So, specifically, from which scientific fields will we lose all of this talent, and to which countries will these people be moving? Further, in what ways will the NSF counterparts in these supposed other countries benefit R&D by foreign researchers?

*Takes quick perusal of the article* Ah, it's DEI bullshit that's being cut here. And, the likelihood of any of this research being funded by another country (other than Canada) is highly dubious. Therefore, the entire premise of this article is laughable. No scientific talent will be "lost to overseas competitors".

I searched and searched the comments trying to find your criticism of Mr Obama building "camps for undesirables" (or even the cages for children). Could you link those for me to show you're consistently about human rights and not just a tendentious hypocrite?

Except... basically all the warming already is done. Further increases in CO2 basically don't contribute to warming.

#followthescience

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.030...

Jesus.
You need medication.

...basically, the earth should be warmer.

The bulk of its history it's been a great deal warmer, with higher levels of CO2.
https://earthscience.stackexch...

The fact is that that the deep carbon cycle is not at equilibrium, with more carbon coming out of the mantle (through volcanic activity) than carbon going back to the mantle (through subduction).
This is good, because at 150ppm CO2, vegetation fails and everything dies.
https://www.frontiersin.org/jo...

And you wonder why you got swept the last election? Dur..

Facts hurt you little fella?

US raises tariffs on things: "Trump shouldn't put a tariff on incoming goods because it's all going to go to the price the US consumer will ultimately pay; a tariff on foreign goods is going to be paid by US consumers!"

Canada raises tariffs on things: "You go girl! Show your national strength resisting foreign economic hegemony ! "

Tsia

Right, the enshittification of YouTube began Nov 9, 2024.

Brilliant insight, please share more.

Lol +1, proved like 2 comments down.

https://homeland.house.gov/202...

"STARTLING STATS FACTSHEET: Fiscal Year 2024 Ends With Nearly 3 Million Inadmissible Encounters"
Yes, I'm deeply, deeply sorry - that "nearly" COMPLETELY CHANGES my point.

"2.99 million illegals wouldn't be any difference at all!" -said the democrat.
Although your "no where near" would also be a lie, wouldn't it?

This is Canada imposing a tax on services from firms outside the country.

There is no logical basis for the tax aside from Canada (like most national govt anywhere) trying to take a cut off any money moving anywhere.

Personally, I'm fine with it, they're a sovereign state. If they agreed to remove it and have reneged, well, they will have to deal with the consequences.

I think reasonable people can agree that IQ is a simplistic measure to comprehend & evaluate the complex nature of human intellect.

Sadly in our empirical era, everything of value (it seems) must be quantified, ideally to a one-dimensional number be it IQ or value.

... And the fact that they're getting more and more upset when you interpose barriers between them and (unsupervised) access to children simply proves the point.

This was a dumb, dumb hill for Democrats to pick to die on. Most reasonable liberals I know in private agree, so we argue about other actual political points of merit. Supporting objectively crazy people in their pedophilia is never going to be a winner (except, apparently, with liberal white women but that's ok, their primary political interest seems to be about murdering their own spawn when desired, shrug).