A succinct rebuttal, found on the internet.
Sunday, 28 February 2016
Friday, 26 February 2016
Scientists against the EU
Financially speaking, being in the EU is clearly good for British research - even leaving aside the less-quantifiable value of freedom of movement and collaboration which is so essential.
"In 2007-2013, the UK gave a total of 78bn euros to the EU. Of this, 5.4bn was specified to go to the EU's R&D programme. But in return, 8.8bn euros came back to the UK for R&D."
On the other hand...
"Prof Angus Dalgleish, of the University of London, is a spokesman for "Scientists For Britain". This is a group of researchers arguing the case for an EU exit."
This professor is a member of UKIP, who are led by a man who is objectively racist. I therefore don't take his opinion very seriously. Maybe he's a fine researcher, I don't know, but that doesn't stop me developing an instant and profound dislike for his political opinions.
"He is the organisation's only spokesman, he says, because arguing the case for a British exit is unfashionable in research circles, and individuals who do so, especially if they are junior, find themselves "belittled" by their superiors."
Or, maybe it's unfashionable because all of that lovely EU funding that helps British research. Being from Cardiff (which built some of the instruments for the Herschel space telescope) and having a PhD supervisor who has a £2 million European grant for analysing Herschel data, I have a somewhat biased view that the EU is good for science. Even though I have not the slightest interest in anything Herschel does nor did I receive any funding directly from the EU.
"Prof Dalgleish says that arguments in favour of the UK remaining are motivated by the "narrow self-interest" of large scientific institutions and universities that receive millions of pounds of funding from the European Union."
Might it be that he wasn't able to get a European grant himself, perhaps ? Key words, "large scientific institutions". Hence, exiting the EU will harm the majority of researchers.
A more sensible chap says :
"At a time when science is getting more collaborative, more international in scale and more tightly focussed on the big societal challenges we face - the EU is a brilliant mechanism for doing science at that scale and we would be mad to turn our backs on a mechanism for collaboration that we have painstakingly built up over 25 years or more, to return to a pre-collaborative mode in which we are going it on our own."
The EU, like any political institution, is not perfect. Sometimes it can act for political reasons rather than for what's best for science. But there's no way to avoid that, because that will happen in any arrangement, and I have yet to hear of any good examples of the EU stifling research. On the contrary, there are many scientific problems that are simply too big for us to tackle on our own and many facilities we need access to that would be much harder for us if we left the EU.
Small scale research is vital. But while the EU demonstrably enables large-scale projects like CERN and the SKA, I see no evidence that it somehow prevents smaller research projects. Both are needed, and both are enabled by the EU.
Originally shared by Jenny Winder
EU exit 'risks British science'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35668682
"In 2007-2013, the UK gave a total of 78bn euros to the EU. Of this, 5.4bn was specified to go to the EU's R&D programme. But in return, 8.8bn euros came back to the UK for R&D."
On the other hand...
"Prof Angus Dalgleish, of the University of London, is a spokesman for "Scientists For Britain". This is a group of researchers arguing the case for an EU exit."
This professor is a member of UKIP, who are led by a man who is objectively racist. I therefore don't take his opinion very seriously. Maybe he's a fine researcher, I don't know, but that doesn't stop me developing an instant and profound dislike for his political opinions.
"He is the organisation's only spokesman, he says, because arguing the case for a British exit is unfashionable in research circles, and individuals who do so, especially if they are junior, find themselves "belittled" by their superiors."
Or, maybe it's unfashionable because all of that lovely EU funding that helps British research. Being from Cardiff (which built some of the instruments for the Herschel space telescope) and having a PhD supervisor who has a £2 million European grant for analysing Herschel data, I have a somewhat biased view that the EU is good for science. Even though I have not the slightest interest in anything Herschel does nor did I receive any funding directly from the EU.
"Prof Dalgleish says that arguments in favour of the UK remaining are motivated by the "narrow self-interest" of large scientific institutions and universities that receive millions of pounds of funding from the European Union."
Might it be that he wasn't able to get a European grant himself, perhaps ? Key words, "large scientific institutions". Hence, exiting the EU will harm the majority of researchers.
A more sensible chap says :
"At a time when science is getting more collaborative, more international in scale and more tightly focussed on the big societal challenges we face - the EU is a brilliant mechanism for doing science at that scale and we would be mad to turn our backs on a mechanism for collaboration that we have painstakingly built up over 25 years or more, to return to a pre-collaborative mode in which we are going it on our own."
The EU, like any political institution, is not perfect. Sometimes it can act for political reasons rather than for what's best for science. But there's no way to avoid that, because that will happen in any arrangement, and I have yet to hear of any good examples of the EU stifling research. On the contrary, there are many scientific problems that are simply too big for us to tackle on our own and many facilities we need access to that would be much harder for us if we left the EU.
Small scale research is vital. But while the EU demonstrably enables large-scale projects like CERN and the SKA, I see no evidence that it somehow prevents smaller research projects. Both are needed, and both are enabled by the EU.
Originally shared by Jenny Winder
EU exit 'risks British science'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35668682
Thursday, 25 February 2016
Basic income would make everything simpler
At least that's what this graph I found on the internet says.
Here I am on the political compass
I'm waaaay down there in the green.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-8.0&soc=-6.46
Originally shared by Ralph H.
Hmmm, ok, i should not be surprised, should i?
ps: -6/-6 or something like that
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-8.0&soc=-6.46
Originally shared by Ralph H.
Hmmm, ok, i should not be surprised, should i?
ps: -6/-6 or something like that
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
Wealthism is immoral
Sharing this again since Parliament has decided to debate it. Hooray !
If you missed it the first time, this is about the madcap idea that we should deport skilled workers earning less than £35k if they've been here for more than 5 years. Yes, specifically skilled workers. The average UK salary is around £25k, so this is a very high threshold. For comparison, as a starting postdoc (minimum 7 years of higher education) I would expect around £24-28k, so this is by no means an easy threshold to meet.
The government already responded to the petition, which you can read in the link, stating that the threshold was based on the median pay level for skilled workers. Well, maybe, but I doubt this is the same in the private and public sector. They also state that there are many provisions for people in certain jobs - and there are. But there are also jobs which fall very close to but are not quite the same as these rigidly-defined boundaries. They also claim that they made the rules clear in 2011, but this does not appear to have been the case.
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/these-are-the-people-who-will-have-to-leave-the-uk-under-theresa-mays-new-35k-threshold--bJBWsHvcYnx
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/118060
If you missed it the first time, this is about the madcap idea that we should deport skilled workers earning less than £35k if they've been here for more than 5 years. Yes, specifically skilled workers. The average UK salary is around £25k, so this is a very high threshold. For comparison, as a starting postdoc (minimum 7 years of higher education) I would expect around £24-28k, so this is by no means an easy threshold to meet.
The government already responded to the petition, which you can read in the link, stating that the threshold was based on the median pay level for skilled workers. Well, maybe, but I doubt this is the same in the private and public sector. They also state that there are many provisions for people in certain jobs - and there are. But there are also jobs which fall very close to but are not quite the same as these rigidly-defined boundaries. They also claim that they made the rules clear in 2011, but this does not appear to have been the case.
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/these-are-the-people-who-will-have-to-leave-the-uk-under-theresa-mays-new-35k-threshold--bJBWsHvcYnx
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/118060
Tuesday, 23 February 2016
The 13 kt explosion that no-one cared about
Originally shared by Vladimir Pecha
The biggest fireball since the Chelyabinsk explosion has plunged through the atmosphere over the Atlantic Ocean.
The event, which has only just come to light, occurred off the coast of Brazil at 13:55 GMT on 6 February.
As it burned up, the space rock released the equivalent of 13,000 tonnes of TNT.
This makes it the most powerful event of its kind since an object exploded over Chelyabinsk in Russia in 2013.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35645854
The biggest fireball since the Chelyabinsk explosion has plunged through the atmosphere over the Atlantic Ocean.
The event, which has only just come to light, occurred off the coast of Brazil at 13:55 GMT on 6 February.
As it burned up, the space rock released the equivalent of 13,000 tonnes of TNT.
This makes it the most powerful event of its kind since an object exploded over Chelyabinsk in Russia in 2013.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35645854
What has the EU ever done for us ?
EDIT : Although where they get "70 years" from I don't know. The EU was officially created in 1993, although the EEC was born in 1958. That's still not even 60 years.
One might however say that the idea of European union with a lowercase u has been important for 70 years.
Found on the internet.
Monday, 22 February 2016
Fair and just rewards
Interesting.
I think I probably strive for the middle position. No-one deserves to be penniless or homeless, but I don't believe in rewarding people unfairly either. If you're just no good at your job, you probably shouldn't be doing it. I just think our society is too unequal, and while I also think it rewards the wrong people, I think right now it's more important to reduce the magnitude of the overall inequality level.
If you must pay actors more than doctors, at least don't pay them that much more. But total equality isn't any fairer than total inequality, in my view - you shouldn't pay an incompetent surgeon as much as a good one. Equality of opportunity is paramount, but precisely because people have different abilities, it shouldn't mean everyone ends up earning the same. Neither should it mean that anyone gets thrown in the gutter.
An Universal Basic Income would partially resolve this paradox. No-one would ever end up destitute but you would still be rewarded for good work. It would still be possible to win, but very much harder to lose. Unfortunately, so "radical" is the idea that everyone is entitled to live with dignity, it's probably impossible to predict what that consequences would be on a large-scale. More testing is urgently needed.
Originally shared by Yonatan Zunger
This short essay talks about two different movements within the left, "left meritocrats" and "left egalitarians." It seems to quite clearly capture the heart of the difference between Clinton's and Sanders' viewpoints. (It doesn't advocate for either, it simply helps clarify the difference)
The one thing which surprises me about this is that it implies that "left egalitarians" – those who believe that the very existence of social strata is a moral wrong – are roughly as numerous as "left meritocrats" – those who believe that the existence of wealth is fine, but there should be equality of opportunity. I suspect that within the US, meritocrats outnumber egalitarians by a large ratio. (NB that while Sanders himself is undoubtedly a "left egalitarian," by this definition, I suspect that many of his supporters ultimately aren't, but see his egalitarianism as a way towards a meritocratic end)
Honestly, prior to this election season, it had been so long since I heard anyone advocate honest-to-god old-school Socialism – not the stuff you normally see described as "European Socialism," with having generally available medicine and schools and such, but the real thing, starting from a principled opposition to one person having more than another – that it took a while to click that this was even what I was seeing.
(For those wondering who I'm supporting in this coming election, by the way: I'm still wondering that as well. I have profound concerns with every single candidate. All I know for certain is that there are two candidates I will be voting against, namely Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. The former is a theocrat, fundamentally opposed to working with people who disagree with him, and has the single most asinine tax plan I've seen in years. The latter is indistinguishable from a Nazi. This post should by no means be taken as a political endorsement.)
http://mattbruenig.com/2016/02/21/meritocrats-and-egalitarians/
I think I probably strive for the middle position. No-one deserves to be penniless or homeless, but I don't believe in rewarding people unfairly either. If you're just no good at your job, you probably shouldn't be doing it. I just think our society is too unequal, and while I also think it rewards the wrong people, I think right now it's more important to reduce the magnitude of the overall inequality level.
If you must pay actors more than doctors, at least don't pay them that much more. But total equality isn't any fairer than total inequality, in my view - you shouldn't pay an incompetent surgeon as much as a good one. Equality of opportunity is paramount, but precisely because people have different abilities, it shouldn't mean everyone ends up earning the same. Neither should it mean that anyone gets thrown in the gutter.
An Universal Basic Income would partially resolve this paradox. No-one would ever end up destitute but you would still be rewarded for good work. It would still be possible to win, but very much harder to lose. Unfortunately, so "radical" is the idea that everyone is entitled to live with dignity, it's probably impossible to predict what that consequences would be on a large-scale. More testing is urgently needed.
Originally shared by Yonatan Zunger
This short essay talks about two different movements within the left, "left meritocrats" and "left egalitarians." It seems to quite clearly capture the heart of the difference between Clinton's and Sanders' viewpoints. (It doesn't advocate for either, it simply helps clarify the difference)
The one thing which surprises me about this is that it implies that "left egalitarians" – those who believe that the very existence of social strata is a moral wrong – are roughly as numerous as "left meritocrats" – those who believe that the existence of wealth is fine, but there should be equality of opportunity. I suspect that within the US, meritocrats outnumber egalitarians by a large ratio. (NB that while Sanders himself is undoubtedly a "left egalitarian," by this definition, I suspect that many of his supporters ultimately aren't, but see his egalitarianism as a way towards a meritocratic end)
Honestly, prior to this election season, it had been so long since I heard anyone advocate honest-to-god old-school Socialism – not the stuff you normally see described as "European Socialism," with having generally available medicine and schools and such, but the real thing, starting from a principled opposition to one person having more than another – that it took a while to click that this was even what I was seeing.
(For those wondering who I'm supporting in this coming election, by the way: I'm still wondering that as well. I have profound concerns with every single candidate. All I know for certain is that there are two candidates I will be voting against, namely Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. The former is a theocrat, fundamentally opposed to working with people who disagree with him, and has the single most asinine tax plan I've seen in years. The latter is indistinguishable from a Nazi. This post should by no means be taken as a political endorsement.)
http://mattbruenig.com/2016/02/21/meritocrats-and-egalitarians/
Sunday, 21 February 2016
Appearances aren't always deceptive
Unfortunately, Michael Gove is a man who looks as stupid as he is.
Originally shared by Joerg Fliege
The 'Out' campaigners of the UK EU-exit referendum have chosen Michael Gove as their intellectual poster child. Gove has promptly released a statement of why he is in the 'Out' camp.
Its so full of lies and exaggeration, one wonders what comes next.
(Found in a private share.)
https://medium.com/idea-of-europe/why-michael-gove-is-wrong-on-europe-479b50c5f23b#.vm6fi67tr
Originally shared by Joerg Fliege
The 'Out' campaigners of the UK EU-exit referendum have chosen Michael Gove as their intellectual poster child. Gove has promptly released a statement of why he is in the 'Out' camp.
Its so full of lies and exaggeration, one wonders what comes next.
(Found in a private share.)
https://medium.com/idea-of-europe/why-michael-gove-is-wrong-on-europe-479b50c5f23b#.vm6fi67tr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)