You could argue peer review has become a mechanism to encourage incrementalism. That it doesn’t reward big leaps. And the public isn’t getting ROI on science funding compared to 50 years ago.
Peer review is a closed system of expertise that doesn’t let you challenge the core tenants - some might say theology - of the field. It’s basically a cartel for keeping a field of study alive, regardless of its value. True innovation happens when people collaborate outside their fields.
Steelman aside, there probably are better ways to solve this problem systematically than just let a politically appointee have final say. If we were serious about this problem, smart people thinking about scientific policy probably have some great ideas that are not being listened to.
The thing about this is it’s incredibly easy for a denied institution to claim legal standing to challenge the governments scientific funding decisions. The institutions that get funds (universities) are well resourced. Society in general seems gradually less tolerant of trying to appease Trump - so they will likely sue instead of appease.
So they’ll be sued. The theories will be tested and we’ll see exactly where the line is (eventually). And probably somewhere uncomfortable, given SCOTUS.
There are legitimate ways agency political appointees can set funding priorities. Like this year we’ll focus on Alzheimer’s. But of course, we should take the least charitable reading of this - that it’ll likely be used for shenanigans. Punish enemies. Award cronies. Go after junk science, etc.
As the article says, legal action up to this point has been based on the fact that the government created policies that didn't follow its own rules under, for example, the Administrative Procedures Act.
So now the administration is attempting to follow those rules to create these new procedures, which they believe will then be lawful.
If they are successful, challenges would have to be made judicially based on non-procedural grounds, or through Congress.
Yes, but even following APA, the order doesn't have the strength of statute.
They can follow APA to come up with all kinds of illegal rules. And the actual rules are so broad they could be used from anything sane to something that might be just political revenge.
The actual language:
> “As part of the merit review process, Federal agencies must perform pre-issuance reviews to ensure that Federal award proposals selected for funding are consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest.”
They are regulating the companies. Apple, Google, and Microsoft are companies.
Desktop and mobile Linux is an extreme niche and alternatives to Linux are practically nonexistent. I'm not surprised law makers might not have known that there are operating systems not made by for-profit companies.
Not only is changing laws harder. Changing regulations requires following the Administrative Procedure Act. They might also be short circuiting APA - as in typical for this admin to attempt.
What part of this memo changes the regulations? The punchline is this: “Where adjustment of status is in the discretion of USCIS, officers are reminded that they are to consider all relevant factors and information in the totality of the circumstances in exercising that
discretion.”
All the memo is saying is reminding USCIS officers that adjustment of status is an act of administrative grace and applicants aren’t entitled to have their status adjusted. That’s always been true.
That is what the memo is trying to say. That no regulations or laws are changing, but it's simply pushing for a certain interpretation of the law that doesn't seem to have been the status quo for awhile.
Some stats I found online report that ~60% of greencards are granted to people already living the US. This memo makes it seem like that route will now be much harder. So while its true that the law as written has always been true, they're definitely pushing for a change that will result in past behaviors no longer being true.
Except it is completely contrary to how the immigration system has worked in the US for decades. It is absolutely standard for people who are already in the US on other types of visas to apply for Green Cards.
More like he's been given a political mandate to be needlessly cruel to non-citizens, and he's constantly finding new ways to do so - whether legal or illegal.
The latest move even forces spouses of US citizens to leave the country before they can apply for a Green Card. Why? No reason except spite. Hating on foreigners is good politics.
And then all sorts of people will come out of the woodwork to try to explain that this is all normal and fine, and that nobody should be upset by it.
The last time the U.S. had this level of foreign born population, it enacted extremely restrictive immigration laws and the foreign born population dropped from 15% to under 5%.
> Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades.
The law was marketed to voters as a temporary worker program. That’s not what it ended up being. That’s the bait and switch.
> Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politic
The immigration restriction was necessary to Americanize the immigrants culturally and dissolve their foreign identities and affinity for their own cultural groups. It was fairly successful, too!
It’s bizarre to have to explain this concept on HN. Silicon Valley companies spend so much time on culture and fit, and with good reason. Cultivating a successful culture is extremely important. It’s curation, not “xenophobia.”
The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution.
The attempt by Trump and his supporters (yourself included) to replace that American identity with a xenophobic, exclusionary identity is a major deviation from traditional American values.
> The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution.
Insofar as America has a "civic creed," it's principles like limited government, federalism, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty.[1] We know that, because America's founders were prolific writers and wrote down everything they thought was important: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
It's definitely not immigration. Here's Alexander Hamilton on immigration: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie... ("The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.")
Alexander Hamilton thought you needed a "common national sentiment," "uniformity of principles and habits," and "love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family." Hamilton would have hated Mamdani.
> We know that, because America's founders were prolific writers (...)
Every single one of them was an immigrant. I mean, check the country's history.
By the way, the current US administration is questioning the legal principle which would support the idea that the founding fathers or even their descendants were citizens.
> It's definitely not immigration.
You have a massive statue at the gateway to your biggest city with a big ass plaque stating "give us your tired huddled masses".
It is the symbol of the country.
Are we so desperate to whitewash this mess to even dare to gaslight about such a fundamental topic?
Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist. He's hardly the single authority on what American values are.
If we're playing the "what did the founders think?" game, then I'll see your Hamilton and raise you a Washington [0]:
> The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights & previleges, if by decency & propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.
And then I'll double down with a Jefferson [1]:
> and shall we refuse to the unhappy fugitives from distress, that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? the constitution indeed has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a residence shall be required, sufficient to develope character and design. but might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bonâ fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?
And of course, the most famous statement of the American attitude towards immigration:
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
> With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
> I'll see your Hamilton and raise you a Washington [0]
If America can be defined in terms of a "creedo"--which is your position, not mine--then surely that creedo can't include things that architects of the country like Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed on? The creedo must be the things they had in common, like federalism, republicanism, and property rights?
> And of course, the most famous statement of the American attitude towards immigration:
The American creedo cannot logically be defined by some poem some activist wrote a century after the founding.
Jefferson is much closer to the American credo than Hamilton was, though the United States did not remain stuck in the 1770s-1790s, so it's just a fallacy to treat the founders as the sole source of American identity.
But if you do want to play the founders game, Jefferson had a much larger impact on American self-identity than Hamilton. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, created the Democratic Party, which is the only party that has survived throughout all of American history, and championed the idea of democracy, which Hamilton was highly skeptical of. Hamilton was a monarchist, as I mentioned before. He had a major impact on the American financial system, but was much less successful as a political figure in his own right and did not shape American cultural and political identity in the way Jefferson did. His political party collapsed within 20 years, and his conceptions of an elite politics were overtaken by the rapid democratization of the US.
There have always been minority streams in American politics that have been xenophobic and have opposed immigration - you just happen to belong to the latest one. But these movements have consistently lost out over the course of American history. Successive waves of immigration have brought new groups to the United States. Xenophobes like yourself have constantly said that every new group would ruin America. The Irish didn't ruin America. Neither did the Germans. Neither did the Italians. Giving African Americans civil rights didn't ruin America. Chinese and Indian people haven't ruined America. Haitians aren't ruining America.
You seem to have some sort of obsession with Mamdani, which is weird, since he's as American as Apple Pie. It's actually difficult to think of anything about Mamdani that comes across as particularly foreign. He speaks perfect American English. He acts just like any other progressive New Yorker. He's extremely hooked into American culture. What, exactly, is it about Mamdani that's foreign or dangerous to America?
When you ask what makes immigration part of the American credo, this is what does that: the US is not a country founded on any ethnic identity. It's a country founded and peopled by immigrants, whose only common identity is belief in the American project, which is defined in purely secular and civic terms. Throughout its history, immigrants from all over the world have embraced that identity and have been rapidly incorporated into the society of the country. You don't like that, and want to undo it. Too bad.
> principles like limited government, federalism, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty.
A laundry-list of principles the current federal Republican regime has been destroying or violating the last two years, and surely each one far more important than (non-)immigration.
It started by abusing the responsibility of "immigration" to violate the First Amendment, punishing people purely for op-eds and opinions the President didn't like. [0] Then he unilaterally declared an "invasion" by a Venezuelan street gang, using that as an excuse to round up dozens of people (without charges, let alone evidence) based on a crazy "any tattoo I can't recognize" rubric (for a gang that doesn't even use tattoos) and violating court orders to deliberately ship them into a third-world dictator's brutal gulag. [1]
That was, what, just the first month? We've had dozens of other things that ought to have been scandals worse than Watergate since then.
> Hamilton would have hated Mamdani.
Hamilton would have embraced Mamdani as a brother, if the alternative was Trump having any position of public trust.
Discussing immigration, it seems a little strange to target the mayor of a particular single city, instead of the enormous cartload of impeachable offenses being committed by the highest office of the land that actually does immigration stuff.
> Hamilton would have embraced Mamdani as a brother
No. Hamilton was very worried about immigrants bringing foreign social and political views to the U.S. Jefferson, meanwhile, though the immigrants would support the Democratic Party, and favored those radical ideas. It's the same debate we have today: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie.... Hamilton was the MAGA of his day.
That's unfair to Hamilton: There's huge difference between "kinda wanted a kingly system" versus "would have approved of that becoming king while breaking the rules of a different system."
> on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice
If that includes Russian and Hungarian influence, Mamdani is waaaay closer to that then the JD Vance, Trump and the rest of Putin + Orban loving group.
In fact Mamdani and left are way closer to having actual consistent values they operate on, positive national sentiment then the above gentlemen. The right is in the process of destroying to values and replacing them with wast amount of corruption on the oligarchs sake.
> and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found
The people you promote hate America as it is. Their literal project is to destroy it and rebuild completely different feudal setup - the one based on suppression and violence.
> to be closely connected with birth, education, and family
It is again right who is trying to destroy education and to modify family into mini dictatorship where connection does not matter, because you will do as ordered of punished.
not just de facto standard and not just in the US, it's a logical way to intepret the laws, in many western countries. The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America. It makes no sense for people to have to leave the country to apply for permanent resident, and be treated like all those to-be immigrants who have never lived in America.
> The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America
The law should do what it was designed to do. The H1 system reflects a compromise between people who wanted skilled workers and those who didn’t want foreigners becoming permanent residents. So the compromise was a temporary worker program where most people would go home afterwards.
The law should be interpreted to give effect to that compromise. Your approach of streamlining immigration wipes away that compromise.
One thing with this policy, its not all green card seekers, its those deemed to be under temporary visas (student, tourist, etc). Apparently these comprise the majority of applicants, but not nesc. the majority of those granted green cards (family, longer term workers, etc).
I'm not defending the policy, but I think that's one nuance being lost.
This is by the way how the defense was treated for decades as well. US resisted the EU from building a formidable army, instead they preferred a vassal state defense, enough to deter others from messing with Europe, not enough for Europe to be independent, and buying almost exclusively from US defense companies propping up US military R&D and financing factories during peacetime.
Now that the US has pivoted to Asia since Obama, they expect the EU to fill the gap they leave behind. But that’s new, the US wanted it exactly like it was pre 2014 or so.
If you think about it in terms of game theory that is actually a fair approach - you have an ally, you propose a best-case path forward for the alliance where both members are strong. If the ally don't want to take that path then you exploit the ally instead since a technically incompetent ally is a liability who needs to be kept under tight control.
To take advantage of AI orgs needs to optimize for giving humans broader agency, not AI usage or skills.
These large companies aren’t well positioned for this. There’s too many human bottlenecks to every decision. You get in trouble for going outside your role. Thats why AI is drudgery at many of these places, often even negative productive.
Smaller companies though started assuming AI will let their employees stretch to broader roles, wear many hats, and given larger agency
You could argue peer review has become a mechanism to encourage incrementalism. That it doesn’t reward big leaps. And the public isn’t getting ROI on science funding compared to 50 years ago.
Peer review is a closed system of expertise that doesn’t let you challenge the core tenants - some might say theology - of the field. It’s basically a cartel for keeping a field of study alive, regardless of its value. True innovation happens when people collaborate outside their fields.
Steelman aside, there probably are better ways to solve this problem systematically than just let a politically appointee have final say. If we were serious about this problem, smart people thinking about scientific policy probably have some great ideas that are not being listened to.
reply