General Politics the second: But what is politics?

[Farm Boy]

Should we only talk about the one thing? There's football on and grown men sticking their rears in the air and headbutting each other. Like we're going to give that up. Apparently NYC is suing bus companies! Wheee!

 

[Samson]

From nature:

Harvard president’s resignation amid plagiarism allegations leaves academics reeling

Some of Gay’s supporters continue to question the severity of the charges. “These are nonsensical claims” focused on sections of papers “where Professor Gay is simply summarizing known facts or pointing to historical events that are part of the public record”, says Alvin Tillery, a political scientist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, who knew Gay as a graduate researcher at Harvard and also works in Black politics. “It’s just regrettable that Harvard allowed this thing to metastasize in the media.”

Scholars who study plagiarism, however, say the claims that have come to light so far are troubling. “There appear to have been some lapses that fit the definition of plagiarism, period,” says Miguel Roig, a psychologist who studies plagiarism at St. John’s University in New York City. But verifying that those violations occurred and determining their severity would require an investigation that takes into account the full body of Gay’s academic work, he adds.

Ryan Enos, a political scientist at Harvard, has no doubt that racism played a part, but says that the allegations of plagiarism cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, Enos adds, Gay “was essentially run out by a mob before we got to have any kind of transparent and independent investigation”.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well, we've only had term limits since 1952*. But you're right, Washington definitely would have been elected again. Everybody wanted him to stay, which is why he stepped down. I thought about Eisenhower and Clinton. Obama-v-Trump in 2016 is a very interesting thought experiment. I don't think any of those three are a lock, but yeah, I think they're the next-most likely after Reagan.

* Technically, the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951, but the next election was '52.

Even though we've only had mandatory term limits since the 22nd Amendment, as you know, Washington's fateful decision to voluntarily step down after his second term became the unwritten rule that everyone adhered to, until Teddy Roosevelt tried to run for a third term in 1912... an election incidentally, that included not just a third party in Roosevelt, but a 4th party, a bona-fide Socialist party no less, that actually ended up with 6% of the vote Imagine that . As another aside, since Roosevelt's "first term" was only 194 days, it wouldn't have counted as a full term under the 22nd Amendment... which is irrelevant, since as you point out the 22nd Amendment didn't exist back then.

Anyway, I digress, Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt were the only President who did not honor Washington's original stance that two terms should be the limit, so even though they weren't technically limited to two terms, they were all pretty much operating under a voluntary, self-imposed two-term limit.

 

[Arwon]

Let's be honest president of a university is a nonsense job, nobody should care who the boss of them is enough to make a big deal about it in the national media unless they've like, killed someone or defrauded a heap of money. I can name precisely zero university bosses in my own country, let alone someone else's.

It's just part of cultivating the general culture of right wing vengeance ahead of really getting going on crushing their figures of hatred and dismantling the institutions of an open society come 2025, which is of course being cheered on by exactly the people who will celebrate that too.

 

[Lexicus]

It's just part of cultivating the general culture of right wing vengeance ahead of really getting going on crushing their figures of hatred and dismantling the institutions of an open society come 2025, which is of course being cheered on by exactly the people who will celebrate that too.

This is why I'm talking about it, at any rate, these people are hideous and need to be stopped.

 

[Sommerswerd]

There are loads of subsets of papers by institusion, I have spoilered some below but I see no evidence Harvard is any good at all at real reaserch. This is probably the biggest subset and the only one on which Harvard makes the cut at all, "NeurIPS conference data, accepted papers from all conference instances since 1987". It is obviously rubbish as the other place is higher than us , but this data is harder to come by than it should be.

Spoiler More graphs :

I also found this, "2668 selected Scopus papers using English keywords ("ubiquitous" AND "learning")" and they do not get a look in



Or this? It is restricted to papers in "stereology in biomedical research" So the VA Medical centre and UC Davis are the best? I have worked with a few people from UC Davis, they were all a good laugh to go out on the piss with.



I have not actually read any of these papers, just looked at the pictures. I am not sure what these graphs are showing.

Hmmm, a quick glance at that first graph you posted and I noticed that Stanford is listed twice (once as "Stanford University" and once as "Stanford") and so is MIT (once as "MIT" and once as "Massachusetts Institute of Technology" so...

EDIT: It also has Google twice, DeepMind twice and Microsoft twice.

 

[Arwon]

This is why I'm talking about it, at any rate, these people are hideous and need to be stopped.

Yeah but being sucked into taking about it is a big part of their modus operandi. They're constantly tricking people, especially efete centrist liberals in the media, into accepting the framing of whatever nonsense they're currently peddling and getting them hemming and hawing about a good faith analysis of "are the claims true" as though that's the real issue. Reporting on the people deliberately bringing the claims and the context of the campaign and movement bringing them, that would be another matter. As I (annoyingly, against my will) understand it In this particular case there's public record of the guy who originated it directly posting what he was gonna do and why lol. Ain't a secret.

It's like the "climate gate" nonsense a couple years ago, where getting the press generally just spending their time on the nonsense accusations, instead of the bad faith actors peddling them as a smear, did lasting damage to acceptance of climate science.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Google, Google Brain, Google Research, and Google DeepMind.

It's a big deal, if you're a kid growing up in Google, which of the state's fine universities you're going to attend.

Rivalries are fierce.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No, they don't. About the worst consequence is maybe losing some points for each wrongly-done citation if the professor is especially anal. The worst thing I ever saw happen to any student for plagiarizing (and this was someone who was actually getting the content of their essay from a Greek organization's plagiarism ring, not forgetting to use quotation marks or formatting their citations wrong) was that they got a zero on the paper and had to write the librarian a letter explaining what they did wrong.

Yes they do. Students get suspended and even expelled for plagiarism. I have seen it happen. Now for improper citation, no, they generally get a reprimand, point deduction or slap on the wrist, even in Law school, where citation is the whole ballgame.

 

[Arwon]

So the cabinet papers for the Iraq war in Australia have been released, turns out Howard literally didn't even make a written cabinet submission about the declaration of war, they just decided it "orally".

Australia joined the US-led invasion of Iraq, one of the most contentious decisions of John Howard’s prime ministership, without a formal cabinet submission setting out a full analysis of the risks.

Cabinet papers published by the National Archives on Monday show the full cabinet signed off on the decision on 18 March 2003 based on “oral reports by the prime minister”.

The record of the cabinet’s decision contains no mention of any doubt about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s continued possession of weapons of mass destruction. This key justification for the war fell away after months of failed searches after the invasion.

“The cabinet further noted that Australia’s goal in participating in any military enforcement action would be disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,” the document said.

However maybe not(?) because a bunch of documents went missing due to decisions by the Morrison government, they didn't hand over everything to the national archives when they were supposed to be released this year.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes they do. Students get suspended and even expelled for plagiarism. I have seen it happen. Now for improper citation, no, they generally get a reprimand, point deduction or slap on the wrist, even in Law school, where citation is the whole ballgame.

Yes, I know, the post I was responding to here said "those mistakes" which is what I was referring to: essentially, incorrect citations.

 

[Farm Boy]

This is why I'm talking about it, at any rate, these people are hideous and need to be stopped.

Culture waaaarrrrrr.

 

[Core Imposter]

Out of curiosity, did you support the impeachment of Bill Clinton?

I was actually not a sitting member at the time.

A first out-of-touch e-mail might be forgiven as, well, simply out-of-touch. But after a second, who of us could doubt that it was deliberate? By the third, it was clear that she was vaunting: that she, as President of the University, could sent out-of-touch e-mails and there was nothing any of could do about it. Unrepentantly, she issued her fourth, and the madness only stopped with a fifth--yes, you heard me correctly, a fifth--out-of-touch e-mail.

Send me one, I can shrug, "out of touch."
But do not send a second that's such.
And by no means a third.
And a fourth is absurd.
And a fifth is just simply too much!

I cry plagiarism on the last bit. At least.

 

[Lexicus]

Culture waaaarrrrrr.

Whereas I'm sure your culture-war-related prejudices are not influencing your position on this at all. Yep.

I was actually not a sitting member at the time.

Too much of a coward to reveal the answer?

Yeah but being sucked into taking about it is a big part of their modus operandi. They're constantly tricking people, especially efete centrist liberals in the media, into accepting the framing of whatever nonsense they're currently peddling and getting them hemming and hawing about a good faith analysis of "are the claims true" as though that's the real issue.

I've been trying to point this out too.

 

[Farm Boy]

Whereas I'm sure your culture-war-related prejudices are not influencing your position on this at all. Yep.

Still not a communist. But I am starting to understand why you'd think, considering!

 

[Gori the Grey]

If I tried to count all of the out-of-touch e-mails President Gay sent, I would need all five fingers of one hand (or two fingers one hand and three on the other); that's how many out of touch e-mails she sent.

Did she send a single in-touch e-mail? No. She went 0 for 5 in in-touch e-mails.

 

[Core Imposter]

Keats. On drinking not email. Thief.

Too much of a coward to reveal the answer?

Just trying to avoid accumulating too many points before Trump wins the next election.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It's true that the first out-of-touch e-mail caught us by surprise. But no second, we resolved, would similarly catch us unprepared. To be honest, though, that the second was equally out-of-touch did in fact catch us off guard. So we strengthened our vigilance, strengthened our resolve. A third we slapped away and a fourth we weathered as well. "Is this woman indefatigable?" we cried, as the fifth assailed us. defenseless, crushed, weeping.

Out-of-touch e-mail me once, shame on you. Out-of-touch e-mail me twice, shame on me. Out-of-touch e-mail me thrice, you're bringing shame on the greatest institution since the Big Bang and imaginable until the heat death of the universe. Out-of-touch e-mail me . . . hey look, there isn't even a word for "four times," so just cut it out. Out-of-touch e-mail me again, I'm writing a letter to the Crimson!

 

[Core Imposter]

Should we only talk about the one thing? There's football on and grown men sticking their rears in the air and headbutting each other. Like we're going to give that up. Apparently NYC is suing bus companies! Wheee!

I think you are correct. No sense in beating a dead horse. Let's move to another...on topic question. Is this politics?

Sotomayor was worth around $750,000 at the time. Now, she is worth an estimated $5 million. Her position has brought her fame, and that fame has led to book deals, providing $3.8 million in earnings since she joined the court. The post also allowed her to hire staff, which she used for many things—including reportedly pumping up her book sales, something that drew scrutiny but apparently stayed within the bounds of the law, if only because Supreme Court justices have fewer ethics restrictions than other government officials.

How The Supreme Court Made Sonia Sotomayor Millions

The court’s most liberal justice assumed her position with $750,000 to her name. She is worth a lot more than that now.

cc.bingj.com

 

[uppi]

Yes, I know, the post I was responding to here said "those mistakes" which is what I was referring to: essentially, incorrect citations.

In that one example, the paper where the language was lifted from was not referenced at all. So no, this is not just mere incorrect citation.