You act like this is a private conversation. I'm addressing not just you but anyone that happens along to read this thread. If this were a private conversation then I'd have responded differently.

The article you linked to pointed to Harvard being accused of protecting antisemitic policies. Also in the article was a claim that the accusations of antisemitism was not connected to the research, which is kind of hard to believe. Dollars are fungible, if Harvard is in any way protecting people that discriminate based on race, sex, religion, or other protected classes, then that should be cause to pull funds regardless of where they were intended to end up in the university.

If the White House is barred from pulling funds because they are going to an institution that is breaking rules on freedom of religion then that's a really bad place to be. Maybe Harvard is innocent of antisemitic policies but there's been plenty of other acts of the Harvard administration that is concerning. Wasn't there a lawsuit Harvard lost because they restricted admissions to those with Asian ancestry? I'm quite certain that happened.

If any university can hide behind some kind of separation between research funds and admission policies then the administration is toothless to protect students from unconstitutional discrimination. There are laws against racial discrimination. Harvard broke the rules, and tried to claim there was some kind of separation between the funds and their discriminatory policies. I'm pretty sure that admission policies will impact who gets to perform this federally funded research at Harvard.

How Harvard thought they could get away with this bullshit is mind boggling. Anyone defending Harvard on this is just as boggling. Are you really going to defend Harvard for being caught practicing racism and antisemitism? How can you consider this unrelated to DEI?

That's all modern big companies do. Go rent seeking with Big Brother backing you up. These guys suck. The only worse situation is a place like the EU where they don't have nearly the comparative depth in tech-companies and since they've got such a highly regulated market, fewer folks want to start companies nor invent new things, though smaller EU countries like Finland and Sweden show high per-capita innovation. Even the innovation in the US is largely over (just by the stats), but the highly productive previous decades going back to the 1950's still has the USA pretty far ahead overall. However, if we keep going the way we are going, we'll have just as many faggots here shutting down our markets and regulating the US to death. We won't keep that advantage.

Reminds me of Elon Musk facing the conflicting requirements from the Biden administration that SpaceX was to hire some percentage of immigrants/aliens or face punishment, and the requirement from the DOD/DOE/etc. that prohibits non-citizens from having access to technology concerning anything that could be remotely considered a weapon delivery system like a rocket that can reach orbit. SpaceX chose to hire only citizens and so faced fines for it. Musk was not pleased about this, and stated such publicly. I can only suspect what was going through his mind. I guess he chose to pay the fine than try to fight this in court and take on more costs with lawyers and such.

I have to wonder if Microsoft faced the same conflicting requirements and chose to employ non-citizens and hope nobody noticed that this violated the rules on international trade in arms so as to avoid those fines. I'll stress that I'm guessing on what was going on, I'm just pointing to a possible parallel in conflicting rules with SpaceX. I'm also guessing that some rule or regulation was broken, maybe not but it looks bad regardless.

This is still only about 8 months since Biden left the White House, we could still face some of the same issues of conflicting rules from the White House. How long has this gone on? Who thought this was a good idea? Maybe if this was contracted out to some "5 eyes" nation there would be some justification on foreign employees but that's still something that should cause concern.

That said, the worry about microplastics is the particles can be quite a bit smaller than smoke or dust. Small enough that our lung linings can't block them.

I have no idea how much of a worry that is because, y'know, context and numeracy. If each lung cell absorbs one particle every 10 years, is that really a worry? Maybe it is, maybe not. And if it can be shown to cause problems, how bad are those problems compared to other things (like food borne diseases transmitted by re-used glass containers or infectious diseases spreading because of vaccine hesitancy)?

My understanding, and I live in the Bay Area, is most of the central valley air pollution is from farm equipment exhaust, agricultural petrochemicals, and particulate matter from burning field chaff. Air in the coastal cities is actually pretty clean.

I may gripe about gas prices here but our special formulations seem to have cleaned the air up.

I respectfully suggest you're way off. Any air pollution generated in China would need to cross 6,000 miles of open ocean. By the time it arrives here, it's thoroughly mixed and diluted with the ambient air. Given the global air currents, it might not even arrive in California, the jet stream arching through Alaska and Canada before it reaches the left coast.

SCOTUS upheld the rules out of the Trump administration to withhold funds where "equity" was part of the proposal. SCOTUS considers any discrimination based on race or sex as unconstitutional, including "equity" and "reverse discrimination" in any application for federal funds.

A search of the web with "equity scotus" as the search prompt got a number of results on how removing of the funds by the administration was not only legal but it would be unconstitutional to continue providing funds. This was a 5-4 decision, but still in favor of upholding the ideals of removing discrimination based on race and sex regardless. I would have liked more justices of the court signing an opinion in favor of removing unconstitutional discrimination from federal funding but it is still a win.

I can recall people getting very upset that Trump nominated a successor to "the notorious RBG" upon her death. Well, elections have consequences. Apparently so does the timing of justices leaving SCOTUS. RBG was warned about who might succeed her if her health failed when there was a POTUS in office that didn't agree with her politics. She was in poor health for some time so retiring while Obama was in the White House would have not appeared out of the ordinary, and would have served her ideals well. Well, things didn't work out for those that have a distaste for Trump's policies. That's assuming that whomever Obama would have appointed would have decided against Trump. There's no knowing for sure on how opinions land based on who made the nomination. I know Chief Justice Roberts hasn't been a reliable vote for Republican policies.

Those don't exist.

Name one. Try it.

Anything you come up with will be rapidly "aktually-ed" to some Frenchman or German, or whatever, that got denied the fame he supposedly deserved, or panned as a "net negative," or both.

We'll call that Tailhook's Rule.

I'm sure that Trump supporters could argue this is a far simpler matter of cutting back federal spending. I have my own theories on what's going on but I'll keep them to myself for now. My larger point is that with reduced funds to universities from the federal government we have less influence on American education from politicians on what is taught. Government funds have strings attached, just like corporate funds have strings attached. I don't want education based off which political party got the most votes in November. If there's to be strings attached to university funding then I believe it's best that it be based on which ideas produce the best economic output.

Really? You've never heard of ROTC? GI Bill? I assume you've taken some classes at a university. None of your classmates attended while in a military uniform? You didn't see posters or something on campus advertising how military service can pay off student loans? On top of that are a number of state government run programs for funding a college education. I can recall scholarships to pay for people willing to be school teachers in Alaska. I recall similar programs for teachers in states like Illinois and Michigan.

Oh, and I do live in the USA. Didn't I mention in another comment that I live in the Midwest USA? I don't want to be more specific than that, it's lead to people calling me at home and sending me letters in the mail. That got me spooked about indicating where I live.

It's because my dad talked about how his time in the Army National Guard meant he got a paycheck, an education, clothes, food, medical care, and set him up for success as a dairy farmer. Many of my uncles served too as there was compulsory service at the time, and they shared similar stories of their service leading to a good life. One uncle had his cancer treatments paid for by the federal government because he served in the military, treatment that he could not afford otherwise. I remembered those stories and so enlisted myself when the time felt right.

The military has been a federal jobs program for a long time, since at least World War Two. Military service meant money for college, training in a number of valued skills, as well as clothes, food, shelter, and so forth for a few years so people could save up money for starting a business or for buying a car to drive to work.

Don't forget that I pointed to other government funded programs to pay for college beyond military service. Those funds come with strings just as much as corporate money, I'm not forgetting that. Once the government gets back what they paid for then people are free to take that education and on-the-job training to find work elsewhere. It's not a bad deal, unless you have a political ideology on the government attaching strings to education. As if there's no strings if the government funds education by other means, they just work harder to hide the strings is all.

That's only true if somehow this pushes out all funding from those motivated by something other than profit.

If you want to use malaria as an example then a quick search of the web will show all kinds of private funds for funding this. I see universities funding this themselves, no doubt from skimming off government and corporate funds but it's still funds that could have gone to some profit seeking effort than for seeking concerned scientists and physicians. I see programs from state funded programs, the idea of government funds for research doesn't begin and end with the federal government. Oh, I see Bill and Melinda Gates is providing funds to treat and prevent malaria. There's more but I can't list them all.

Just how much funding do we need from the federal government? I see people concerned about strings attached to privately funded research but doesn't government funds also come with strings? I'd rather the government fund nothing than fund things that don't concern me in the slightest or things that are counter to my concerns. Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to funds for research into treating malaria. I'd express examples of what I'd be opposed to but I fear that would only attract attention I'd rather not have. Use your imagination based on what are some contentious topics lately. Because funds for these contentious matters shift with every election I'd just prefer the government stay out of it than see voting based on research funds, people can fund whatever themselves through donations to foundations like the Gates Foundation. Vote with your wallets as well as your ballot.

I doubt it. A lot of corporations have been getting a "free ride" because the government was providing funds for universities, meaning they got the educated workforce while the taxpayer funded it. If Hyundai wants engineers to develop the next generation of electric vehicle technology then they will have to pay for it than rely on funds from the Department of Energy, Commerce, or Education to pay for it. If Hyundai wants "green" hydrogen then they can fund it than expect the taxpayer to carry that burden.

I doubt the corporations that rely on new university graduates to make money to just let the universities die because the federal government pulled back on funds. Maybe they will go to other countries for an educated workforce but there's benefits to seeking American workers beyond just government subsidized education. At a minimum staying in the USA means a larger population to draw from without the bother of convincing people to immigrate, and all the costs that come with that. It was trivial for me to move to Texas for work, if I had to travel a similar distance most anywhere else in the world I'd have had to drive across two international borders.

I don't follow. You are concerned that "he who pays the piper picks the tune" with corporate funds to universities? You expect funds from the government don't come with strings "to control facts" attached? I need some clarity here.

The federal government has very deep pockets to fund some political ideology, so deep that it is effectively infinite. Not actually infinite, but so deep that political ideology can bankrupt any privately funded effort to expose flaws in the ideology. Corporate funds are limited. If some corporation holds a view that can be proven false by some competing corporation then at some point basic economics and physics wins out, some new truth is exposed, and the corporation with some bad ideas goes bankrupt or learns how the universe works and stays in business.

If people want the federal government to pay for their education then there's still options. Join ROTC, enlist and get the GI Bill, or some other military service program to pay for a university degree. A quick search of the internet tells me the US military needs people that know computers, languages, communications, law enforcement, and health care, all of which are specialties that can lead to a gainful employment after the end of the service contract. Serve three years (if I'm reading this right) and you get your BS degree paid for by the taxpayer on top of the military specialty training. Oh, and the military needs explosive ordinance disposal people too. That's a high stress job so recruitment and retention is low, but that also means a large bonus on top of getting your education.

Europe isn't compatible with the internet. And it's getting less compatible with it every passing day. It's leaders have expectations of control that aren't compatible with it. It's people have expectations of privacy and security that aren't compatible with it. The whole place should just turn it all off and go back to printed news, landlines and broadcast television. Both Europe and the remaining internet would be better off for it.

All of this over squashing mandatory backdoors in UK (which is not even EU anymore)?

As if corporate funds don't promote public benefit.

Hyundai was mentioned as sinking funds into Georgia Tech. This was in part to fund electric vehicles and hydrogen as a "green" fuel. Are you opposed to electric vehicles? I like electric vehicles. Not exactly a fan of hydrogen as a fuel as I believe that a dead end, but maybe they find something we don't know that can change things.

When people think of "public good" then a common example is medicine. Okay, let's consider the benefits of advancing medical care. One example that comes to mind is the number of American soldiers coming back from battles that are missing hands or other body parts. Maybe they lost their hearing. Perhaps they had an eye injury. The government funds this medical care through the VA. The VA could not keep up and so solicited private contractors to help with prostheses, hearing aid, eyeglasses and eye surgeries. The soldiers loved this because now they could take VA funds to private companies that got in the business of competing for this money with improved prostheses. With this competition among private companies for funds we now see improved prostheses for those with congenital conditions that lead to missing limbs, aids for loss of hearing, and eyeglasses and surgeries for eyesight issues.

Then consider a medication that was intended to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension. From this came sildenafil. Those paying attention will recognize this as the generic name for Viagra. Pfizer certainly made a lot of money on selling Viagra to Hugh Hefner, and other old men that could afford to pay for sex with younger women. It also meant a lot of infants had their lives saved with this drug. A quick search of the web tells me pulmonary arterial hypertension was considered "universally fatal" but now we see 59% survival rates after 7 years of treatment.

I'm not believing that private funds for education is undermining science and the public good. I'm seeing a need for government funds because otherwise we might not have lives saved and lives improved since it just costs too much to the individual otherwise. With collective funds with taxes and government spending we see children living a life they might not have otherwise, but with that we also need some private funds from wealthy old men willing to pay women to have sex with them.

The money for research in electric cars from Hyundai means cleaner air. Money for treating medical issues for old people with money to spend can turn to treating poor children with some "universally fatal" disease.

I support corporate "undermining" of research and science.

How would money put into a university not advance the cause of education?

I'll take a stab at how it might work. I grew up in the Midwest USA and that means a lot of farmers. Farmers like to watch college sports. A company producing seed corn, combine harvesters, pesticides, herbicides, or whatever a farmer might buy to make a living, will want those eyeballs. So the company puts a bunch of money into the university to get a good football team, a good basketball team, a nice stadium, TV broadcasts, and so much else for eyeballs. That's not helping education exactly, it's turning the sportball teams into a means to advertise and make sales.

But there's more to that. To make products that farmers want to buy they need intelligent and educated employees to develop these products. They need engineers, biochemists, veterinarians, entomologists, meteorologists, and animal scientists (that take classes on meat like Rick Perry did), and so on. If these companies put some money into biology labs, or whatever, then they can get on the good side of the administration, get their ads run along the sportball TV broadcasts, and they have a pool of university graduates to draw from that took classes on meat to recruit for developing livestock feed or whatever.

If a company is dumping money into a sportball stadium for some university so they get the eyeballs of farmers, truck drivers, beer drinkers, meat eaters, or whomever is in their market and like to watch sportball, then that's money saved to spend elsewhere on lecturers and classrooms. It means students on the sportball team subsidizing the pay for the lecturers that teach Geology 1001 - "Rocks for jocks", Animal Science 1020 - "Meat", or whatever so these lecturers can also teach the advanced courses for those not on the sportball team.

What's the alternative? The idea of universities started with three means of funds. One was some religious organization, and for anyone in what could be considered a "Western" society that meant the Catholic Church. They'd fund educations not just for preachers but also for physicians, nurses, farmers, architects and so much else to satisfy their idea on the "works of mercy" such as feeding the hungry, visit the sick, shelter the homeless, etc.

Another means of funding an education was to join the military, then the government would pay for your education to become a military officer, perhaps this also applied to some civilian jobs like civil engineers, lawyers, accountants, and so on. Then, and now, there's often an obligation to work for the government for a time, after which the person can take their education and experience with them to work where they choose.

The last means of funds was to find a patron, some private individual that believed someone had promise working for them in the future and so sent them to some university to learn from experts. This could be an educations in a lot of fields. Maybe the patron wanted dancers, musicians, and stage actors to put on a good show. Maybe they wanted engineers and architects to build a fortress or palace. Maybe they needed someone to study meat so they'd raise cattle to make tasty steaks. This is much the same on how education is funded today. Those that pay for the education will expect a return. They paid the piper, they pick the tune.

So, "pick your poison" on who funds the university. If it's a church then expect the people to be spreading their faith with "works of mercy", or with wine, because apparently the best wine is made by monks. If it's a government then it's the government getting people that build bridges, and build armies. If its private funds, such as a corporation, then they expect people to pay that back with something they can sell, like meat.

I like the idea of corporations funding education. It means people trained in making things I like to buy. Like meat. I think I'm hungry, so perhaps I'll pick up my Apple iPad, open up the Pizza Hut app, order a Meat Lover's pizza, some Cinnabon cinnamon rolls, and a bottle of Pepsi. DoorDash will bring it right quick. Corporate funds might not advance education but they advance food to my door. That's good enough for me.