NoImmatureAdHom

> In other words, trans people can't use the bathrooms matching their gender identity.

I think trans people who "pass" can do whatever they want, and in practice it won't be an issue. I do support actual sex segregation in any area of life women will have no chance without it (like sports). The bathrooms thing is stupid, I agree.

> In other words, every academic department is susceptible to ideological litmus tests defined by the state. If Trump's white house feels like your Computer Science department has too many Democrats in it, you fix that problem or you lose your funding.

Every academic department already has really strong ideological litmus tests. It got way less intense with Trump's election, but it's still there. It's not subtle. You can be really good at what you do, but if you're religious or conservative you have no hope of getting a job in tons of fields. Sociology, for instance. It has nothing to do with how good you are at what you do, it's overt political testing. It was (in the case of many University of California schools, like Berkeley) actually the first line in hiring decisions.

> In other words, another ideological litmus test, only in this case the consequence is that foreign students can be thrown out at will.

I think this is reasonable if there's an objective standard. "Doesn't support listed terrorist organizations" is a reasonable standard. The standard should be written in.

> In other words, tenured faculty lose their right to free speech. "...in their capacity as university representatives...". So no, nobody loses his or her right to free speech. It's just that when you're acting as the mouthpiece of the University, you shouldn't be political if you want federal $. And I wholeheartedly support this. University presidents being political was a fucking disaster (see Reif at MIT).

"nonplussed" means "bewildered" or "really confused". Maybe you mean "not worried"?

If you mean "not worried", then yeah, I bet you're right that there are a bunch of things that could be entailed by the language that aren't obvious. Good point.

Compelled speech is a bright line the U.S. has, so far, managed not to cross. We should be trying as hard as we can not to cross that line.

You may not see the harm in this particular instance, but establishing "we'll just force them to say it and punish them if they don't" as a tool in any government's toolbox is a very, very bad idea.

I am affiliated and have been affiliated with several top universities, including the two in Cambridge, MA. I'm an academic. I say that because this stuff directly affects my career prospects.

The Compact itself can be found here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/1... It's short, I ask that you read it before commenting.

It's too bad MIT has taken this stance. I think the Compact is overall an obviously reasonable, good-faith effort to improve universities in the United States. The one area I'd change a bit is the specific mention of "conservative" ideas:

"...purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas."

It's entirely fair because these universities do purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas. But it's not what I'd want in such a document because next time around it could be "liberal" ideas, or "communist" ideas, or...

Everything else seems on the nose. I would hasten to remind you that the threat is not "we'll force you to do this stuff", it is "if you want federal funding, you'll do this stuff". Which seems fine to me. Much of the document is merely trying to actually enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Yes, the Biden Administration's promulgation of a Title IX interpretation that, among other things, would have compelled certain kinds of speech:

https://speechfirst.org/case/title-ix/

One example of many: it would have been a punishable offense to refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns.

I did read the Compact and had a similar response: "This all sounds very reasonable".

I think the negative reaction to it is mostly a function of who is pushing it.

Thank you!

What can we do to make sure any kind of ChatControl, not just "suspicionless", doesn't come to pass?

Where should I send my money?

¿Por qué no los dos?

That was Poles, this is Pakistanis.

It's actually not at all clear that the British colonial empire was a net positive economically. It's also not always the case that they were exploiting the people, rather than the mineral deposits etc.

It also wasn't "centuries". The British Crown ruled India (which at the time contained Pakistan and Bangladesh) for less than a century, for instance.

viz.: they let in a bunch of low-quality people, and now they have to deal with it.

encrappted

"For the purpose of preventing or detecting crime."

LOL

"For whatever the fuck we want", more like.

I don't actually know what "Antifa" is, if it is in fact anything specific (rather than, e.g., a banner used by many and disparate groups--maybe that was your concern?).

What I did mean is that declaring certain organizations to be terrorist organizations (HAMAS, Al-Qaeda, etc.) seems to be well within the remit of the executive branch.

Trump is just one man and he won't last much longer. Also, declaring "Antifa" a terrorist organization might make sense.

The U.K. is waaaaaaay further along in this direction. Wrongthink on a social media post? Jail.

They arrest 30 people a day for this: https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police...

( https://archive.is/vaCkJ )

The guy did bad things and got caught. The ridiculous wife's perspective doesn't include that he e.g. DDOS'd an employer.

In the U.S. and much of the rest of the civilized world, you have rights. This includes the right to not self-incriminate (in the U.S. that's the 5th amendment). In general, except for very specific and limited circumstances, U.S. state and federal government actors cannot compel speech (telling your encryption keys is compelled speech).

The U.K. is fast sliding down the slope to being a dystopian police state. The idea that you can be jailed for refusing to provide encryption keys (except for really specific, narrowly-defined circumstances) is something that should induce nausea. I feel for you and your country, you accomplished such great things.

It explicitly doesn't affect people who already have appointments / who are in process. Read the link.

Canadians don't need tourist visas

lol yes 100%

If it's not open source it's a trap.

Thanks for the info. I was imagining the whole world. I look a little above, and maybe it's Washington State really?

In any event:

1) Guns don't kill people. They don't even make the people-killing appreciably more likely.

2) Washington has about 1,000 gun murders per year

3) About 2/3 of U.S. gun deaths are suicides, so we might expect about 333 gun murders in WA in a year.

I'm really glad U.S. HIV deaths have fallen off a cliff!

I'd argue Mexico, Haiti, and Jamaica are facing severe public security issues because they're failed states run by the stupid and corrupt. The guns probably make it a little worse, ja.

You know, it probably kills way more than that.

HIV transmission is way higher among men who have sex with men.

They are a failed people.

Corporate death penalty

I mean...one (common and [I can't believe I'm saying this] reasonable) take is that the only thing that matters is getting to AGI first. He who wields that power rules the world.

Here's a recent take: https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-are-plants-green-to-reduc...

TLDR: Plants are running an energy-harvesting system that can only respond so quickly to changes in light input. Making use of green would cause variance to be large enough that the gains would not offset the losses. So, avoid green and have lower variance --> higher energy capture on average.

The thing that you find magical is not only actually possible but implemented and in use! What a day for you! Enjoy it, this is a rare event :-D

> The statements made in the linked description of this cannot be true, such as Google not being able to read what you sent them and not being able to read what they responded with.

The beautiful thing is: they are :-)