psi's recent activity
-
Comment on Where do you all get your news from? How do you work to avoid echo chambers and propaganda? in ~life
-
Comment on The Tiny Soapbox: a platform for small, low-stakes rants in ~talk
psi Link ParentGood point, although I'm not sure that's always true in Germany. (I can think of at least one store where the doors open inward to leave, which always struck me as a fire hazard. ) But perhaps...Good point, although I'm not sure that's always true in Germany. (I can think of at least one store where the doors open inward to leave, which always struck me as a fire hazard. ) But perhaps there is some requirement for buildings of a certain size and age? In any case, I think all the doors in my building do, in fact, open outwards along the evacuation routes (other than the bathrooms), so your suggestion is a good one.
But dammit, I don't want to think about it! Truthfully I could probably remember whether any given door opens inward and outwards if I gave it a moment's thought. But I'd rather just navigate through the building on auto-pilot while giving attention to more pressing matters (i.e. anything else).
-
Comment on The Tiny Soapbox: a platform for small, low-stakes rants in ~talk
psi (edited )Linkahem Two-centicent rant #1: You know doors? In particular, how they sometimes open inwards and other times they open outwards? A visually well-designed door makes its operation obvious, e.g. maybe...ahem
Two-centicent rant #1: You know doors? In particular, how they sometimes open inwards and other times they open outwards? A visually well-designed door makes its operation obvious, e.g. maybe there's a horizontal bar on one side that indicates the door should be pushed open. My employer chose another design philosophy. I have been working in this building for nearly three years and I still struggle to remember which doors open inwards and which open outwards.
Two-centicent rant #2: I live in a decently large German city. That puts me thousands of miles closer to Belgium than most people in this thread. Yet I can find at least as many Belgian beers in any given American convenience store than the local Getränkemarkt, a grocery store dedicated specifically to selling beverages. And I make that qualification with absolute confidence because there are no Belgian beers in my local Getränkemarkt. Like, half the store is filled with bottles of water! Are people really more interested in purchasing their favorite brand of Sprudelwasser than enjoying a Belgian Tripel? And the issue is hardly limited to Belgian ales: I have an easier time finding certain German beers in America than in Germany!
Two-centicent rant #3: Why are automatically-flushing toilets even a thing? Do we really have so little faith in humanity that we can't expect someone to flush a toilet when they're finished with their business? Certainly this decision was not made for my convenience: I would much rather yank a lever than risk being kissed by Poseidon because a sensor misfired. But that's assuming it even activates at all -- I'll take the lever over having to rub-off a nub.
-
Comment on Why US President Donald Trump's tariff chaos actually makes sense (big picture) in ~society
psi Link ParentI'll put it another way: there are approximately 8 billion people in the world, of which less than 5% are located in America. Why should we expect America to be better than every other country in...I'll put it another way: there are approximately 8 billion people in the world, of which less than 5% are located in America. Why should we expect America to be better than every other country in the world at every industry? Moreover, why should we expect America (GDP per capita of $87,000) to have balanced trade with, say, Angola (GDP per capita of $2,300)?
-
Comment on Help me understand how half of USA is on board with the idea of creating "short term pain" in ~society
psi Link ParentYeah, this reads like textbook cognitive dissonance -- nobody votes for a candidate expressly because they think the candidate will make things worse. Presumably this gentleman voted for Trump...Yeah, this reads like textbook cognitive dissonance -- nobody votes for a candidate expressly because they think the candidate will make things worse.
Presumably this gentleman voted for Trump because he though Trump the better nominee. But by this twisted reasoning, shouldn't he have instead voted for Harris, whom we were repeatedly told would be worse for the economy, crime rates, foreign affairs, etc?
-
Comment on 75% of US scientists who answered Nature poll consider leaving the country in ~society
psi Link ParentYup, generally all meetings are held in English -- there was no additional language requirement for my contract. I only ever hear German in the office when Germans are conversing among themselves,...Yup, generally all meetings are held in English -- there was no additional language requirement for my contract. I only ever hear German in the office when Germans are conversing among themselves, but even then they will switch to English if I join them.
That said, I did hear of one research group (with foreign students/postdocs) that insisted in holding all of their group meetings in German. That struck me as pretty shitty but also atypical.
-
Comment on 75% of US scientists who answered Nature poll consider leaving the country in ~society
psi Link ParentI'm an American scientist doing a postdoc abroad (Germany). I think these positions have always been available for Americans who choose to pursue them; they just generally choose not to. Within...I'm an American scientist doing a postdoc abroad (Germany).
I think these positions have always been available for Americans who choose to pursue them; they just generally choose not to. Within Europe it's much more common for people to venture outside their home country for graduate studies/postdocs/permanent positions. (In my current research group, we have a single German postdoc versus four non-German postdocs.) But this arrangement mostly comes from necessity: if America has dozens of good labs for a specific research topic, the typical European country might have only two or three. It's only by taking Europe as a whole that you get something comparable to America's research output.
So yes, an American scientist could roughly double their career options by applying for positions abroad. (And frankly, if you're an American scientist who's ever fancied the idea of living abroad, I'd recommend taking the opportunity.) But living abroad is hard, the difficulty of which I don't think anyone can fully appreciate until they've experienced it themselves. Imagine yourself embedded in an unfamiliar language and culture, separated by friends and family by thousands of miles away, all while having to navigate foreign bureaucracies, housing markets, telephone contracts, etc. None of this is conducive to doing research. Why subject yourself to that when there are options at home?
-
Comment on An ‘administrative error’ sends a Maryland father to a Salvadoran prison in ~society
psi Link[archive link] I can't read these articles without tearing up. This isn't "deportation"; this is state-sponsored human trafficking. This is absolutely fucked.The Trump administration acknowledged in a court filing Monday that it had grabbed a Maryland father with protected legal status and mistakenly deported him to El Salvador, but said that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction to order his return from the megaprison where he’s now locked up.
[...]
Trump administration attorneys told the court to dismiss the request on multiple grounds, including that Trump’s “primacy in foreign affairs” outweighs the interests of Abrego Garcia and his family.
“They claim that the court is powerless to order any relief,’’ Sandoval-Moshenberg told me. “If that’s true, the immigration laws are meaningless—all of them—because the government can deport whoever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, and no court can do anything about it once it’s done.”
I can't read these articles without tearing up. This isn't "deportation"; this is state-sponsored human trafficking.
This is absolutely fucked.
-
An ‘administrative error’ sends a Maryland father to a Salvadoran prison
42 votes -
Comment on An engineer says he’s found a way to overcome Earth’s gravity in ~space
psi (edited )Link ParentThere is a patent (filed in 2019). However, the mere existence of a patent proves little, and the particular physics justification does not strike me as especially rigorous (but I'm not planning...There is a patent (filed in 2019). However, the mere existence of a patent proves little, and the particular physics justification does not strike me as especially rigorous (but I'm not planning to read it carefully). Having a student debunk the proposal would probably make for a fun homework assignment for someone taking graduate E&M, but that won't be me because I'm hoping to never crack open Jackson again.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of March 24 in ~society
psi Link ParentNo problem. Gift link.No problem. Gift link.
-
Comment on The Donald Trump US administration accidentally texted me its war plans (gifted link) in ~society
psi Link ParentI'm pretty sure giving the reporter a warning would protect both of them less. Everything about this situation already sounds like a crime; intentionally inviting someone to a conversation they...Including telling the reporter why he was invited in a DM, before inviting him.
This is the key, for me. Give the reporter a heads up to protect yourself a little.
I'm pretty sure giving the reporter a warning would protect both of them less. Everything about this situation already sounds like a crime; intentionally inviting someone to a conversation they weren't supposed to be privy to would make Waltz's action all the more criminal, thereby increasing the legal exposure of both Waltz and Goldberg. Much better to say nothing and feign ignorance (assuming this wasn't simply a genuine fuck-up).
-
Comment on America is watching the rise of a dual state in ~society
psi (edited )Link[archive link] While the article doesn't really go into this point, immigration courts (albeit to a much more limited extent compared to Nazi Germany) have always functioned as a sort of parallel...As Fraenkel explained it, a lawless dictatorship does not arise simply by snuffing out the ordinary legal system of rules, procedures, and precedents. To the contrary, that system—which he called the “normative state”—remains in place while dictatorial power spreads across society. What happens, Fraenkel explained, is insidious. Rather than completely eliminating the normative state, the Nazi regime slowly created a parallel zone in which “unlimited arbitrariness and violence unchecked by any legal guarantees” reigned freely. In this domain, which Fraenkel called the “prerogative state,” ordinary law didn’t apply. [...] In this prerogative state, judges and other legal actors deferred to the racist hierarchies and ruthless expediencies of the Nazi regime.
While the article doesn't really go into this point, immigration courts (albeit to a much more limited extent compared to Nazi Germany) have always functioned as a sort of parallel legal system. Judges in immigration courts are not Article III judges but rather appointees of the Attorney General. In some sense, this is out of necessity: the federal judiciary is slow, understaffed, and overworked, so it makes sense to have specialized courts for immigration proceedings. Unfortunately, this structure means that immigrants lack rights that most would consider fundamental -- for example, the right to counsel. Moreover, since immigration courts are run by the executive branch instead of the judiciary, it is that much easier for the process to be corrupted by the policy goals of the President.
We can also see the rise of a prerogative judiciary in other ways, such as the invocation of the Alien and Sedition Acts against Venezuelan immigrants and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 against Mahmoud Khalil, both of which bypass the normative judiciary.
In a dual state system such as Russia, both the normative and prerogative states exist simultaneously: the normative state is necessary to maintain stability and settle, for instance, non-political business disputes. However, if the regime finds the outcome of a particular case unfavorable, then the defendant can find themselves suddenly within the purview of the prerogative state. The article gives a particularly chilling example:
In at least one case, a Gestapo agent appeared as soon as the judge declared a not-guilty verdict, took the defendant into custody, and said, “Kommt nach Dachau” (“Come to Dachau”).
Personally I think this dual state model is the most straightfoward way to contextualize Trump's actions. It has two advantages:
- It fits the data.
- It doesn't require Trump to understand the underlying theory.
I think Trump, fundamentally, does not consider himself to be someone to whom the law equally applies. Rather, having lived a life of privilege, he believes that he is owned certain prerogatives ("When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything"). Even something as seemingly nonsensical as tariffs fits neatly into this framework: without any input from the rest of the government, Trump is able to carve out exemptions for friends while punishing everyone else.
-
America is watching the rise of a dual state
25 votes -
Comment on Well this terrifies me: Steve Bannon preparing for a third Donald Trump US presidency in ~society
psi (edited )LinkImagine it's 2028. The courts have been fully knee-capped following a Supreme Court ruling, siding with the Trump administration, which declares it unconstitutional for District and Circuit Courts...- Exemplary
Imagine it's 2028. The courts have been fully knee-capped following a Supreme Court ruling, siding with the Trump administration, which declares it unconstitutional for District and Circuit Courts to enjoin the government via temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions [1, 2]. Instead, the Supreme Court has decided that only the Supreme Court can place temporary restrictions against the federal government, as anything else would be an undue burden on the executive branch. But the Supreme Court, either from political opportunism or cognitive dissonance, seldom choose to restrain the Trump administration on matters of import. As a result, almost none of Trump's lawless actions over the previous four years have been even partially constrained.
The primary season is well underway. Trump, having captured the media by using the Justice Department to punish critical outlets and journalists, easily leads the race for the Republican primary. Some voters sue, arguing that it is unconstitutional for Trump to run a third term. The Supreme Court eventually takes up the question before dismissing it on procedural grounds. Trump has not been elected for a third term, they point out, but merely as their candidate; and since the RNC is a private organization, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
By the time this issue has been litigated, the primaries have ended and it has become effectively impossible to replace the candidates, lest either party suffer blowback similar to Harris in 2024. The Supreme Court recognizes as much, so when some voters again sue to have Trump stripped from the ballot, the Supreme Court again denies relief, declaring that the lawsuit is untimely and that having to replace the candidate so late in the campaign season would unfairly harm primary (i.e. Republican) voters [3].
Voter suppression efforts run parallel to the fruitless lawsuits. Some counties purge the voter rolls mere weeks before the election, with many of those affected only learning as much when they show up to vote. Other counties simply choose to invalidate large swaths of ballots for "voter fraud". In neither case does the Justice Department intervene to re-enfranchise the disenfranchised.
The majority of the country disapproves of Trump's handling of domestic and foreign affairs. They are exhausted, both mentally and financially, after years of scandals have left them feeling powerless and endless rounds of tariffs have left them poorer. Those suffering the most have become invisible: The safety net has collapsed, with the staffing of most welfare agencies gutted, the remaining staff largely unsympathetic Trump loyalists, and the few remaining decent people without enough resources to help.
Trump easily wins a third term.
-
The Trump Administration has already made versions of this argument, e.g. in J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump. Temporary restraining orders (TROs) are almost never appealable (given that they would usually expired before the appeals were briefed), yet that has not stopped this administration from attempting to bypass TROs anyway.
-
Worse yet, four of the Court's conservative members appear to be sympathetic to this interpretation. In Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, the Supreme Court (in an unsigned opinion) declared that the District Judge Amir Ali had not overstepped his bounds when he ordered USAID to disperse $2 billion dollars in unpaid work. Notably, the Supreme Court's opinion did not go into effect until after the deadline to repay, so it had essentially zero impact.
Nevertheless, Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that "a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction [does not have] the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars". Mind you, this case was about unpaid debts which the US almost certainly owed -- future cases will doubtfully have such favorable facts for the plaintiffs.
-
Or more likely, they would invent a "novel" (i.e. pretextual bullshit) ruling based on Trump v. Anderson, in which the majority held that only Congress can determine eligibility for disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment. Suppose the matter of what counts as a "term" were litigated (as Bannon suggested). If the Supreme Court were to decide this issue non-judicable (as in Trump v. Anderson), then it would require an act of Congress to clarify the matter, which would in practice mean that the matter would never be clarified.
-
Comment on For four Venezuelan friends, Alien Enemies Act cuts short an American dream in ~society
psi Link[archive link] Without any due process, Mercedes Yamarte was accused of gang membership and sent to a Salvadoran mega-prison where he is currently being denied any visitors, access to the...The four friends grew up within blocks of one another in Venezuela, playing soccer and bouncing between each other’s homes. As the nation deteriorated, they journeyed to the United States and were eking out a new life in Dallas, where they worked long hours and shared a townhouse.
Then, on Thursday, armed officers showed up at their home, arrested them and took them to a Texas detention center, Mervin Yamarte, 29, told his mother by phone. Family members do not know the charges, if any, and the men’s names do not appear in federal, state or local criminal court records.
What happened next horrified the families. Yamarte said they were asked to sign deportation papers and agreed, thinking they would soon be back with their children and loved ones in Venezuela. But a day later, his mother saw a jarring video released by Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele showing alleged gang members being violently pulled off planes from the United States and dragged to a mega-prison notorious for allegations of human rights abuses.
Without any due process, Mercedes Yamarte was accused of gang membership and sent to a Salvadoran mega-prison where he is currently being denied any visitors, access to the outdoors, and even basic necessities like a mattress or sheets. The lights in his cell never dim, and he cannot participate in any form of recreation other than 30 minutes of group exercise or reading the Bible.
Worse yet, we repeated this mistake to at least 200 other human beings. We cannot absolve ourselves of moral responsibility when we paid $6 million for their internment.
Let me quote from the Wikipedia article to emphasize the extent of our moral depravity:
Miguel Sarre, a former member of the United Nations Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture, described CECOT as a "concrete and steel pit" used to "dispose of people without formally applying the death penalty", citing that the government does not intend to release the prison's inmates. Kavan Applegate, the chairman of the International Corrections and Prisons Association's design committee, remarked that CECOT is "warehousing" people. Gustavo Fondevila, a professor of law at the Center for Economic Research and Teaching, described CECOT as a "political campaign project, the typical campaign project of pure, hard penal populism".
This is not problematic, Nazi-adjacent behavior. This is like actual Nazi-playbook shit. Trump needs to be impeached now.
-
For four Venezuelan friends, Alien Enemies Act cuts short an American dream
9 votes -
Comment on Have you ever witnessed the Butterfly Effect? in ~life
psi (edited )LinkThe butterfly's flap was a single question. My friend and I were driving around, and as a sort of off-the-cuff remark, I asked if he'd be interested in joining me at an anime convention. Honestly,...The butterfly's flap was a single question. My friend and I were driving around, and as a sort of off-the-cuff remark, I asked if he'd be interested in joining me at an anime convention. Honestly, I was almost too embarrassed to ask, as I seriously doubted he'd be interested in something so geeky. But I figured it was worth asking if not just to generate some conversation. To my surprise, my friend said yes.
The convention was out of state for him. It also coincided with the birthday of my partner's sister, which meant that I'd have to leave the convention for a bit to drop my partner off, during which time my friend would have to fend for himself. In the half hour I was gone, a woman asked if the seat next to him was free -- a single seat, in an auditorium filled with thousands. She was a regular to the convention but lived on the other end of the state. Still, she knew the best late-night hangs, so they exchanged numbers and agreed to meet up later.
My dudes, they spent that whole night pecking and grinding on each other while her friend and I awkwardly made small talk in a bar too noisy for conversation. Suffice it to say, they hit it off hard. Soon they started dating, my friend moved to her state, they got married, and now they have a child together.
-
Comment on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and US influencers bash seed oils, baffling nutrition scientists in ~food
psi Link ParentBut you don't need to wrap a potato in plastic to microwave it? That actually sound like a really bad idea? You can just... microwave the potato.But you don't need to wrap a potato in plastic to microwave it? That actually sound like a really bad idea? You can just... microwave the potato.
-
Comment on US President Donald Trump cuts short talks with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy after Oval Office blow up in ~society
psi (edited )Link ParentI disagree with your characterization of Trump's intentions. Trump is telling Zelenskyy, both in actions and words, I do not understand why we should help you. I do not understand what we gain...I disagree with your characterization of Trump's intentions. Trump is telling Zelenskyy, both in actions and words, I do not understand why we should help you. I do not understand what we gain from this arrangement. It's the reason there's even a mineral deal, which is potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars -- far more than the US has actually spent in assistance to Ukraine. Trump only sees Ukraine as an economic asset. He fundamentally does not care about (or probably even understand) its larger geopolitical history. Trump has no interest in doing the right thing because it is the right thing; his concerns are purely transactional.
Hence the "not having the cards" comment. Trump is not offering the fair market value of the aid. Rather, he's offering a shakedown: Pay-up or I'll let your country perish. But if only money talks, then how can anyone trust Trump to care about who governs the land? Russia will gladly give away Ukraine's mineral rights at a discount.
As for speculating about Zelenskyy should have done, I think the Atlantic put it best:
Might Zelensky have gotten a different outcome by taking Trump’s abuse and stream of lies with more self-abasement? Sure, it’s possible; if you reason backwards from a bad outcome, any different strategy is almost axiomatically smarter. Zelensky had no good options at the White House. He walked into an ambush with a president who empathizes with the dictator who wants to seize Ukraine’s territory. Everyone who spent years warning about Trump’s unseemly affinity for Putin had exactly this kind of disastrous outcome in mind.
There are two parts to your question, but I'll start with the second.
As you have already identified, you shouldn't rely primarily on news aggregators. I don't think it's really possible to avoid group-think -- to some extent, it's probably built into our DNA -- but you can at least avoid algorithm-driven group-think by finding articles directly from the paper's website. The most important articles will generally be the most visible.
I would also advise people to give approximately zero weight to anecdotes on social media. I don't think people appreciate enough that journalists, especially those at preeminent papers, are experts in their field; they will generally do a much better job at summarizing a complex issue than, say, some anonymous redditor. That does not mean that journalists are faultless or unbiased. But they at least sign their names to the articles they write and can be held accountable for their words. Most social media users are just parroting information from an article anyway, so you may as well just skip the game of telephone.
Finally, consider visiting the primary source if it's available. Supreme Court decisions, for instance, are often surprisingly readable.
I like the The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Atlantic. I realize people complain about the first two (for valid reasons), but they're both considered newspapers of record, and their editorial boards are considerably less obnoxious than The Wall Street Journal's. That said, of the three papers I read regularly, I would say that The Atlantic has the most thought-provoking articles; it just doesn't publish as frequently as the other two. (I realize that it sounds a bit expensive to subscribe to three newspapers, but I will let you in on a secret: you can access virtually all of The Atlantic's articles for free via their RSS feed.) I also supplement my media diet with my Google news feed, predominantly for local news coverage.