Yup. I’m glad to see the python foundation making it clear that they are taking a stance as a matter of principle, but this hits the nail on the head even if it were a totally amoral business...
Exemplary
"Part of the problem here is all the uncertainties," Crary told us. "Even if we wanted to give up anything that might be considered [DEI] work - which we don't - part of the risk here is that all these restrictions are new, the language is very broad ... I had no interest in being the test case."
To make matters worse, the terms included a provision that if the PSF was found to have voilated that anti-DEI diktat, the NSF reserved the right to claw back any previously disbursed funds, Crary explained.
Yup. I’m glad to see the python foundation making it clear that they are taking a stance as a matter of principle, but this hits the nail on the head even if it were a totally amoral business making the decision.
You can’t make significant financial decisions based on a buzzword from a government that’s shown zero consistency and no willingness to act in accordance with the law. You really, really can’t make them if that government also has the power to take the money back after you’ve spent it if you do something to piss them off. Or if the commander in chief happens to see an AI generated video that pisses him off and has a word in it that sounds vaguely like the name of your organisation, for that matter.
This is why corrupt states don’t work. It’s not just a moral issue (but it is a big moral issue too), it’s a practical one. Business only works if there’s trust. Finance only works if there’s trust. And if the people enforcing that trust are the ones trying to fuck you over, the whole system crumbles.
I completely agree. Markets abhor instability. Back when America's leaders used to be smart, they understood that the backbone of America's might was international trade, which was one of the...
I completely agree. Markets abhor instability. Back when America's leaders used to be smart, they understood that the backbone of America's might was international trade, which was one of the reasons your military got so big. Playing world police and keeping far away places safe was and still is interlocked with your own profits. Isolation is only going to lead to economic downfall.
That being said, markets don't necessarily need to be free to expand and grow. They just need stability. China got incredibly big even though it is not a free country, and there is significant corruption involved and getting any business off the ground, as the state plays a role in everything. But it is a stable country, human rights abuses be damned.
It's less "in spite of not being free" and more especially because some places are not free. Authoritarianism is rewarded by institutions like the IMF because unpopular market reforms can stick...
It's less "in spite of not being free" and more especially because some places are not free. Authoritarianism is rewarded by institutions like the IMF because unpopular market reforms can stick for years which is less likely to happen in liberal democracies. Example; investors until the last election were spooked about Argentina despite Milei being an IMF simp who is making Argentina amenable to markets, because all it takes is one bad election cycle to undo his reforms.
You can be corrupt and authoritarian, but being capricious or inconsistent is a death knell. Unfortunately it appears the current US administration is all four.
good for them. I could be wrong, but I think $1.5m is roughly 1/2 of their actual revenue. I know its bold to say, but this administration is not very good.
good for them. I could be wrong, but I think $1.5m is roughly 1/2 of their actual revenue.
I know its bold to say, but this administration is not very good.
It is a huge chunk of their revenue, yes. They appear to have made $160k in unqualified donations because of this decision though. Not nearly as much but you know. They stuck by their principles...
It is a huge chunk of their revenue, yes. They appear to have made $160k in unqualified donations because of this decision though. Not nearly as much but you know. They stuck by their principles and I really appreciate it.
Looking at their financials and expenses (pages 24 and 25 respectively) it looks like their annual conference costs roughly 1.5 million USD more than it raises in revenue. So perhaps cutting that...
Looking at their financials and expenses (pages 24 and 25 respectively) it looks like their annual conference costs roughly 1.5 million USD more than it raises in revenue. So perhaps cutting that back, shutting it down completely or raising ticket prices could account for the income loss.
The bigger issue that I can see that many of their highest tier sponsors are also American companies that may capitulate to the American government such as Meta and Nvidia and withdraw their funding. Both firms have already capitulated in other ways to the Trump administration.
According to the blog post from the PSF, this was a completely new grant for them; they didn't have this $1.5 million before. They're losing out on funds they wanted to use on some fairly...
According to the blog post from the PSF, this was a completely new grant for them; they didn't have this $1.5 million before. They're losing out on funds they wanted to use on some fairly expensive projects, but they aren't losing any resources they already had.
Python has always been a great example of DEI, one example Maarten van Rossums personal commitment to getting women as core maintainers which started PyLadies. The Python documentary tells that...
Python has always been a great example of DEI, one example Maarten van Rossums personal commitment to getting women as core maintainers which started PyLadies. The Python documentary tells that story well.
Yup. I’m glad to see the python foundation making it clear that they are taking a stance as a matter of principle, but this hits the nail on the head even if it were a totally amoral business making the decision.
You can’t make significant financial decisions based on a buzzword from a government that’s shown zero consistency and no willingness to act in accordance with the law. You really, really can’t make them if that government also has the power to take the money back after you’ve spent it if you do something to piss them off. Or if the commander in chief happens to see an AI generated video that pisses him off and has a word in it that sounds vaguely like the name of your organisation, for that matter.
This is why corrupt states don’t work. It’s not just a moral issue (but it is a big moral issue too), it’s a practical one. Business only works if there’s trust. Finance only works if there’s trust. And if the people enforcing that trust are the ones trying to fuck you over, the whole system crumbles.
I completely agree. Markets abhor instability. Back when America's leaders used to be smart, they understood that the backbone of America's might was international trade, which was one of the reasons your military got so big. Playing world police and keeping far away places safe was and still is interlocked with your own profits. Isolation is only going to lead to economic downfall.
That being said, markets don't necessarily need to be free to expand and grow. They just need stability. China got incredibly big even though it is not a free country, and there is significant corruption involved and getting any business off the ground, as the state plays a role in everything. But it is a stable country, human rights abuses be damned.
It's less "in spite of not being free" and more especially because some places are not free. Authoritarianism is rewarded by institutions like the IMF because unpopular market reforms can stick for years which is less likely to happen in liberal democracies. Example; investors until the last election were spooked about Argentina despite Milei being an IMF simp who is making Argentina amenable to markets, because all it takes is one bad election cycle to undo his reforms.
You can be corrupt and authoritarian, but being capricious or inconsistent is a death knell. Unfortunately it appears the current US administration is all four.
good for them. I could be wrong, but I think $1.5m is roughly 1/2 of their actual revenue.
I know its bold to say, but this administration is not very good.
It is a huge chunk of their revenue, yes. They appear to have made $160k in unqualified donations because of this decision though. Not nearly as much but you know. They stuck by their principles and I really appreciate it.
Just donated!
Looking at their financials and expenses (pages 24 and 25 respectively) it looks like their annual conference costs roughly 1.5 million USD more than it raises in revenue. So perhaps cutting that back, shutting it down completely or raising ticket prices could account for the income loss.
The bigger issue that I can see that many of their highest tier sponsors are also American companies that may capitulate to the American government such as Meta and Nvidia and withdraw their funding. Both firms have already capitulated in other ways to the Trump administration.
According to the blog post from the PSF, this was a completely new grant for them; they didn't have this $1.5 million before. They're losing out on funds they wanted to use on some fairly expensive projects, but they aren't losing any resources they already had.
Python has always been a great example of DEI, one example Maarten van Rossums personal commitment to getting women as core maintainers which started PyLadies. The Python documentary tells that story well.