3 ms·

A decent article until it devolves into skin-colour based racism at the end (the UK is predominantly white, so of course professors are too - and skin colour ha

A decent article until it devolves into skin-colour based racism at the end (the UK is predominantly white, so of course professors are too - and skin colour has nothing do with the national discrimination anyway). But really more of the world should follow the great example of Nayib Bukele in just offering full citizenship to productive scientists and engineers. Also surprised it didn't mention when Chinese nationals were banned from the 2nd Kepler Science Conference.

oceanplexian 3y ago
It devolved the minute they used the term "Global South". What do Singapore, Argentina, Dubai, China, and South Africa have in common? Literally nothing, except the racist implication that paints half of the planet with a single brush. As "third world country" isn't politically correct in 2024 we have to make up new vocabulary which is less descriptive and even more offensive.
- ametrau 3y ago
  Every country is America.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  There's "developing" and "underdeveloped". Those quite good enough for the article.
- yareal 3y ago
  Global south and third world are different concepts, and cover a different set of countries. Brazil and Chile, for instance, were first world countries that are members of the global south. Here's a summary of differences between the terms: Third World countries were countries not aligned with the first world (NATO) or second world (Warsaw Pact). The idea that third world nations were developing nations is a sort of neologism. (There were plenty of first and second world developing nations as well.) Global South was a term used in the Vietnam war era largely academically, then introduced by the UN in the 2010s to avoid judgement around "developing" nations. (What is a developing nation? We sort of understand the term, but it's not self describing. Developing what, exactly?) The global south is definitely a phenomena that shows in data, in general, the global south is much less wealthy, less politically stable, and there is less individual freedom. That much is demonstrably true, but the reasons for this are a subject of much debate. You might also debate the merit of using the term. But if the set of countries exists, what do you name that set? Developing nations? That's probably not quite right, as several members of the set are developed. Third world? Also definitely wrong. Historically confusing to boot. I don't know what else to name that set, and I've settled on global south for no other reason than that's what others seem to use. It's an imperfect name.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Mountain_Skies 3y ago
There's quite a bit of overrepresentation of engineers in terrorist groups. Simply being a scientist or engineer doesn't make you a good addition to a country, which are more than just profitable economic zones.
- mp05 3y ago
  I'd argue the terrorist engineers enjoy their jobs more than the average FAANG SWE. Upvoted.

oceanplexian 3y ago

It devolved the minute they used the term "Global South". What do Singapore, Argentina, Dubai, China, and South Africa have in common? Literally nothing, except the racist implication that paints half of the planet with a single brush. As "third world country" isn't politically correct in 2024 we have to make up new vocabulary which is less descriptive and even more offensive.

ametrau 3y ago
Every country is America.
marcosdumay 3y ago
There's "developing" and "underdeveloped". Those quite good enough for the article.
yareal 3y ago
Global south and third world are different concepts, and cover a different set of countries. Brazil and Chile, for instance, were first world countries that are members of the global south. Here's a summary of differences between the terms: Third World countries were countries not aligned with the first world (NATO) or second world (Warsaw Pact). The idea that third world nations were developing nations is a sort of neologism. (There were plenty of first and second world developing nations as well.) Global South was a term used in the Vietnam war era largely academically, then introduced by the UN in the 2010s to avoid judgement around "developing" nations. (What is a developing nation? We sort of understand the term, but it's not self describing. Developing what, exactly?) The global south is definitely a phenomena that shows in data, in general, the global south is much less wealthy, less politically stable, and there is less individual freedom. That much is demonstrably true, but the reasons for this are a subject of much debate. You might also debate the merit of using the term. But if the set of countries exists, what do you name that set? Developing nations? That's probably not quite right, as several members of the set are developed. Third world? Also definitely wrong. Historically confusing to boot. I don't know what else to name that set, and I've settled on global south for no other reason than that's what others seem to use. It's an imperfect name.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

There's quite a bit of overrepresentation of engineers in terrorist groups. Simply being a scientist or engineer doesn't make you a good addition to a country, which are more than just profitable economic zones.

mp05 3y ago
I'd argue the terrorist engineers enjoy their jobs more than the average FAANG SWE. Upvoted.