ProjectArcturis

>The real risk of drain is people leaving their fields of expertise to never return.

That is happening right now, all the time! Especially in the biomed field! Many, many PhDs spend 5-8 years getting their degree and receiving minimal pay, then 4+ years being nomadic postdocs, also making terrible money, only to eventually arrive at the end of the road and realize they have to do something completely different.

It is unsustainable for every professor to train 10 PhDs in their career, because there aren't going to be 10 professorships (or even 3) for those PhDs to fill. Funding has to grow at the same exponential rate as the number of researchers. It did, from roughly 1950s to 1980s, as the university system expanded to accommodate the Boomer generation. It has slowed since, and the PhD to professorship pipeline got longer and leakier. It's doing a tremendous disservice to the bright, well-intentioned young people who join PhD programs.

> many countries are increasing funding substantially (e.g. [1]).

This illustrates exactly my point. Canada is planning on spending up to CAD$1.7B over 12 years. That is equivalent to USD$100M per year, or 0.3% of the NIH 2026 budget. Maybe if Europe does something similar they can get to 2%!

> The US is also no longer safe

I agree that Trump's regime has made the US a less welcoming place for foreign scientists, and that budget cuts mean less research will be done. What I disagree with is the idea that "brain drain" is a significant threat to US science. We simply have such an incredible oversupply of biomed PhDs that we should welcome the prospect of other countries absorbing the supply.

Pretty good for the professor, not so good for the students.

No, the US still spends 5x what Europe does on biomedical research, measured as a percent of GDP.

Well, he might be planning to set up a lab. Probably wouldn't, though, statistically.

This kind of Level 1 analysis misses what is really going on. "Brain drain" is not really a concern.

There is a tremendous glut of talented biomedical researchers. We have been overproducing them for decades. Even before the cuts, it was incredibly hard to go from a PhD to a tenured professorship. 5-15% would achieve that, depending how you measured.

The cuts have made things worse, but European/RoW funding is even stingier. It's not like there's a firehose of funding drawing away researchers. There may be a few high-profile departures, but the US is still the least-bad place to find research money.

We need to produce fewer PhDs and provide better support for those we do produce.

1. Sure they will! It's a prisoner's dilemma. Each individual company is incentivized to minimize labor costs. Who wants to be the company who pays extra for humans in junior roles and then gets that talent poached away?

2 Yes, absolutely.

Yeah, I think this is a good take. It was a combination of a very steep runup, and then the needle to the balloon was to take the possibility of a truly unhinged nominee off the table.

You would think, if banks did have a huge short position, they would have announced large losses in Q4 after metals mooned. They did not.

I was with you till the last paragraph. Banks having a huge short position is a false conspiracy theory.

If the banks had massive short positions, why didn't they report huge losses in Q4?

I think gold will keep going up over the next few years, because many central banks are converting from dollar reserves to gold. That means very large demand which is mostly price-insensitive.

China only has one silver fund (SLV equivalent), and it stopped creating new shares. So the existing shares trade at a large premium to the value of the underlying metal. Is that the "Shanghai physical" price you're talking about?

This was an inevitable correction. Gold and silver had gone parabolic for the past month. Nothing goes straight up. This takes the gold price all the way back to where it was last week.

Honestly, I don't think Warsh's appointment had much to do with it.

None so blind as those who refuse to see.

Which race and gender do you need?

I take the opposite view - Adams was an awful troll for years, and he deserved cancellation long before he got it.

The outfit she's forced into by Jabba? And then she kills him?

Assets, not other currencies. Equities, commodities, consumer goods.

The 10-year Treasury rate has more than doubled since 2001. I skipped Econ 101 - If you have to pay people twice as much to take your debt, is there more or less demand for it?

Site seems to be overwhelmed rn. https://archive.vn/CwDtf

>In a few years they will have realigned the whole power dynamic in the country

I disagree. It felt that way for the first few months, but the wheels are coming off. Trump is too old and unpopular to steal a 3rd term. Therefore everyone around him has to worry about what will happen in 3 years, and plan for post-Trump rather than forever-Trump.

You seem to be confusing first and second derivatives.

I'm not sure that making parents legally culpable for their kids being smart enough to download a new browser is LESS government intrusion.

More use cases for AI than blockchain so far.

An EM fields theory of consciousness seems obviously wrong? We do not have subjective experiences in response to external magnetic fields. Not even to very strong, quickly changing fields as in an fMRI scan.

I would have lawyered up. But the experience seems to have turned you into a mindless rule follower.

Lousy Smarch weather

Does that mean it should trade at a 600 P/E?

This is Michael Burry we're talking about.