Most of the important maths research is funded by the Department of War. NSF is a good chunk, I'd have to look it up, but I wouldn't be concerned about this at all. Math is important for the war planners, always has been always will be.
No worries. Sufficient encryption, or encryption breaking, technology trends toward behavior as a weapon. As such, the military is highly, highly interested in mathematics generally, and cryptography specifically. There's a ton of really fun and riveting history there, if you're interested. For a long time, "encryption" to a certain degree was export controlled, but that's not really how it works today. The point is, you cannot have effective cyberweapons without extremely sophisticated ... math.
Oh, I mean, I'm fully aware of the emphasis on codebreaking and on areas like operations research that provide optimization tools for tacticians, not to mention the ITAR restrictions on crypto export.
(I was there when only 40-bit SSL was unrestricted! I very much remember those days! They sucked!)
I guess the hangup I have is that my forays into areas like differential geometry and algebraic topology are extremely abstract, and I cannot control anyone who isn't me who misuses those tools in decidedly not-sober ways. I can only make sure that I don't have a direct hand in that kind of misuse.
All true but the kind of alignment problem you're talking about is only possible when the core of a society is directed at inspiring, bold, massive projects. There's not much on offer as an alternative to Muskism. It's worth remembering how insane everyone thought he was for claiming you could land the rocket upright and reuse it. And even more so, that you could catch one with chopsticks.
The most important part of incarceration is removing what is a quantifiable risk to the public from the public square. Everything else is secondary. The point of a state having police powers is to ensure for the common good, it is not to continually indulge those who wish to damage that common good. To the extent that the state is responsible for e.g. punishment and rehabilitation, these are ancillary responsibilities that are (or were) downstream from removing threats to the common good from the public square.
Seems like, after all of these police and prosecutorial "reforms", we are back to deriving why many state powers exist from first principles. Fun to watch in real time.
Lacking a house isn't a threat to others. I've rarely seen an unhoused people do harm. Annoying you isn't harm. Making rich people uncomfortable isn't a crime.
> common good
A term used to justify taking away liberty from people you don't like - 'it might take away their rights, but it's good for people in 'common''. The point of government, as Jefferson eloquently put it in the document that birthed the US, is to protect people's rights.
"I've rarely seen an unhoused people do harm" is an absurd statement.
It's an old study, but Martell in Base-rate estimates of criminal behavior by homeless mentally ill persons in New York City found that "The rate of violent crimes was 40 times higher and the rate of nonviolent crimes 27 times higher in the homeless population".
Most people don't like mentally ill homeless people who commit violent crime at a rate 40 times higher than average. Remind me what right in the Constitution enshrines your ability to crack the skull of a 70 year old nurse on the ground, then wander off and go to sleep? https://abcnews.com/US/70-year-nurse-killed-random-assault-b...
> It's an old study, but Martell in Base-rate estimates of criminal behavior by homeless mentally ill persons in New York City found that "The rate of violent crimes was 40 times higher and the rate of nonviolent crimes 27 times higher in the homeless population".
It is indeed old (1995 [0]) and that's not what the paper studied or concluded. First, the study did not gather data on the homeless population, but on mentally ill people already in the criminal justice system:
* "The authors analyzed data from ... records of 77 homeless defendants and 107 domiciled defendants referred for psychiatric examination by the criminal and supreme courts ..."
Second, the paper's goals were to gather needed data on homelessness among mentally ill people in the criminal justice system, and to examine the interactions between homelessness and crime among mentally ill people:
* "The study aimed to estimate the prevalence of homelessness among mentally disordered offenders entering the criminal justice andforensic mentalhealth systems, to compare base rates of arrest for violent and nonviolent criminal charges among homeless and domiciled persons with mental illness, and to examine patterns in the categories of victims chosen ..."
Third, the conclusion was that, among mentally ill people generally (not only those charged [1]) those homeless were ~35x more likely to be charged with crimes than those domiciled, and it was somwhat even more likely that those crimes would be violent or against strangers (there's more detail in the paper). The paper says nothing about crime among the homeless population generally.
> absurd
> crack the skull of a 70 year old nurse
Do pejoratives and outrage make it more persuasive or less? More importantly, do they make it more likely or less likely that you find and express truth?
I think much less likely, because it means 1) You are dismissing a lot of information, 2) You are not examining the matter thoughtfully (being outraged), and 3) You likely have little better argument.
That also makes it less persuasive to people who are thinking critically.
[0] When crime rates were much higher. The paper: Martell, D. A., Rosner, R., & Harmon, R. B. (1995). Base-rate estimates of criminal behavior by homeless mentally ill persons in New York City. Psychiatric Services, 46(6), 596–601. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.46.6.596
[1] Note that they gathered data only on mentally ill people charged with crimes and not on the general population of mentally ill people. The latter group's data they took from the same author's prior research.
Look, if you make a claim - that homeless people are dangerous - then the burden of proof is on you.
A scientist doesn't say, 'there's life on Venus, prove me wrong'. A lawyer doesn't say 'you burnt down the house, prove me wrong'. They have to prove their claim. Otherwise, nobody responds - in science they'd be ignored, in court the defense doesn't even need to say a word.
Otherwise, we just don't know. I gave you the respect of taking your argument seriously, and of finding and reading your citation, even as you were hurling abuse and outrage (and maybe hadn't read it yourself, it seems). If you will step up now and contribute, you'll find a welcome reception and an interesting life and discussion. You can contribute. Someone else probably cited that quote and paper, and didn't read it, and look where it left you. You can do better than them, you can find some actual truth - and we'd both learn things, I'm certain.
But now you just don't know, admit it. Your assertion is possible of course, but IME it's also possible otherwise - homeless people are among the most vulnerable. For example, is the crime rate among homeless people more or less than the crime rate in corporate executive offices or on Wall Street or in the offices of elected representatives - I could see it either way. I just don't know.
You gave an anecdote that "I've rarely seen an unhoused people do harm". I'm saying do you have any evidence beyond your assertion from personal experience that homeless people are safe?
You're making a claim that homeless people are safe, a claim that flies in the face of most people's experience and common sense.
It also flies in the face of the data:
"In 2022 the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office reported that homeless individuals were 514 times more likely to be arrested and charged with a felony and were often facing multiple criminal cases. The data shows substantially higher rates of robbery, residential burglary, assault, arson, and vandalism.
" - https://www.sdcda.org/content/MediaRelease/Homeless%20Data%2...
"Los Angeles Police Department crime data from 2018 to 2021 shows that homeless individuals, while only 1 percent of the population, are suspects in 6 to 8 percent of all crimes and 11 to 15 percent of violent crimes."
- https://abc7.com/feature/homeless-crime-los-angeles-data-res...
You're welcome to admit you are wrong about the precious "unhoused" who are committing assault at a rate 130x times greater than normal people in San Diego, or you can keep trying to deflect about Wall Street. $20 says you're the same type of person that thinks a pitbull is a safe nanny dog.
The contempt seems like a pattern - toward homeless people, toward me, toward facts and anything and everyone else that don't fit what you want. It's not persuasive or interesting, and contempt seems pretty strongly correlated with not knowing, learning (essential to knowing), or caring about the actual facts or anyone else. It's also not respectful and incompatible with freedom - that other people can validly do and think things that make you uncomfortable.
Why would anyone take these comments seriously? Why would I spend my time on them? I think I will be moving on. I hope you have a good rest of your day.
Anti-social people as a group is a larger population than just the homeless, mentally ill, and drug addicts, though these subsets are obviously a significant portion. The superset includes people who are genuinely anti-social in their nature, may be nominally employed, have a mailing address, and a place to sleep at night. These are the people we actually surrendered to when we changed enforcement priorities in major US cities to, ostensibly, have some grace and compassion toward the subset of homeless, mentally ill, and drug addicts. This is a demonstrably true statement. For me, and many like me, I know it's true because I can do something like "walk around in a neighborhood from my youth" or "visit a downtown corridor I used to frequent as a young adult" and simply observe the difference between the then and now. It's not always about the homeless, and the oft tiring debate around what to do about them. In many US cities, larceny is de facto legal as long as you are stealing goods valued under a certain amount. This is what people are talking about when they use the word "surrender".
I genuinely applaud the sentiment, but it's no longer possible. Maybe back in the 1990s this would've been an excellent trade block but all countries are no longer similar or internally homogeneous enough to make such a prospect functional. Much of the type of trade anyway would've been defense in nature, and that's sort of emerged as a big problem across all potential members.
Most countries in Europe have more restrictive abortion policies than a state chosen at random in the US. Your perception is unbelievably flawed. Almost this entire thread has a cartoon/marvel comic version of "US BAD, everyone else good" in their heads.
More than half of states have significantly more permissive abortion laws than OP's gone country of Denmark (18 weeks). Most of Europe limits at 14 weeks.
The reason is there is a huge movement against abortions and gay people in the US including the president voted by 50%+. E.g. Germany has strict abortion laws and liberal gay laws, but no real important movement to strict abortions or exclude gay people. This is the reason of perception. Maybe you should ask yourself why people in the internet feel like that.
The first line of German law on abortions is "Whosoever terminates a pregnancy shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.". If this had been adopted into the US criminal code in the 2010s, even with all the same exceptions and caveats, I'm pretty confident that American anti-abortion advocates would have declared victory and moved on.
Germany legalized same-sex marriage two years after the US, and it's really a non-issue in both countries today. Scott Bessent is married to a man and I don't think I've seen a single politician comment on or care about it.
The reason people on the Internet feel differently is that they have an incorrect understanding of these issues.
And abortion in Germany is practically legal for the 3 months. Though CDU is against abortions the current government hasnt done any step to stiff it, quiet in contrast to Trump government.
Many Americans just ignore Trump. Probably they really think they live in the greatest nation on Earth and Trump is just a minor annoyance or something.
I'm not ignoring it at all. It's true, as this article says, that Trump and his political movement are anti-trans. But they have no issue with gay people.
This fact is strange and confusing to many people involved in LGBTQ advocacy, who see sexual and gender diversity as linked issues. They don't understand how someone could possibly square this circle, so they occasionally try to construct 4D chess theories of how Trump secretly hates gay people too. But there's really no evidence of that.
>[China] has a better track record than the US; trivially, as every other country does.
This is a fair take? Really. That "every other country" has a better "human rights" track record than the US, so countries including Russia. Or the oft-accused-of-genocide Israel.
I don't think it's possible to coherently debate these policy moves when the starting point for the opposition is "I am choosing to be insane about my view of history and the position of the respective countries party to the dispute".
Setting aside for a moment whether or not whatever they are doing is or is not a genocide (I don't pay attention to that matter, it doesn't concern me and the outcome of that conflict has nothing to do with my country or people), is your statement meant to mean that the United States is a puppeteer of Israel or something?
I don't think it's a fair take when every evil is considered, because that list includes Pol Pot, whose regime would make the Pizzagate conspiracy theory seem like an day ending in y.
But the USA does not come across as a strong moral power by the standards that people like to pretend are a sign of civilization since WW2: the USA has had concentration camps in living memory, and the Kent State shootings even more recently than that (and the things done in the war the dead students were protesting against); further back it took Texas from Mexico in much the same way Israel is taking Palestine (not exact but it rhymes), and it definitely engaged in what is now considered genocide against the native American peoples.
(Sometimes people bring up nukes; on balance, I suspect this was not an example in this category, though the reasons are a long diversion).
>further back it took Texas from Mexico in much the same way Israel is taking Palestine
Genuinely laughed out loud at this. This single statement, monstrously ahistorical as it is, allowed me to dismiss everything else you're saying because this narrative emerged only recently, around 2014 or so. It's comically at odds with the written record.
>But the USA does not come across as a strong moral power by the standards that people like to pretend are a sign of civilization since WW2
Oh wow, news to me. Last I checked, we had pretty much the entire planet trying to come here. Are you going to tell them that this isn't a good "standard" of civilization? Or do you want me to do this.
> This single statement, monstrously ahistorical as it is, allowed me to dismiss everything else you're saying because this narrative emerged only recently, around 2014 or so.
Oh? Which part of this is wrong? All of it, or just parts here and there?
Mexican territory -> Anglo-American settlement (I can draw comparisons between this and Israeli settlements in occupied territories even if specifics are different) -> rebellion against Mexico -> independent Republic of Texas -> U.S. annexation -> US vs. Mexico war, where the USA got at least as far as Mexico city due to Mexico having negligible capacity for self-defence -> Mexican recognition of the new U.S.-Mexico border.
> Are you going to tell them that this isn't a good "standard" of civilization?
I'm in the set "them". I looked at you, the USA, from the outside more than once, and my decision every time was "you know what? I don't need any of that nonsense". Likewise for many of my peers, at least one of whom resigned from a big tech firm rather than be relocated to the USA.
Guess what: a lot of nations have the "we are the best, everyone wants to move here" narrative. That includes the UK, which I infer from your use of "here" to refer to the USA, is a place you do not live and are unlikely to want to live in.
The comparison between Texas and Israel-Palestine is laughable. In the former, American settlers moved to an empty territory at the invitation of the Mexican government on the condition that they obeyed Mexican law, converted to Catholicism, and on the additional condition that they would assist the Mexican government in fighting the Comanche who were raiding settlements across the Mexican interior, all of which the American settlers agreed to. The American settlers eventually outnumbered the Mexican administers of state security (the army and so on), and, again because this was empty territory before the Americans settled it, declared independence and the territory was annexed, Mexico then invaded Texas, and the United States declared war believing they had casus belli, and Mexico lost. The rest is history, though in this case the timeframe here is something like "30 years", I'd have to look up dates of the main events.
On what planet is this at all comparable to Israel-Palestine, a conflict that arguably goes back 1200 years? Just the "settlement" part? Be specific.
>I'm in the set "them". I looked at you, the USA, from the outside more than once, and my decision every time was "you know what? I don't need any of that nonsense". Likewise for many of my peers, at least one of whom resigned from a big tech firm rather than be relocated to the USA.
Then it sounds like you and your peers made a good decision, both for you and for my country. There are already too many people working in elite industries here who do not like the United States, have no loyalty to it, and are blood and soil nationalists for the country they actually care about. It's fine to be honest about that, and I genuinely applaud your self discipline in remaining outside the United States of America (alternatively known as The Aerospace Republic).
Also note that you didn't actually address the factual claim, you just went straight to an ad-hominem. That in turn reads like you don't actually have a response to the claim and are just trying to distract from that fact.
>Also note that you didn't actually address the factual claim, you just went straight to an ad-hominem. That in turn reads like you don't actually have a response to the claim and are just trying to distract from that fact.
The problem here is that you appear to believe there is a factual claim involved, when there isn't. It's like claiming the point of water is to drown people.
Edit, since I noticed you're the author upthread. It's worth pointing out, since you are new here, that your initial comment also violates the spirit of the guidelines.
>The very existence of the US is predicated on ethnically cleansing the continent of native americans and large-scale ecocide.
Forgetting for a moment if this is true or not, it's not a claim that's falsifiable. It's an ideological statement that is meant to convey that the speaker a) is likely a communist (congratulations), b) has extreme disdain for the United States, and c) attempts to redirect what are meant to be policy discussions into a blackhole of attempting to argue about whether or not the United States is evil. This is pointless, but is a common tactic used by online bullies.
It is a purely factual statement. The silbling commenter already provided some sourcing, but it should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of history.
The only ideological move is your continued refusal to address the factual claims - instead writing a long-winded comment to distract from it.
Two wordy paragraphs. Not a single word about the fate of native Americans. Speaks for itself, huh.
Yes I already said I understand that you hate the United States. Is your actual point that you want to play some sort of "which country has the highest body count in their history" competition? I'm not distracting (or distracted) from anything, I am fully aware of the kinds of games you and those like you attempt to play.
You brought up the track record of countries and the United States, then spent several comments complaining people don't want to engage on the substance, while consistently ignoring the track record of the United States, something directly relevant to the substance of the topic you yourself brought up.
You still haven't addressed the topic you introduced, you are still derailing by attempting personal attacks.
>The very existence of the US is predicated on ethnically cleansing the continent of native americans and large-scale ecocide.
This is your original comment. "Predicated" means "to establish". So, your claim is the United States was founded "to ethnically cleanse the continent of native americans and large-scale ecocide". Can you find some primary sources, from George Washington perhaps, where he says "we are founding this country to kill the natives". Please be specific. Is English not your first language?
Again, this is such a common thing. You are the one that introduced this absurd claim, not me. I have not derailed anything, and there is nothing you could possibly say to convince me that I'm wrong. Because, as implied, I am an American. I don't have to put up with this bullshit from people like you anymore.
Predicated means something is a precondition for something existing, not something was created to do something.
Funnily enough though, there actually are letters from Washington declaring said intent (think the May 31, 1779 letter to Sullivan), but that wasn't even the claim I made.
> Is English not your first language?
It's my fourth, actually. But I'd like to think I do pretty well in it and understand its nuances :-)
Anyways, I will note, that you are still distracting from the claim. You are still doing anything but addressing the substance of what happened to the Native Americans. You still refuse to discuss the track record you yourself introduced.
> there is nothing you could possibly say to convince me that I'm wrong. Because, as implied, I am an American. I don't have to put up with this bullshit from people like you anymore.
May I suggest refamiliarizing yourself with the rules, particularly the bit about ideology trampling curiosity?
Amazing. I do not owe a foreigner a debate or explanation on how their contrived and ridiculous claim about the origin of my country is wrong. You start off by violating the very same rule that you now claim that I am violating, and then get upset that I respond in kind. 10/10, no notes.
First of all, may I again gently point at the rules? You may find this one relevant:
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
Anyways, so many replies deep and still all distraction, anything but actually engaging with the substance - the very thing you claimed to be against! - on the topic you brought up.
It's devolved from - and I quote - "I don't think it's possible to coherently debate these policy moves when the starting point for the opposition is "I am choosing to be insane about my view of history and the position of the respective countries party to the dispute"" to claiming "there is nothing you could possibly say to convince me that I'm wrong. Because, as implied, I am an American"
What a turn, huh? What could possibly explain this dramatic shift in position? Why are you still avoiding the fate of the Native Americans, so many comments in? Why are you debasing your entire position just to run from this line of argument? Why are you, to use your own terms, creating an ideological black hole to redirect the debate?
There's a Slovenian philosopher named Slavoj Zizek, who's famous for his analysis of ideology. Let me leave you with a few quotes of his I think you'll find enlightening:
"Ideology is not a lie which misrepresents the truth; it is a lie which enables you to endure the truth."
"Everyday reality is an escape from the traumatic encounter with the Real."
"To step out of ideology, it hurts. It's a painful experience. You must force yourself to do it".
Aren't they interesting? It's been a joy exploring them together.
Except I haven't devolved from anything. It's entirely consistent, and the whole chain confirms that it isn't possible to coherently debate this with people whose starting position is insane, like yours. At it is insane to assert that "trivially every other country has a better rack record" than the US does, and it is insane to claim that the US was founded with the express intention of killing off the indigenous inhabitants of North America. These are insane positions to hold, and yet ... here you are.
Note how you're still doing it, by clinging on to an already-invalidated definition of purpose instead of precondition and still refusing to actually face the track record you introduced.
It's been lovely, but I think this exploration of ideology has run its course, there's not really more to see from here.
We've already gone from claiming to want debate all the way down to expressing pure nationalist xenophobia and expressly stating to be closed to any argument.
We now even had confession that that was the consistent position all along, revealing the call for rational debate was never the true position - it had been an ideological device all along.
We've already witnessed so many levels of fetishistic disavowal. There's nothing new left to look at, we've fully looped around to just restating the original thesis.
To paraphrase "The Princess Bride"- you keep using the word "communist". I don't think it means what you think it means.
One can acknowledge the very real harms done by the United States over its history, without also believing that private property is evil and workers should seize the means of production. Can you see how those two things are orthogonal?
Here's the falsifiable version:
- the Indian Removal Act of 1830
- the Trail of Tears
- the several hundred ratified treaties that were broken
- the Dawes Act, and
- the intentional decimation of bison herds from tens of millions to a few hundred by the late 1880s, which some Army and Interior officials at the time openly described as a way to force Plains tribes onto reservations. [1]
Which of those do you think "communists" are fabricating?
"When European settlers arrived in the Americas, historians estimate there were over 10 million Native Americans living there. By 1900, their estimated population was under 300,000.
...In the late 1800s, blankets from smallpox patients were distributed to Native Americans in order to spread disease.
...European settlers were paid for each Penobscot person they killed.
In the 19th century, 4,000 Cherokee people died on the Trail of Tears, a forced march from the southern U.S. to Oklahoma." [1]
America is built on the genocide of indigenous peoples. That fact is well-documented, whether you want to admit it or not.
I still run Windows 10 on my PC, and one night I spend about 3 hours with ChatGPT turning off all of the bullshit telemetry and other nonsense that Windows runs in the background. Total was about 2.5 GB of RAM, roughly.
Why is Windows like this? One would think the at the company whose value proposition is, allegedly, "optimize your productivity" would not do things like this with their operating system. When this PC dies, and I figure I've got a long while left given my penchant for refusing to spend money on computer hardware, I will not be booting a Windows system again. What a mess.
They may be honest when they express themselves initially, but their revealed preference later ends up being very tragic. I know several women, and others who are friends of my wife, that did the "I don't want kids" routine only to realize that this was a huge mistake and enter the dating market at 37 to find nothing but a wasteland. People can pretend that their own reason can override their biological reality, but only to a point. "I don't want to have kids" means you die alone. Eventually people realize this.
