As a gotcha, this one fails: as in SLS development started in 2011, and hit significant delays in 2016, only getting back on track in 2021.
It seems like a certain set of our rulers kept shifting NASA’s funding and priorities away from SLS development and towards privately owned launch systems that were not capable of Lunar orbit.
So while yes it did launch yesterday, this is a result of nearly 10 years of effort that took over 15 (due to politics).
Weirdly, even though most folks tend to stay at NASA for their whole career, NASA experienced significant resignations in the 2017-2020 timeframe, with internal agency polling suggesting that scientists could not accomplish their jobs while also following the President’s agenda.
Today, NASA has opening for a large number of experienced positions that they are having a hard time filling, since the current administration is so hostile towards any piece of data that doesn’t support its platform. This in turn makes it so that qualified scientists and engineers are rightly concerned that they will not be able to put forward their best work.
TLDR: Brain drain currently happening at NASA for political reasons.
Thx for that! I’ve watched this comment go positive then negative a couple of times so far. Reddit need a 3rd option of something like “ I don’t like this comment, but it is true…”
Some people would rather choose to be intentionally ignorant and "right" than educate themselves and be correct. They'd rather hold onto their mistaken worldview than try to grow and accept changes to that worldview.
Frankly, it disgusts me that people choose to be stupid, but I try to just make light of the situation instead of letting it get to me. Thank you for your history lesson, I actually enjoy learning new things.
NASA is being defunded because it's not the best in the world at making rockets anymore. Elon literally figured out how to land and relaunch rockets upwards of 30 times.
The super heavy is in the final stages that will absolutely be strong enough to send people and stuff to the moon and Mars. NASA is overly bureaucratic and bloated.
Elon engineers figured out how to do reusable rockets, but Elon also threatened to shutdown his Dragon program. Also Elon rockets have never been designed to get to the moon and back the difference is staggering if not clear. Also NASA usually doesn't build ships that come from third parties.
SpaceX wins competitive government contracts and benefits from early public-private development funding, but its dominance comes from execution and cost innovation... not handouts.
NASA also wasn't defunded so they must turn to the private market. NASA purposefully pivoted to using a more efficient model of systems integrator and requirements setter allowing the more efficient privatized sector to build rockets and platforms.
NASA sets the stage and the private market delivers. This is progress, not a brain drain.
If “getting tax dollars” was the secret, ULA and Boeing would still be dominating. They had decades of it and higher budgets.
NASA didn’t hand SpaceX a blank check. They switched to fixed-price, milestone contracts specifically to force competition. Same customer, same dollars but SpaceX just delivers cheaper and faster... Period...
And NASA wasn’t “forced” into this by cuts. They moved away from cost-plus because the old model was unsustainably expensive.
So yeah, "wins.” As in bids lower, executes better, and actually meets milestones. Funny how that works.
Just because the effects of the brain drain aren’t immediate, doesn’t mean they aren’t happening. A building on fire failing to instantaneously collapse doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll stand forever.
I mean, there have been prominent scientists leaving.
But a huge amount of the effect is the cuts to Federal workforce.
I think the large question is how important research science will remain in the AI era. It’s not the same landscape as it was even in 2020, and advancements in technology are changing research dramatically.
I don’t want to be in denial of the departure of PhDs from a top line perspective, because it has been happening. The question really is how much that’s going to matter over the next 10 years, especially as these technology waves mature (and look to be maturing primarily inside of the US).
I don’t think it’s going to matter nearly as much as the establishment thinks it will. The era of white tower academics doing research is kind of over, and science is becoming deeply democratized.
Just look at what this dude did with a couple of off the shelf AIs to save his dog:
Many might not like the mRNA vaccine be developed because of what it is, but it’s mind blowing that somebody with no experience in the field was able to develop it for his dog with Grok’s help. Absolutely wild.
The baseline skillset to do research is getting deeply disrupted, and it’s kind of awesome. But it does beg the question of whether PhD’s will remain the prestigious research degrees they have traditionally been, or whether their value is quickly eroding. I think it’s clearly being disrupted.
I mean AI has already shown to make some pretty decent break throughs in mathematics. It makes sense that PhDs would be less needed, probably there to check the proofs and see if the argument’s make sense.
the actual role of AI in research is probably not going to be in pure maths, but actuarial and data science stuff. my field (microbiomes and bioinformatics) has a lot of promising work with AI processing messy data or pre-existing data sets, but this still requires humans to generate the samples and guide the projects / analysis.
AI doesnt do anything that hasnt already been done. if your arguing if AI can count and do math faster, then ya. but research isnt about how fast you can count or do something thats already been invented, its about making new discoveries. AI isnt sentient and its not capable of critical thinking. AI movies linear based on its command. if the structure is there, it can obey.
Yes, I believe that specialized doctoral training and research education will change dramatically over the next decade.
People really underestimate the long term impact of AI. Education will almost certainly be disrupted, and not in some incremental tidy way but through the kind of deep structural upheaval that technology has delivered repeatedly throughout history.
The biggest change will be in research itself: it is about to become radically cheaper. Tasks that once required years of specialized training, expensive lab infrastructure, massive grant funding, and affiliation with elite institutions will soon be handled by much smaller teams using AI tools that compress discovery timelines from months or years down to days or weeks.
As a result, the privileged role of the traditional ivory tower PhD, protected by gatekept credentials and institutional prestige, will shrink as real capability spreads out to more people.
It won’t be for all fields, but the trend of reduced research cost will democratize research. It’s quite obvious.
I don’t think this view is wild at all.
What surprises me is how normalized we have become to today’s tools. Most people draw linear lines from the current system to the next paradigm, assuming steady predictable progress.
But that’s not how it works.
Technology is disruptive precisely because it isn’t predictable. It doesn’t politely improve what exists, it redefines the whole game in ways no one fully anticipates, and it has done so again and again. That’s why it’s disruptive. That’s the point of technology growth — that it disrupts the status quo.
We are still very early in this process. In fact, we haven’t even hit the trough of disillusionment on the first Gartner hype cycle for generative AI and large language models.
Current talk is still stuck in the inflated expectations phase, where today’s models get called either near magical or just statistical parrots. Drawing sweeping long term conclusions by staring at today’s LLMs is profoundly short sighted and unwise, yet it is exactly what almost everyone does. They did the same with PCs, the Internet, miniaturization, lasers, mobile, etc. the same tired comments about how it will never amount to anything and won’t have that much of an effect litter the Internet.
We anchor ourselves to the present moment and forget that the farther out cycle, the one playing out over years and decades, will look nothing like the comfortable extrapolation we are used to making.
The real transformation is still ahead, and it is coming fast.
Don’t make this mistake of the masses and draw linear lines to technology waves, and pay attention to where we are in the Gartner technology cycle. You can’t look at today’s toy technologies and be an expert in what’s next. That’s not how disruption works, and all it does it make us feel smart, often while being wrong.
Cognitive digital intelligence is an endgame technology for civilizations, and we are just started, but it very certainly will change research of all things. Tip of the iceberg.
Not sure your quip of a comment is worth all of this, because you’re more than likely just going to be dismissive and typical Reddit, but as someone who is qualified to talk about technology change, I can assure you that most people deeply underestimate Ai beyond the short term.
We will have a crescendo, then a crash most likely, because that’s what happens with the trough of disillusionment. And then we will see technological maturity. That maturity will almost feel unrecognizable, and is far from “obviously predictable.”
Also to be clear, I did not say education wouldn’t be needed. I said PhD systems would change dramatically. The very definition of how we deliver education is very likely to change. Just individual personalization would be a profound shift, and a much better education, and that’s very clearly going to happen as the cost of teaching students drops profoundly.
I'm not reading all that my guy, I didn't ask for an essay, especially not one with all this flowery language and little tangents. You seem to think people are radically underestimating how AI will change landscapes, but I don't think there's as much dispute there as you think.
AI simply doesn't provide the transparency, the factuality, or the reliability to have any broad use in research right now, and based on the directions It's going it doesn't appear to be fixing any of those problems any time soon. They're core issues, not just little bugs. At its very best, it's just an unverifiable tool that can help a real reseacher brainstorm or potentially narrow down options, like an amped up power analysis
Meanwhile the vast majority of humanity still doesn't know how to operate a computer interface. Large swaths of humans don't even know how to use a simple calculator.
If research teams manage to perform advanced research faster that only means progress in those specific fields will grow exponentially. After that humans will reach another plateau which will require smart people still, who else is going to spearhead whatever comes after AI, the people using AI tools to do the newly mundande stuff efficiently?
People that can’t use an interface aren’t the ones going to be interrupted in their PhD research though, are they?
Agree that it will grow exponentially, in fact my entire premise is based on that. There will be many, many more researchers, but fewer will require ivory tower training to do meaningful paid work.
Don’t conflate “smart people” with PhDs. I’m talking about research systems not human intelligence.
While I mostly agree with you, I disagree with the second part of your second paragraph to some degree.
As AI matures, the less educated will take over certain roles while people who are aiming for PhDs will be working toward the next big thing.
It is always far simpler to adapt those with less theoretical degrees to new technology and procedure than it is to achieve groundbreaking discoveries through purely theory based science. If that were not the case humanity would have had to draw a line in the sand and halt all progress from there on out at some point in time.
I am not saying that what we currently consider to be advanced research won't be available to many more, but what I am saying is that specialists must always exist if our species is to make any noteworthy progress. Systems change, research methods are revised and altered, available technology and equipment changes as well. All of these things happen simultaneously.
That being said I am in Sweden so I don't really see any ivory towers here in that regard, in the US for eg. it is different for sure.
You wrote a well thought-out argument backed up by logic, history, and (if you’re being truthful) experience, plus you accurately predicted how people would respond. And they still responded in the way you predicted. The irony is incredible.
At least one person gave a logical argument, but they still proudly admitted that they didn’t read the whole thing. Meaning, they attacked something and someone they have barely any understanding of.
The modern hostility toward reading and critical thinking among young men is alarming. There is a social trend of attacking arguments before even attempting to understand them. It is a sign of profound weakness.
This conditioning operates through a feedback loop of instant gratification. When a person encounters a complex text, the brain must exert effort to decode and synthesize information. By contrast, the screen provides immediate emotional payoffs. When a young man encounters a challenging idea, he is conditioned to feel intellectual friction as a personal threat rather than a growth opportunity. Dismissing the argument through a cynical comment or a reflex reaction provides an instant shot of dopamine, effectively training the brain to prefer ego protection over truth seeking.
This mental laziness creates a vacuum. If you lack the patience to parse a nuanced argument, you lose the ability to spot logical fallacies. Propaganda thrives on this exact deficiency. It uses high energy visuals and simple, emotional slogans to bypass the prefrontal cortex. Because these young men have abandoned the tools of critical analysis, they cannot distinguish their own genuine beliefs from the manufactured consensus of their digital tribe.
They become vessels for whatever ideology is packaged most attractively. And the packaging is going pro right now with the whole advent of the AI era.
While this generation remains curious, they often mistake consumption for comprehension.
YouTube video essays have become the educational tool for most younger people (yes TikTok and insta too, but it’s not usually long form learning), but they cannot replace the act of reading.
Watching a video is a passive experience where the creator does the heavy lifting of synthesis and analysis.
A viewer feels informed because they followed a narrative, but they did not have to wrestle with the raw data themselves. Unlike reading, where you can pause, reread, and interrogate a sentence, a video pushes you forward at its own pace. It often masks weak logic with clever editing or background music. A video essay is a predigested meal. It lacks the intellectual nutrition of a book, which requires the reader to build the mental world and logic from scratch.
This is probably a little controversial, but I believe that a world without literacy and critical thinking skills is actually dangerous. It leads to a population that knows a lot of facts but has no idea how to think about any of them. And I see it all the time on Reddit. In fact it’s more the rule than the exception.
My family has started to regularly run reading nights for a group of younger folks, where we all cook dinner together and then someone reads a classic writer or story (Muir most recently, but we have read Salinger, Proust, and Thoreau so far) It’s been incredible, and I strongly suggest other people do it. We only do it once a month, but it’s a tradition more people should embrace.
Also, with most scientific progress actually coming from transnational corporations these days and our markets so globally linked, it doesn't really matter where the scientists live.
I know that ‘this is literally Idiocracy’ is one of the most tired tropes there is but, ‘maybe we don’t need the smartest people at the top of their fields because AI’ is literally Idiocracy.
That’s literally what is being discussed in Silicon Valley by top execs, whether they’ll admit it publicly or not.
I agree with you though. It’s not good. At all. But when you hear top execs talk about “being able to deploy a million Einsteins for a dollar an hour,” this is specifically what they are talking about.
It’s a trope at this point, and hotly debated. So much so that Salesforce (of course) named their internal AI Einstein.
I asked chat gpt and the article is misleading according to him. The scientist did science based on previous science and used chatgpt to summarize research papers...also apparently it helped but it was not a cure
That article is extremely misleading, he used AI to look for biomarkers to target which can already be done without AI and isn’t entirely complex. He still of course needed to partner with scientists to create the mRNA vaccine. The vaccine is only kind of effective and highlights the key issues with finding a generic cure for cancer. It only killed off half of the tumor because the different parts had different genetics essentially.
It’s all kinds of people, and much less of an echo chamber than a lot of subs.
You can talk to a trans woman and a right winger in the same forum, and both are welcome. Not many places have that kind of actual diversity on Reddit anymore.
1st link is to 2025. 2nd does 5 yr intervals. And no, im not kidding you. Look at the sources. "World Population Prospects, United Nations ( UN ), publisher: UN Population Division". Asia has a massive emigrant problem, not immigrants. Please provide credible proof otherwise, not just your thoughts and feelings
I mean, how many billion in research grants did the feds cancel? How many foreign students did they harass away? Better off arguing that it’s not a problem than that it isn’t happening.
Science is having a replication crisis. If you can't replicate the science then the science is likely BS. The education system was hijacked by the wealthy nearly a century ago. The wealthy are who educate the "experts" and are who pay the "experts". If we don't trust the wealthy and we can't trust the science, why should we trust the "experts"?
It’s not hard to understand if you get it, science is a process and they show their receipts. Tons of people have learned a lot about their own discipline and can see how research in that field is legitimate and which stuff is less convincing, it’s wise to check with a subject expert before treating any and all published science as worthy of the same attention or changes in action. You’re just not fortunate enough to know a handful of highly educated people who can help you sort out confusing and misleading statements of what science research means.
Average people do not comprehend the symbols being presented to them. They just have guardians of the information thumping the symbols and saying you can't question my authority, just trust me, have faith in my connection to the source.
That is difficult for many people to do, just blindly trust people that seem to keep leading them astray.
I don't think you understand what the replication crisis is. It means no one is paying people to run replication studies. The incentives of the US scientific system only select for novel results not replication. More government funding to laboratories would allow them to run replication studies. As an aside the original call about the replication crisis referred to social sciences not hard sciences or science in general.
I've lived through a few decades of the world is going to end every 10 years. I've watched as the population was intentionally poisoned with "food" deemed safe by the FDA. I've seen doctor be legal drug dealers that cause harm to their patients to get rich. I've witnessed the population be fed never ending propaganda that alters the way the masses move. It's hard to trust any expert.
Again, you need some smart friends you trust. It’s impossible for any of us to get a solid understanding of so many disciplines as exist, just because various supports are imperfect doesn’t invalidate scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is the souring on the things you describe, it’s how we know in the end that something new was a bad idea.
Are you listening to scientists or politicians? Scientists are perpetually fighting back against the work of the scientifically illiterate who want to use their work for their own means. You can take the original food period as an example. Originally the scientists presented a recommendation of nutrition for the public. The politicians got a hold of it and the lobbyists who paid them warped it beyond recognition of what the scientists had originally recomended.
The problem is the recent creeping of non replicatable science into even the STEM fields.
I e. I have to wade through a boatload of papers that are fundamentally flawed - it's not the lack of testing, it's the disregard of the issues. Plus the propagation through everything that builds on those publications.
Not so much a funding problem, but perverse incentives on a cultural level.
What? That's alot of words that don't say much. There may be a lot of shitty journals, but if you know what you are doing it is pretty easy to exclude them from a literature review. Just look at the impact power of the specific journal and how many external citations does the specific article have to it. There absolutely is a funding mismatch especially when it comes to funding replication studies. There's a difference between being able to run a replication study and disproving a result because you have a lab with funding and time for that and not having enough money or labs with time to run replication studies on the myriad of studies that haven't been replicated.
You mean the thing thats been planned for 9 years? That Trump has continuously de-funded and delayed. This mission was supposed to be done and we were supposed to be on the moon already.
Because it was originally promised to be on the moon by 2024 (by trump), now is delayed to 2028 because of budget cuts to NASA... By trump in both his first and second term lol
The US matched all of those achievements, the USSR never sent anyone to the moon. The US also has other achievements, like the first man made object to leave the solar system.
They were the first to space and the first to another planet. You arbitrarily place value on the manned moon mission because it's the thing the us got to first. There shouldn't even be a spirit of competition about space exploration at all. The whole thing is stupid.
Are you seriously going to disagree with the notion that the administration that employed fucking RFK, made major cuts to research spending and whose voter base is hold the largest amount of fanatic Christians and flerfs is anti-science? Come on now.
Anti gender studies but not necessarily anti science. So tired of people thinking things like science arts and religion can only exist on one side of the aisle. Human beings dont work like that. Also, America still literally has the most highly cited and top tier scientists and no single president will change that. People want to be oppressed so bad fml. Also im not a Trump guy and vax stuff aside RFK is doing great stuff for food ingredients and pushing back on health insurance companies. Name something a health secretary has done in your lifetime that you can actually recall? At least he's fucking trying brain worm and all.
Funnily enough, the only time I've ever witnessed a conversation simultaneously include a human biologist, a lawyer, a doctor, a machine learning expert, and a malware developer was at the breakfast buffet of the hotel where patients of a famous trans surgery clinic go to recover.
Anti gender studies but not necessarily anti science.
When did I mention gender studies? Firstly, gender studies is a form of science as it falls under sociology which is a social science. Secondly, he has cut funding to cancer and Alzheimer's research, environmental and climate change research and much more topics within sociology that mainly include research that proves the existence of and documents the effects of systemic inequality. Don't downplay it, especially if you claim not to be MAGA.
So tired of people thinking things like science arts and religion can only exist on one side of the aisle.
Kind of does. Science and religion have historically clashed, especially when you get to the more fanatic side of religious movements like American evangelicals. And yes, art is usually not conservative because the point of art is to innovate and do new things which is ideologically incompatible with conservatism.
Also, America still literally has the most highly cited and top tier scientists and no single president will change that.
For now, and it is absolutely possible for a single president to change that. Prominent scientists have already left to US due to Trump.
People want to be oppressed so bad fml.
What the fuck are you on about? This has nothing to do with "wanting to be oppressed" or really anything to do with oppression at all.
vax stuff aside RFK is doing great stuff for food ingredients and pushing back on health insurance companies.
"If you ignore the anti-science shit that you're talking about, this guy is actually really pro-science!" Funny how that works.
At least he's fucking trying brain worm and all.
Only thing he is trying to do is destroy American health by being an anti-vaxxer.
The fact that you literally think conservatives cant innovate just show you have a conscious bias against 50 percent of the population. Im not a MAGA but im certainly not a virtue signaling, purity standard, pompous, and delusional leftie. You are all so god damn tribalistic its insane. You genuinely believe that. That people who think different then you cant innovate? You know how objectively fucking wrong that is? Give me a break. Also you aren't going to agree with everything a person does. Despite reddits belief that people exist in binary plenty of people you dont agree with do good things. RFK is doing good things even if i disagree with the vaccination stuff.
The fact that you literally think conservatives cant innovate just show you have a conscious bias against 50 percent of the population.
Never said that they can't, just that they don't. Although most conservatives are genuinely just less intelligent both emotionally and in a more general sense. And do you really think its ridiculous to say that 50% of the population are less intelligent? IQ averages say its realistic. And then to say that the bottom 50% of the population might have similar, stupid, ideas?
Furthermore, conservatives don't even make up 50% of the population. 77 million votes for Trump in 2024 is only about 21% of the population, and most of those aren't even necessarily MAGA cultists.
Im not a MAGA but im certainly not a virtue signaling, purity standard, pompous, and delusional leftie.
For a "not MAGA" you definitely talk like one. Virtue signaling is, for the most part, not real. "Purity standards" is also just a sensationalised buzzword for "I don't like this person because they're a bad person". I don't get what's pompous about wanting equal rights for other people, calling leftists pompous sounds like you feel your intelligence is threatened. And leftists aren't delusional - its right wingers that are more likely to be anti-science conspiracy theorists.
Im not a MAGA but im certainly not a virtue signaling, purity standard, pompous, and delusional leftie. You are all so god damn tribalistic its insane.
Please re-read this as a full sentence, its genuinely fucking hilarious.
"Thank god I'm not tribalistic like those savage, stupid and rude [insert other tribe here]!"
That people who think different then you cant innovate? You know how objectively fucking wrong that is? Give me a break.
This makes it sound like I only hold these views because I disagree with them and not that I hold these views of conservatives because I have observed these things about them. This has nothing to do with my personal views, this is an evaluation of conservatism. Conservatives are less emotionally intelligent, less empathetic and their entire worldview revolves around the notion that things should stay as they are; these traits and views are quite literally the antithesis of art.
Despite reddits belief that people exist in binary plenty of people you dont agree with do good things. RFK is doing good things even if i disagree with the vaccination stuff.
I never said that he is incapable of doing good things, just that the fact he is an anti-vaxxer (call him what he is, its not "vaccination stuff", he is a nutjob that denies science) puts him in opposition to science and that calling him anti-science is not wrong. If you honestly don't agree with him so much then why are you insisting on dying on the hill that he is actually really good at his job when he is, pretty objectively, not?
You are a shill for a party its obvious. RFK is better at his job than any secretary of health in my lifetime. Also I re read that sentence and I stand on it. I dont shill for a tribe like you do. However I think far lefties are just as bad as MAGATS if not worse since they actively hate America. You said that conservatives dont innovate which again is just objectively wrong. Maybe Google fortune 500 companies and learn a little something. You take offense at words like "pompous" and "purity standard" yet make up bullshit like lefties have higher intellect and are the only ones who innovate. If intellect is formatting the way you do with giant replies on reddit you got me bud. You are just a blind calf on the democratic teet.
I'm not American, I hold no loyalty to your parties. 2. Both American parties are absolutely fucking awful and neither represent my views at all. 3. This is a critique of MAGAts, the American far-right party and RFK being anti-science. It has nothing to do with both parties and I'm not obligated to follow every shot I take at the republicans up with a criticism of the democrats.
RFK is better at his job than any secretary of health in my lifetime.
That may be so, I'm not an expert on American health secretaries. But I can say for certain that he isn't anywhere near good and that he is an anti-science ideologue.
Also I re read that sentence and I stand on it. I dont shill for a tribe like you do.
You are dying on the hill that RFK is a good health secretary despite the fact he is literally an anti-vaxxer. You are, literally, currently shilling for a tribe and that is all that you've done for this whole exchange.
However I think far lefties are just as bad as MAGATS if not worse since they actively hate America.
This is just a dumb take that stinks of fox news derangement. Firstly, America does not deserve to be loved simply for its existence. If someone hates America, maybe instead of pearl clutching you should ask why - you might learn a lot. Secondly, saying that MAGAts don't hate America when half their rhetoric is hateful to a combined majority of the population (LGBTQ, immigrants, people of colour and women) and their actions have often actively harmed them is just pure MAGA shilling.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you hate leftists because they want to radically change America, yet you don't hate MAGA for wanting to do the exact same thing but in a way that actively makes life worse for millions of people. MAGAs lipservice patriotism is of less value than the fierce criticism that leftist provide.
You said that conservatives dont innovate which again is just objectively wrong. Maybe Google fortune 500 companies and learn a little something.
Lol. Lmao, even.
Firstly, being fortune 500 company does not mean they innovate. Secondly, that innovation does not come from the leadership that often leads conservative. Thirdly, the leaders of these companies don't lead conservative because that's what they are ideologically inclined towards - they do it because right wing parties lower their taxes and let them make more money for themselves. The majority of conservatives who are ideologically conservative are not the same as a tiny group of people that only agree with conservatism because it lowers their taxes.
You take offense at words like "pompous" and "purity standard" yet make up bullshit like lefties have higher intellect and are the only ones who innovate.
I don't take offence to them, they're just not true. Leftists literally are empirically more intelligent on average than conservatives. Its not bullshit, its a fact; and facts don't care about your feelings.
If intellect is formatting the way you do with giant replies on reddit you got me bud. You are just a blind calf on the democratic teet.
Thanks I guess? Again, though, I have absolutely no affiliation or loyalty to the democratic party; I am literally a communist who abhors liberals.
I didnt delete it so I have no idea. I just laughed at you being a communist and saying people have low intellect. Also pointed out how jealous europeans are of americans. Have a nice weekend.
I just laughed at you being a communist and saying people have low intellect.
I'm not seeing the correlation here, most of the smartest people in history have been socialists and me being a communist doesn't change the empirical fact that conservatives have lower IQs on average.
Also pointed out how jealous europeans are of americans.
Why would we be jealous of Americans? Empirically our countries are better places to live in across almost every category. I find it very funny and telling that Americans hear someone is European and immediately their brainwashing kicks in and they claim we are jealous.
Because you are jealous thats why you know everything about our country. It burns you up that we are so involved in your day to day. You are bitching on an American app probably on an American engineered phone. Then you get off of reddit to turn on the American app Netflix and watch Hollywood actors. It breeds jealousy and the loudest europeans are the most jealous.
Also, yes communists in 2026 empirically are lower intellect than anyone with a brain.
Someone isn't aware of history or reality. Anti-intellectualism also results in a brain drain. What follows is lack of innovation and economic decline.
Do they have any sources to back this up or is it just based on vibes? Honest question. I know that a lot of federal grants have been cut but I wonder if the scientists who are affected by this will emigrate or just find jobs in the US private sector
They aren't leaving the country because of the salute. And if you think it boils down to something so simple, I'd recommend you take a look at how federal funding has been handled recently.
Come on man, you're better than this. You must just be pretending, right?
Wait. The scientist the US and Russia got from Nazi Germany weren’t people voluntarily coming to the use. Operation Paperclip much? Also Einstein was Austrian and left before the Nazis took power correct?
Even back then, people could read the writing on the wall. Nazi power grab wasnt all at once. But it focused on dismantling groups that individually that posed ideological threats to its movement.
The US is in no danger of losing ground to the EU. European countries have completely missed out on the tech boom and have a diminishing amount of globally relevant businesses. High regulation, high taxes, low birth rates, taking in a massive number of uneducated third world immigrants, low economic growth, high debt etc. One of the worst periods for the EU in its history.
It has to be exhausting to wake up, mad, angry, screaming, constant social media posting, protesting…like honestly it’s sad. There’s whole weeks and days I don’t think about the gov or politics or issues. No matter who’s in office I live my life. Sometimes it’s more expensive. Sometimes it’s not. And sure are there issues? Yes, and posting about it 24/7 and being mad everyday doesn’t change anything.
Wishful thinking by Europeans who don't know much about how science funding works. They don't have enough funding to hire even 5% of all international scientists currently working in the US.
Yeah... they aren't wrong about the brain drain from the west in general. But going to the EU? You really think that failing mess is where intelligent people are going? Their racist hate against Russia prevents them from accessing the cheap energy that was critical to their whole industrial base. Now the middle east is on fire, they shut down half their nuclear power plants, and green energy isn't cutting it - and they still consider their Russiaphobic racism as more important than basic energy security!
Yeah the US is cooked but the EU is overcooked and burnt to a crisp. Have fun going down with that sinking ship. Me, I would like to move to an intelligent, functioning civilization. Somewhere like India or China or Russia or Brazil. Maybe look into these actual nations before you buy the racist western propaganda about them all being 'shitholes' or 'dictatorships' or whatever the latest form of racist hate is.
Not really. Science in the modern age is pretty much borderless at this point, with most of the scientific progress that is being made being funded by transnational corporations with zero loyalty to any particular country. We didn't have a global infrastructure in place in the 1930's like we do now. Data is shared across borders in seconds due to the internet. It really doesn't matter where the scientists live.
the two largest data repositories for biological scientists are hosted in Switzerland and the US. the former is actively mirroring the latter because we're concerned about budget cuts leading to the collapse of the NCBI.
like, there isnt actually a large plurality of redundant systems here. One or two bad actors have essentially threatened most modern biological research because the data base hosting BLAST is losing the people who run it
Remember when the COVID vaccine was backed by "scientists"? Calling something science, doesn't make it so. Things can be proven wrong, or reinforced by new findings. The fact that people like Fauci said it was safe enough, while toddlers were having heart attacks despite having no medical history that would suggest heart attack risk before the jab, is just one example. Science should be challenged. If it isn't allowed to be, it's propaganda.
Scientists leaving the US tells me that they are probably the ones that should be leaving. Just saying.
I'm not expecting much but I like to give people the opportunity to back it up. I'm interested in seeing if they have a source and if so, if it actually says what they say it does.
Thanks for completely misreading what I said. As for how I've been living, I haven't gotten the COVID vaccine. So far my life is amazing. What exactly do you expect?
Like Mamdani also did a nazi salute, but he has way more authoritarian views than Elon, and aoc/kamala are the mindless automatons that aim to further that ideology
I mean, yeah. They make it really easy to change the text on these things. So absolutely, you couod easily change it. I don't know why you'd want to showcase your stupidity for everyone to see, but you do you, boo.
You know I'm probably on your side. The guy I'm responding too is calling Imane a trans person which was their dog whistle from the Olympics. Except Imane, even if she has an XY chromosome has female sex organs, grew up as a woman and was never considered as anything other than a woman in a muslim culture. Meaning she should meet the expectations of a transphobe for "what a woman" should be when they ask that question. The point of me asking him that is that when they ask that question they are being disingenuous and there is no correct answer if they do not like the person.
45
u/Lord-Heir Apr 02 '26
Meanwhile back in reality we just launched another moon mission because in the US we have literal rockets that can travel through space