Slashdot Mirror
Canada Has Pulled Off a Brain Heist (axios.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Seoul-born Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, a professor at Brown University known for her work on fake news, is moving to Canada. So is Alan Aspuru-Guzik, a Harvard chemistry professor working on quantum computing and artificial intelligence. They are among 24 top academic minds around the world wooed to Canada by an aggressive recruitment effort offering ultra-attractive sinecures, seven-year funding arrangements -- and, Chun and Aspuru-Guzik said in separate interviews with Axios, a different political environment from the U.S. The "Canada 150 Research Chairs Program" is spending $117 million on seven-year grants of either $350,000 a year or $1 million a year. It's part of a campaign by numerous countries to attract scholars unhappy with Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and other political trends, sweetened with unusually generous research conditions.
Indeed, who could have predicted there would be a worse president than Bush Jr?
I know this place has been going downhill for awhile but this is an especially shitty submission even by msmash standards. A handful of academics get a boatload of money to move to canada is proof of a net braindrain in canada's direction and somehow this extends to proof that this is all trump's fault based upon one random comment?
More money spent on science is always a good thing, and discoveries made in any country help us all.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years, and only imploded somewhere near the end. It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end. I wouldn't be so quick to laud Trump's excuses for economic policy...
iZombie or The Walking Dead brain heist?
Canada said:
Oh, take off, eh!"
. . . and folks packed their bags wherever they were, and took the next flight to Canada!
Unfortunately, the Brexit campaign was abused by xenophobic folks in the UK to stoke up "foreigners are evil!" elements there. And it worked. Some foreign IT folks that I work with in the UK have told me that they feel like they have hunting targets pinned on their clothes when they go out shopping.
Xenophobia is the new wave in Europe, but the French nipped the racist "National Front" in the bud with the election of Macron. In Germany, the racist AfD got into parliament, but their political influence has been dampened.
In the UK . . . well, a majority voted for Brexit . . . how many did so on anti-foreigner sentiments . . . nobody will talk about.
But, if you are a true believer in democracy . . . it should be right of UK voters to decide to kick out foreigners . . . correct . . . ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Any president has a year of overlap with the previous one with respect to economics. Trump was elected in November, generally wouldn't pass a budget until about March, and then you have 2-3 quarters before those policies are enacted and the economy feels those policies in earnest. Trump dragged his feet with respect to his first budget, so that shifts the curve. When the economy finally caught up to Trump's big mouth, you not only saw a decline in the market but chaotic fluctuations not seen since the global economic crisis of 2008 and a short hiccup in late 2016/early-2016.
Dubya was able to relish in Clinton's strong economic policies, and Obama kicked off his term facing the aftermath of Dubya's poor economic policies. Trump exploited Obama's economic policies to a ridiculous level to the point of actually trying to take credit for the booming economy during his first year, yet with the Dow down more than 2000 points since Janauary, alone, where's President Shitgibbon to take credit for *that*?
Trump is going to run the country like any of his businesses, which is to say, drive it directly into the ground. We're talking about a man who whent bankrupt selling wine, steak and gambling to the American people. Nothing about that suggests he's a saavy businessman, let alone a capable politician.
Xenophobia is the new wave in Europe, but the French nipped the racist "National Front" in the bud with the election of Macron.
#fakenews
The far-right "Front National" reached the second round of the presidential elections - only the second time ever that they've managed this - and recorded their best ever score - 33.90%.
Seriously, guys, wake up. I live in France. I was not born here. My wife was not born here. The rise of the Front National is a real concern for us. Their popularity is slowly but relentlessly on the rise. Yet I constantly read this rubbish "Woop-woop, high fives, we beat the fascists!". Erm, no, buddy. Pretending that the problem has been solved, does not actually solve it.
The pattern goes even further back. It conclusively disproves the myth that progressive governments would somehow be worse for the economy than conservative ones; in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction (once you factor in the time it takes before you see the results).
That's not surprising, since he became president in full subprime mortgage crisis, and long term trends point to a permanent slowdown in economic growth in the developed world.
FTFY.
Also, how backward do you have to be to think that coal is still a pillar of the economy? You (and Trump) are stuck in the 1800s, and while you can stand on the brakes of your own country's progress all you want, it won't stop the rest of the world from getting ahead of you. Even less so if you're squandering all your international political capital.
Wrong, there was no surplus, it was all Washington doublespeak. There are two parts to the national debt - public debt and intragovernmental holdings. During the Clinton years the public debt part was paid down by borrowing money in the intragovernmental holdings mostly from Social Security. So the debt was not paid down, excess Social Security funds that by law are required to be re-invested into securities became additional intragovernmental debt. During the Clinton years the national debt total continued to rise:
FY1993 $4.411488 trillion debt
FY1994 $4.692749 trillion debt, increase of $281.26 billion
FY1995 $4.973982 trillion debt, increase of $281.23 billion
FY1996 $5.224810 trillion debt, increase of $250.83 billion
FY1997 $5.413146 trillion debt, increase of $188.34 billion
FY1998 $5.526193 trillion debt, increase of $113.05 billion
FY1999 $5.656270 trillion debt, increase of $130.08 billion
FY2000 $5.674178 trillion debt, increase of $17.91 billion
FY2001 $5.807463 trillion debt, increase of $133.29 billion
FY2001 was Clinton's last budget submitted before Bush took office.
Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years, and only imploded somewhere near the end. It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end.
Definitively untrue: http://www.taintedalpha.com/wp...
Amusingly, one of the arguments given for voting leave (and the reason that a lot of Indian and Pakistani immigrants voted) was the preferential treatment of Europeans over Asians by the UK immigration system. It's amusing how even the racism in the leave campaign wasn't self consistent, let alone their economic arguments.
There were many reasons why individuals would choose to leave EU, and many for wanting to stay too. Many of the reasons did not follow party lines at all.
It's easy for Americans who are used to polarization to think of it as right versus left and party lines, but that is seldom the case in European politics. Things are far more nuanced, and especially in referendums. A left-leaning English man might have voted for leaving because he felt he paid too much to the EU compared to what England got back, while a right-leaning Scot might think that EU subsidies and incentives for his region were needed for his business, while another Scot might be fed up of London controlling their oil income. It's all varied, and I would guess that only a minority of the votes had anything to do with xenophobia.
Britain is used to high immigration, and people around the world who have Commonwealth passports and rights already. Integration is much better in the UK than in the US, although certainly not perfect. The parts that have immigration fears are quite often left-leaning, not almost all right-leaning like in the US. Sure, you'll find skinhead right-wing supremacists, but they are hardly numerous enough to influence a referendum. Religion plays a much smaller part, and if anything, the Christians are more welcoming, not less like in the US. It's a very different playing field.
I would never leave Canada to live in the US. And given how shitty our weather is, that speaks volumes...
Obama really does deserve credit for powering the US economy out of the financial crisis. The UK went the opposite way and lost a decade, just the same as Japan did in the 90s. Frustrating as bail-outs are, the alternative is worse.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They got Jordan Peterson too, from Harvard, though he's from Canada and he went there 20 years ago.
#fakenews
The far-right "Front National" reached the second round of the presidential elections - only the second time ever that they've managed this - and recorded their best ever score - 33.90%.
Not arguing that FN isn't an issue, but you do realise that the nature of the French presidential run-off system has the potential to create these sorts of overdramatic situations? A more representative level of support for them would be from the first round, where they got 21.3% vs Macron's 24%. If they had got just 1.3% less, or about 10% of Fillon's supports had backed Melenchon instead, then there would have been no 'big drama' in the second runoff.
Also, while Macron gained significant votes from other candidates in the second round, FN did not (when you account for those who voted in the first round but not the second and the 11.5% who nulled their ballots), so they remain a narrow but fervent group on the outside of mainstream French politics. Unless they can fix that, there is (and this was clear during the election) zero chance they can take over the presidency.
It is scary that 1/5 French voters support them, and France needs to deal with this, but there is not about to be a French Brexit/Trump. That part of it was the sensationalist media trying to drum up a story out of nothing.
Yea, if you live in a country where a legal vote has been held, you stay there! I mean, it's not like anyone has ever been moved to a ghetto, thrown out of the country, died, or has had any other horrible thing happen to them as a result of a legal vote... Legal votes are safe!
Anybody stupid enough to move because of a legal vote- well, that's somebody who isn't likely going to be doing any original research anyway, just derived politically correct bullshit like climate science, string theory, and Women's Studies.
Stuff that the Trump Great America is not interested in funding because there is no profit in it.
The man wen bankrupt running a casino. You know, the place where the odds are always stacked in favor of the house.
Is profit really all we should be interested in? Is breathing clean air and drinking clean water profitable? Is understanding our world and environment profitable? Is understanding the building blocks and mechanisms that underpin our physical reality profitable?
Theses things, among many others, have value that cannot be expressed monetarily. You might consider how many things enable and enrich your life that do not make money for anybody. Or not!
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Phht. You really are spoiling the anti-Trump virtue-signaling of this "news" post.
-Styopa
Agreed. How do I put this succinctly? America has gone too far down the road of "instant gratification" and a LOT of people don't understand that shit doesn't happen instantly. Like the entire US economy. Sure, the stock markets "react" to policy changes, but the "economy" is a machine and it takes a long time to feel the effects of changes to the policies that drive it.
So the dumbasses that seem to make up the majority of the population, fed on decades of TV ads promising them that their life will be fantastic instantly if they only bought {whatever} think that a president can alter the economy instantly and that if something good or bad happens then the person in charge must be 100% responsible for it.
Worse? These fuckwits are now often seen in senior positions in US corporations and believe that knee-jerk reactions trump long-term strategy. This does not bode well for US competitiveness long-term.
As a colleague of mine has put it multiple times: The Chinese are playing chess. Trump is playing Donkey Kong. Thing is it is not just Trump. He is just symptomatic of the larger problem of a country that has lost its way.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.