Musk is credited with exposing a huge amount of government fraud, and even stopping a small amount of it.
Credited by who? Himself? Is the Trump administration bothering to pretend on any of that anymore?
Iran is a fairly large country, about 2 and a half times as big as Texas, and their leadership is now decentralized, or located to other countries
Israel though, is quite small, with the majority of the population concentrated into a fraction of that area in the northwest. However, there are a lot of reasons it is doubtful Iran would actually use nuclear weapons for anything other than deterrence, including good old fashioned MAD.
That said, I certainly don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons in two weeks, just like they've been about to since the 90's.
And just the same copy paste again. If you have nothing to add, I guess there's nothing for me to say.
The US Supreme Court set one. The board in their Presidential and Congressional advisory roles do not trigger it, However when Congress gave the board the ability to set NSF policy they did trigger it.
Wow. You said basically nothing in response to any of what I said and provided a completely orthogonal response. What even is the point of you responding.
Followed of course by the same copypasta that I have addressed in another post and won't bother with here.
Advisory for Setting NSF Policy.
What in the hell does that sentence have to do with the question you quoted right above it? How does this work in your head:
What is it exactly you think that is meant to convey? Are you actually a really bad LLM or something?
I could be argued that the NIH would seem a more appropriate agency for funding. NSF: STEM, NIH: Health. Both the NSF and the NIH are major funder's of R&D.
Hmmm, tell me, where does the NIH stand currently on vaccines causing autism? Tylenol causing autism? Battery theory? Wind turbines/mills causing cancer? Diet soda curing cancer? Asbestos being 100% safe? Eagerly awaiting your non-answer.
That is essentially the principal-agent problem in the literature.
Wow, you are just a bad LLM aren't you? Maybe a repeater for one?
And that is the core of your misunderstanding. It never was about mere advice. It was always about setting departmental policy. You simply seemed unaware of this reality.
Actually going back in the discussion - which is really easy, just hit "parent" a bunch of times - shows the evolution of the discussion and paints you as either a liar, or just someone too lazy to do the basic research on the conversation you're literally a part of.
Since Congress granted the board the ability to set departmental policy within NSF, they thereby gave relevant authority to the executive.
You apparently don't know what delegation is. Delegation is not a permanent grant of authority and it is also done with an expectation of good faith.
Then you just paste the same copypasta from your current round of posts. There is no point in readdressing that here.
Nope. I said they advise both, AND they also function as administrators within the NSF setting organization policy. It is this third row which you neglect that is relevant here.
What you said, which I was replying to was:
The board are advisors to the President. They are there to help the President provide a proposal to Congress. That proposal reflects the President's direction. The board can try to persuade the President, but once the President make's the call on direction, the board, as advisors, are obligated to help with that direction.
The board "there to help the President provide a proposal to Congress" and the board "...once the President make's [sic] the call..." being "obligated to help with that direction." is expressly incompatible with "they advise both". The latter implies a process of impartial advice to both the President and Congress. The former implies a process of initial impartial advice to the President, followed by advice to Congress that is partial to the President's wishes.
Oh, and also, in reply to the quotes in the previous paragraph, I also replied:
"The board are not just advisors to the President, but to Congress as well. Also, they are not merely an advisory board. They are actually the governing body of the NSF."
To which you bizarrely replied:
You left out their function of setting policy for NSF.
Which seems to be pretty implicit from saying that they are the governing body. Also you then claimed that such policy was the purview of the President and I had to point out that it's actually both Congress and the President by statute.
Honestly, I am getting the distinct impression that you don't actually read the posts you reply to.
Then you paste in the same shadow docket rulings lacking any substantial justification made last year that you did in another post.
Ah. So you reject reality and substitute your own. You're just looking sadder and sadder, trying to filibuster reality.
So, I would like to ask you again, you coward, to answer these basic questions that I am asking for the fifth time on this thread:
Is increasing something from 100 to 600 a 600% increase?
Is decreasing something from 600 to 100 then a 600% decrease?
If you can answer those two questions, then also answer whether you think that anyone who can not answer those questions is qualified to be making decisions on the direction of science policy above actual scientists?
That is you projecting. I literally wrote "they also implement NSF policy to a degree. In the latter role they are acting as agents of the President, and their personal opinions are now subordinate to legislative directives or presidential directive"
I'm not projecting. It really is not clear what from the section you quoted you were saying "not really" to. It still isn't clear and you seem to simply being obtuse rather than explaining.
Note "stablished in the executive branch of the Government". Now from the US Constitution: "Article. II. Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America"
Also from article II, section 3:
...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...
The "executive power" is clearly beholden to the laws created by Congress. The President has to faithfully execute the laws. That is not compatible with absolute power over the entire government. It should be easy to see that absolute control over the executive means absolute control over the entire government, which the foundations of US law are clearly against.
Article I gives Congress the exclusive power to create or disband departments, boards, commissions, etc. If the President's action functionally creates or disbands one, that usurps the power of Congress. Time will tell, but that appears to be what is happening here. If the board goes more than three months without being filled, that is definitely what is going on here.
Also, the board charter makes it clear that the board members are appointed with the advice and consent of Congress. Congress has, for now, provided blanket assent for Presidential appointments for the board from a law from fifteen years ago to work around backlog, but that authority still belongs to Congress.
Thanks for making my point by only finding cases from last year on the shadow docket with absolutely no other precedent in the history of the country and so clearly ignoring Stare Decisis. It clearly illustrates the power grab going on in this country right now.
Whether or not the juror can be unbiased is exactly what the judge looks for. Simple dislike does not automatically equate to bias. Plus, as others have pointed out, even if the Jurors who dislike Musk don't know Altman, discovery will probably make them dislike him too. In the end, if the jurors hate both of them, balance is restored and they can deliberate on the facts.
The board also implements NSF policy, here they are agents of the executive branch and the President's decisions supersedes their personal opinions.
Not according to their charter. The actual legislation by Congress that created the board makes it clear that they are supposed to perform that role inside a framework of policy set by both Congress and the President. That is different than the President's decisions superseding everything. If anything is supposed to supersede everything, it is the will of Congress.
Not really. "magnet stop working" and "social science is not the hard science NSF should be funding" are too dissimilar. It was kind of like responding to a discussion of "cats" with "well, brussel sprouts".
They're not dissimilar when they are both opinions of the executive whose opinions you say that the board should be working within the constraint of. If you're saying that that they should work within the constraint of one if the President insists, then you're saying that the President should work within the constraint of the other. You never set a reasonableness rule, hence the mockery. If you want to set such a rule here, go ahead and set it. Where is the line where the board members should stop working within the constraints of the President's directives about what is not a proper domain for NSF funding? Just social sciences? Medical science that doesn't conform to "battery theory" (the theory that humans have a limited lifetime amount of energy so they will die sooner if they exercise more). Medical science that doesn't agree that wind turbines cause cancer? Climate science that doesn't agree that climate change is a hoax. Climate science in general? Medical research that doesn't agree that vaccines cause autism? Medical science that doesn't agree that Tylenol (possibly acetaminophen in general, I am not sure if the brand is important) causes autism? Meteorology that doesn't agree that hurricanes will go anywhere he sharpies on a map? Meteorology/engineering/nuclear science? that doesn't agree that nuclear bombs will stop hurricanes. Medical science that doesn't agree that diet soda will selectively kill cancer cells. Medical/engineering/housing research that doesn't agree that asbestos is 100% safe. Then there's the magnet one. Electrocution in ocean water from electric boats. Raking the forests for fire control research. And the truly sad thing is that I could go on and on.
So, there you have it. Some material to work with to tell me if your principle of the board having to go along with anything the President says. Either they do have to, and my mockery was not a straw man because you agree that they have to go along with the magnets thing if he insists, or they don't have to and you have to revise your original statement with some parameters.
Nope. That is another straw man. What I am referring to is more classically described as the agency problem. You want an employee to offer an honest opinion and to disagree during the decision making process, but once a decision is made you want them to work toward that decision. Even if it is not the one they advocated.
The problem there, aside from this being explicitly an "independent agency' by statute, is that, aside from their other roles, the board are not just advisors to the President, they are also advisors to Congress. So, are they supposed to tell Congress one thing and tell the President another, or are they supposed to only tell Congress what the President orders them to say?
You are omitting their responsibility to set NSF internal policy. That is where they need to put aside their opinions and work towards the decision made.
This is a common theme in your latest batch of replies. Taking the fact that I was replying to you talking only about their advisory role and trying to flip it around on me that I was only talking about their advisory role. It's not on me, it's on you. Plus of course, in their role setting NSF policy, they still have to work within the framework of policy set by both the President and Congress. So that means not just following the President's orders.
Actually you don't seem to understand the military any better than the civilian agencies. Debate during decision making, during planning, is absolutely desired. Later when a plan is finalized and orders issued, those orders are intended to be executed unless they are illegal in nature. Yes, that is an oversimplification, the orders may express command intent, rules of engagement, etc
You do realize that, by the time you got to the end there, you don't appear to have been disagreeing with me at all.
Actually that is an erroneous belief.
What's an erroneous belief? That it's not apropos? I mean, that's literally all you quoted. Can you try to make a little more sense?
And my posts address your incorrect assertion that they only advise the President and Congress.
I never made any assertion that they "only" advise the President and Congress. I was very clear that I addressed other functions of the board in other posts.
In a previous post in this thread, you replied to:
Which normally involves appealing to congress to cut the budget, not firing the board.
With:
The two are unrelated. The board are advisors to the President. They are there to help the President provide a proposal to Congress. That proposal reflects the President's direction. The board can try to persuade the President, but once the President make's the call on direction, the board, as advisors, are obligated to help with that direction.
The other functions of the board are important, but they were not directly relevant in rebutting the above. I pointed out that your assertion doesn't make sense because the board is not there just to "provide a proposal to Congress", they are meant to directly provide their own proposal to Congress.
You have since quietly changed your tune and started acting like you were saying that they advise the President and Congress all along. Now you're pulling the sad rhetorical trick of trying to pretend that I was somehow asserting that they only serve an advisory role. It's not fooling anyone.
You've avoided answering the question again. It's all very interesting what experience you have in statistics, but it's not what I was asking and you know it.
So, I will ask again, for the fourth time this time since you have avoided answering the previous three times or offering any explanation for why you will not answer, despite the waste of time. The questions are:
Is increasing something from 100 to 600 a 600% increase?
Is decreasing something from 600 to 100 then a 600% decrease?
If you can answer those two questions, then also answer whether you think that anyone who can not answer those questions is qualified to be making decisions on the direction of science policy above actual scientists?
You didn't answer the third question that was conditional on correctly answering the first two.
Remember, even if you win the rat race -- you're still a rat.
