per county paper only records and scanned them and added them to the central system.
Worse, some states seem to have deliberately tried to make it harder for people who are likely to vote against the party that is making the rules to get IDs and easier for voters who are likely to vote for them to get IDs.
For example, under the guise of trying to save money they close down many of the offices that issue IDs. These closures mostly are in areas where groups more likely to be against that party live, often poor and/or minority areas. This sometimes leaves those areas with no place to get ID within 50 miles, which can be difficult for people in poor areas with no affordable public transit and low car ownership.
Another thing is picking what ID is acceptable. Say make hunting licenses acceptable as ID, but do not allow student IDs from state colleges.
Make an ID law that includes funding to pay for getting IDs for those who do not have them, including assistance and funding to find the required records, and that sets up a system to make sure that going forward new citizens get issues acceptable ID, and finally that has a way to grandfather in people who can show by clear and convincing evidence that they are eligible to vote and cannot reasonably obtain an ID, and most people who object will drop their objections.
Here's a whole bunch of links about this.
https://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERI...
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/jul/11/eric-holde...
https://www.aclu.org/documents/oppose-voter-id-legislation-f...
https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/Minority_Voting_Access...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a...
https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/4/7157037/us-voter-id-req...
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/644648955/for-older-voters-ge...
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2014/10/16/well-actually-pretty-...
https://www.theregreview.org/2019/01/08/shapiro-moran-burden...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/heres-h...
https://scholars.org/contribution/high-cost-free-photo-voter...
https://now.tufts.edu/2018/01/23/proving-voter-id-laws-discr...
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/debu...
Because china is nationalistic as well?
But me as someone who dislikes all kinds of nationalism, I obviously would do both. Develope smart domestic scientists in collaboration with smart international students/scientists. Networking, collaboration, strengthening ties, connecting cultures despite of differences, you know all those humanistic ideals you actually find a lot in real science. Focus on the common goal, progress for all of humanity through new knowledge.
They do
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03657-6
But there are people who get nervous if their people stay too long in China
They do, aggressively.
Because for their luck they don't have a liberal party they have to listen to
> I think the world got used to us being patsies where we spend our money on R&D paying foreigners
I can tell you're not in the business of training / employing people.
The best ROI is getting someone who is already trained (read you didn't pay for their K-12, their parents' teaching/maternity/healthcare) and just deriving value from their labor.
Leading a nation is not a business. In order to have a successful and self sustaining population we need to develop our own human capital. You want to take shortcuts —those are fine when you’re playing catch up, not when you’re in the lead. Also, it’s a governments responsibility to support and cultivate its own population and not dispose them for another population.
Absolutely true about creating talent. That does not mean you shouldn't take advantage of the easy talent available to you.
Please don't pretend like hiring scientists for a national lab has any effect on the colossal waste of human talent our nation is perpetrating—the problems begin so much earlier, and holding out for another American scientist at a national lab is doing nothing to address the ridiculous state of our human capital development.
Quite the opposite. The US got the best of other countries, those countries paid for their education but the US got the benefits. The braun drain was to the US
> The braun drain was to the US
I see what you did there...
Freudian slip
Nazi scientists were brought in _after_ WWII, not during it.
A significant portion of the WW2 scientists were refugees from _before_ the US joined the war but after persecution had started. https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/scientist-refugees-and-manhatt...
(later notable entry: Andy Grove, Intel CEO, was born Andreas Grov:
"By the time I was twenty, I had lived through a Hungarian Fascist dictatorship, German military occupation, the Nazis' "Final Solution," the siege of Budapest by the Soviet Red Army, a period of chaotic democracy in the years immediately after the war, a variety of repressive Communist regimes, and a popular uprising that was put down at gunpoint... [where] many young people were killed; countless others were interned. Some two hundred thousand Hungarians escaped to the West. I was one of them")
I think there is a difference between bringing in key proven talent at the apex that’s already proven itself and talent that needs to be developed. Both the US and USSR picked up proven talent from the Nazis, they weren’t siphoning up green talent on the hopes they’d develop into good scientists. We have our own population we often overlook and misdirect into Hollywood entertainment rather than achievement.
You're actually right, I misread the first post.
Speaking of unutilized talents, other than Hollywood, I'd also add a whole bunch of folks in tech who could be useful for defending their own homeland (hence, their own & their kids' future) but are busy doing the generic commercial stuff.
Every time I see something specific like this I wonder if there was something very similar and specific happening in Berlin ~90-93 years ago.
I've tried reviewing online archives of German books/newspapers but it's obviously very time consuming. The large LLM:s don't seem to index this area sufficiently.
- [deleted]
Next up, “American science”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik
I think that's quite far away. At least 12 months.
[flagged]
Yes? I don't know why these can't all be true and can't all be a bad thing. Anyways, the US used to not be like this. So it's noteworthy.
It is often asked what an actual foreign agent would do differently if he were trying to destroy the country.
I don't think that's entirely valid. Nonetheless, there is enough overlap that the question keeps getting raised.
So... perhaps that's what you're missing?
Or, as the Canadian press wonders, right now, today and continuously, how can we tell if he’s lost his mind?
When he forgets to tell us how smart he is, and how many very difficult dementia tests he's passed. That's when he'll be fully scrambled.
- [deleted]
Hanlon's razor still applies: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" [0]. He might be such a foreign agents, however we know that he is unintelligent and narcissistic, therefore everyone who makes him look stupid/bad is suddenly "public enemy number one."
Notes:
It's easy to pin this all on a foreign enemy, but this "theory" is completely invalidated by noticing that Trump receives support from all the most powerful person of the country: Musk, Zuckerberg, Thiel, Ellison, Bezos... America doesn't need foreign adversaries to destroy itself.
Two of the big names in your list there are not even americans.
How many of these people have talked to Putin or other similarly-skilled Russian intelligence agents that convinced them that Russian style oligarchy would give them more power than liberal democracy?
I would guess most if not all. Bezos is the only one who I imagine might not have had detailed discussions. Musk was completely in the grasp of Putin, though that seems to have changed in the past month with the sudden change of heart and disablement of Russian military starlink inside Ukraine. Apparently it was implemented in a single day, and SpaceX staff was confused by the sudden change in heart. That is still consistent with Putin playing Musk like a puppet earlier when they had direct conversations.
I think there are a confluence of reasons for this behavior, and I while I think that foreign influence can't explain it all, it would explain a huge chunk.
Their goal is to destroy science in the US because it comes up with results that are inconvenient for them.
You're missing the preparation for WW3.
like how WWII started after excluding Jewish scientists?
It did in Germany.
It makes no sense to people who want to live in a globally-competitive democracy. But other people don't share that goal, and the moves make perfect sense in their context.
I think this is an important point. Think about the mindset it takes to understand this proposal as a "great" thing for America. What would you have to believe? What values would you have to change in order for a foreign scientist ban to be "great". Be sure to try to limit you understanding of science to wha you might receive from watching the most popular cable news channel as your definitive source of information.
This is not the mindset of all MAGA but it's a difficult exercise for most thoughtful engineers to try to live in that mind space for a while. It's a very different world, and I can only do it because I have many conversations with family members to draw on.
for comparison's sake, how many foreigners work in Chinese labs?
The goal is the grift + outrage. If you can get both, great. If you can get just one, a very solid win. Each time something is thrown into full chaos there stands a private actor or dozens to make 7-8 figures.
> What am I missing?
The age of counter productive selfishness which escalates to national and international politics.
It feels like they are banking on their AI moment. Thinking that AI will do everything for them, they're isolating themselves like China historically did. Now all they have to do is create a proper AI that can surpass top notch researchers.
- [deleted]
The administration has done nothing but be loudly and proudly racist and ant-science.
It mades all the sense in the world. It is terrible, but it makes sense.
They have brought incalculable shame and future suffering on the US.
Don't forget about the murders, illegal wars and covering up for rich pedophiles/rapists.
> What am I missing?
Racism and Christian Nationalism
USA does not want to train scientists from other countries, who come home and can use that knowledge against interest of US companies, as a competition, or security. There are vast areas of science that are "double use". Will it help to keep stuff out of range of unwanted foreign actors? Hard to tell. Does it hurt USA soft power, sure. So the net result is to be seen.
Anything that's "double use" is already treated with a distinct level of scrutiny.
You’re missing nothing. This is just another boneheaded footgun by this admin. What a time to be live and be an American. I’m ashamed to be one and living internationally. Everyone is either pitying me or laughing at me because my government is so corrupt, stupid and incompetent.
More problematic than my own ridicule is what this will portend for US science and the US for leading science research. We must fight to keep the US a destination for cutting edge science and research and one way to do that is to attract the best and brightest from all parts of the globe.
Did you miss who was elected president?
There isn’t much rationality since then.
[dead]
The fact that there are many American citizens willing to do that work
Are they qualified to do the work? Evidently not as they were passed over for their peers who happen to also be immigrants.
Used to be that America was great because the smartest researchers in the world wanted to come here, often escaping oppressive regimes to do so, and become American citizens (e.g., Albert Einstein)
So now all the world’s best and brightest scientists will move to China where they’ll be welcomed in open arms, enjoy living in a modern society with affordable electric cars, the world’s premier high speed train network, glimmering new subway systems, and ample affordable housing.
They’ll work on cutting-edge research projects that receive ample funding and support while American scientists wrestle with a federal government torn apart by anti-intellectual strongmen.
You ever see a Tesla robot demo like this? https://youtu.be/mUmlv814aJo
Are we tired of winning yet? It sounds like we are beyond tired of winning, we’d rather lose from here on out.
Seems like Russia and the USA are hell-bent on destroying themselves fighting forever wars to allow China and the EU to take the reins as the beacons of global stability and strength.
The language is still a barrier to that so it will happen slower than one would think. Top scientists from everywhere outside China generally know English and not Chinese.
That said, China is sponsoring lots of foreign students from belt and road countries to come there and learn Chinese, so its a work in progress.
A scientist moving to a country isn't usually expected to learn the local language, the vast majority of laboratories speak English.
I've seen a much more impressive Tesla robot demo: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8vsTNFUFJEU
Large scale movements are much easier.
I, uh, actually went and took a look at both, are you really really really sure you want to pit the clumsy awkward thing as the best challenger America is capable of putting in front of China's kung fu ninja robots? :)
>So now all the world’s best and brightest scientists will move to China where they’ll be welcomed in open arms
They'll also get to experience as much or more racism than they would have in America, but likely far more racism. In America you find racism in some (usually rural) areas, and people who are very accepting in other areas (big cities where most science research is typically done). I'm not sure China is going to be the easiest place to build a life for foreigners.
> Used to be that America was great because the smartest researchers in the world wanted to come here, often escaping oppressive regimes to do so, and become American citizens (e.g., Albert Einstein)
By this measure, America is now greater than ever.
Of course, it's convenient to pretend that Trump is building a racist dictatorship with a Gestapo, and that's why no one wants to move to the US. But the true is that the number of people around the world who would like to move to the US is higher than ever. Especially when the current administration is trying to purge society of foreign criminals.
> So now all the world’s best and brightest scientists will move to China
Yes, of course. It's practically the same thing. The only reason scientists go to China is because they are not allowed into the US.
There are a lot of leaps in this comment
So build an argument against it. I think hes right, so if you claim he is making leaps, feel free to fill in rhe gaps?
The American citizens with top academic performance are already getting those jobs.
What you're effectively proposing is to prefer Americans with mediocre academic performance over top-tier international talent.
We actually have a glut of PhDs, which has been a factor in increased fraud and corruption
The one that couldn't afford a decent education? The ones that will be in debt for life (bribery risk)? The ones that paid money to be handed a degree, and wouldn't do an honest days work if their life depended on it?
[flagged]
Yeah, before this restriction was imposed, the USA was the worst country in the world in terms of scientific research and advancement.
Now that they have these restrictions in place, the USA will go from worst to best with the help of highschool-dropout equivalents who fudge their way through the interview and then complain about more than 2-3 hours of hard work per day (and demand 2-3 times the pay for the privilege). #winning !!!
By the way, would you mind linking to some of your research scientist job postings, so such folks can apply to work for you? I'm sure you can't wait to hire them, just like everyone else, right?
> AI might not be good, but it’s at least as good as 90% of them and it works 24x7
Sure. It's cheaper - now. Might not continue being that cheap. What prevents Anthropic from jacking up prices once the field is consolidated.
Plus, you're forgetting that anyone on an H1B visa still has to buy their food in the USA. While in the US, they contribute for good and for bad to the economy.
No offense but born-in-the-US citizens are... not great at the most demanding knowledge work. The ones that are have all been hired. Our education system is trash and normalizes getting Bs/Cs.
I see so many people complaining about H1Bs at tech jobs. At least the H1Bs pass the interviews!
Disclaimer: born and raised in the US myself.
Not quite right. The US doesn't normalize getting Bs and Cs, it just gives As to everyone.
I don’t think that’s an entirely accurate classification (as a former H1B and a naturalized citizen).
The leetcode nature of the whole process doesn’t lend itself to be motivating for people who aren’t really hungry for a job. As a US citizen you can say fuck it, I don’t need to deal with this shit. As an H1B you’re forced to deal with it otherwise you need to leave the country.
I’ve hired plenty of sharp and talented folks who were born here.
I am not saying that sharp and talented folks aren't born in the US.
I am saying that our culture generally has resulted in fewer talented folks than the H1B population because we have a cultural focus on education.
For example, it is culturally acceptable in the US to get poor grades throughout K-12.
[flagged]
Can you expand on how people failing interviews is filling the role you're hiring for?
"their" meaning what?
Whole worlds culture except US?
It’s protectionism. These lab positions are basically like residencies. They are government paid research spots that enable people to do government funded work in furtherance of their PhD. Why should American taxpayers basically be paying for foreign nationals to complete their PhDs?
So that foreign nationals think it's a smart idea to move to the US and do research for us. So that when they complete their PhD they want to stay permanently and continue doing research that benefits the US. So that despite country humanity gets the smartest people together doing work that might benefit the entire world?
A full scholarship to somebody that decides to move back to their country because of racism and xenophobia still directly benefits the US if that research was done here. The smartest students in the world passing on the US does not help the US. With more policies like this the smartest students in the US might move to other countries so they can work with a larger pool.
How many promising American-born researchers are we missing out on because we give away valuable training and research opportunities to foreigners?
Don’t forget that America’s technological heyday—when Silicon Valley was built in the first place—came during and shortly after the Johnson Reed era of immigration restriction. Companies like Apple, Intel, etc., were founded between 1960-1980 (the decade on each side of when the foreign born population hit the historical low in 1970).
- [deleted]
I’m sorry I’m smart enough to separate the two distinct concepts of “what US government policy should be” and “what personally benefits foreigners like me.”
Responses like yours really make me think that the bottom line for many people is doing whatever benefits foreigners.
Zero Americans are missing out because they already have a path to that work.
Your comments often lack evidence of these poor neglected Americans.
because you get to keep most of them with a really small investment. isn't that obvious?
These are not PhD students; they're already credentialed (either postdocs or full-time staff). We pay them to do research that aligns with our strategic goals so that we get the science.
Yeah, let's look at it through the national lense. For every researcher who defects to the US to make their PhD there and most likely stay, taxpayers of the country they came from have paid for the education of hundreds of students. Because they don't come from America where graduating essentially means a life of indentured servancy for all but the dynastically wealthy.
It's called brain drain, and doing the rest of the world the favor of putting on the brakes is something that would be quite far out on the spectrum you'd call "woke" if it was done for the reasons one would arrive at when really thinking it through (which clearly has not happened)
>What am I missing?
I will answer this question honestly. I used to be friends with a group of PhD students work worked in labs. Every week I heard their complaints. One relayed a story in which a Chinese lab mate / co-worker was refusing to following their boss (PI) directions or request, and shared secret results with another Chinese student in a competing lab.
- Their boss (the PI) had asked the Chinese student to train other labmates on some specific testing methods, they refused.
- The Chinese PhD student would simply ignore the PI emails.
- Then magically their study results end up leaked to another Chinese PhD candidate.
Chinese PhD types can 'buy' their way into labs. They have so much money no one wants to turn them away. Only the government can force it.
Most people have no idea what day-to-day life is actually like in PhD life / labs. It's a lot less "science" and way more "human drama" than you could imagine.
Are we supposed to generalize your third-hand anecdote about one Chinese PhD student to all Chinese PhD students?
> Chinese PhD types can 'buy' their way into labs. They have so much money no one wants to turn them away.
The way it works in the US is that labs pay the PhD students, not the other way around. I have never heard of a student paying the lab, ever.
>Are we supposed to generalize your third-hand anecdote about one Chinese PhD student to all Chinese PhD students?
I guess if you have an extremely low IQ you can. Why even bother with such a question? To attack the story? You dont like the story so you throw dumb questions at it to tear it down.
- [deleted]
