5 ms·
If you live outside the US, there is.
by mrhottakes 5mo ago
If you live outside the US, there is.
- idontwantthis 5mo agoIf everyone loses but you lose less than the people you don’t like, does that make you a winner?
- j_maffe 5mo agoWhen an aggressor loses their weapons, everyone else is a winner, yes.
- epistasis 5mo agoMIT is not a weapon. The scientific community is not an aggressor.
- j_maffe 5mo agoThe US is an aggressor. The research conducted in MIT and elsewhere in the US is literally used for weapons.
- DaSHacka 5mo agoIs open research a weapon? I think there are many more things the US spends its money on that could be argued to be weapons, much more convincingly than publicly accessible research.
- loudmax 5mo ago[flagged]
- KerrAvon 5mo ago[flagged]
- madars 5mo agoSpeaking as a European who did his PhD at MIT: that's destructive zero-sum thinking and "outsiders benefit" is backwards. Knowledge spillover benefits everyone - would there be ASML (Dutch) without DARPA's monumental fundamental research investment in EUV? BioNTech (German) without NIH-funded mRNA research? Without American investment this research likely wouldn't have happened or would have come a decade later.
- epistasis 5mo agoThis is exactly right, the massive benefits of sticking a bunch of people with very abstruse interests close together is basically impossible to replicate. Labs, where people interact with each other daily and every week, where there's in-person exchange and chance encounters, is pretty difficult to simulate even with chat like IRC or forums or social media. I browse science-focused social media and forums all the time. But the time spent doing that is never as good as going to a seminar presentation from somebody I've never seen before on a topic I never would have thought to investigate. The world becomes poorer when these aggregation points are disaggregated. Reducing MIT's aggregation does not increase aggregation effects elsewhere. I don't care if this happens at MIT in the US, or somewhere in Paris. Actually, I take that back, if the US continues its current authoritarian anti-open immigration policy, then I do care intensely that Paris or England or Berlin or wherever should become the center of academic innovation. Just as China's authoritarian closed policies make China unsuitable to be the academic center, Trump's authoritarian closed policies make MIT unsuitable. However Trump is weak, losing power, and in two years we can begin prosecuting all the people in his administration for their lawlessness, cruelty, and inhumanity. The US will rebuild, but it will take a while if we want to rebuild according to our constitution and laws.