Eagerly recruiting doesn't translate to active recruitment imo, unfortunately. With the coming elections, it is even more tenuous.

https://www.heartaerospace.com/newsroom/mastering-the-shift-...

A month later they moved to USA

https://www.heartaerospace.com/newsroom/heart-aerospace-relo...

This is morbid.

Again, if you are someone who can barely afford gas and hear about this... you don't care about strict principles, you just want to set those in power on fire.

"What kind of IDIOT wants to WASTE valuable TAXPAYER MONEY on gila monster venom research" - man currently on a GLP-1.

Super easy!

so, you should really recalibrate being taken in by just-so stories of basic science being SUPER important.

Your rebuttal is that GLP was a highly desirable target for a long time before we stumbled upon a way to hit it... and this is evidence that the "stumbling upon a way to hit it" was not a super critical and super fortunate event...?

> How much did gila monsters buy? Maybe a year or two?

Why'd you put "a year or two?" here and not "a decade or two?" or "a century or two?" Do you have reason to believe it was a year or two away, sans Gila monster? If so, can you provide your reasoning? Per your own point, GLP was a desirable target for a long time without successful hits. We have plenty of targets that are desirable for decades without figuring out ways to hit them well enough to make a good drug.

the earlier habener results that actually got us to glp-1s via anglerfish pancreas would have been similarly derided. substitute that in if it helps.

The funny thing about that is the controversial “impact statements” that are part of grant funding are supposed to be the part where you explain how your research matters to the broad community. But it’s become so political the only thing you can feel safe writing is “we will help people learn about science” because “we’ll start an after school program for disadvantaged youth to learn about science” is too DEI for some folks.

Then why are millions moving to the US every year?

The world doesn’t operate the way we want it to, and US salaries are head and shoulders above what you can get anywhere else in the world. That’s what people really care about, and not the news cycle surrounding the current administration.

Not from my group of colleagues. The only person who actually did end up going for a green card is actually the most politically unaware and least competent.

> US salaries are head and shoulders above what you can get anywhere else in the world.

This may be the case but the cost of health care, child care and homeownership are so much higher now than they used to be that for a lot of people it doesn't make any economic sense anymore.

I see a lot of people going for a few years, working their assess off, then leaving before they even have to start thinking about a mortgage.

Then why is it cold outside??

> In 2025, only 2.6 million people immigrated to the United States, a sharp decline from the 5.8 million who entered in 2023 and the 4.6 million who entered in 2024.

source: https://forumtogether.org/article/the-consequences-of-net-ne...

Yes, there are still people migrating to the USA, but it is a lot less than it used to be.

Key finding: "We conclude that net migration was likely close to zero or negative over calendar year 2025 for the first time in at least half a century. For 2026, we project net migration is likely to remain in negative territory."

How can you even pretend to discredit Brookings?

[0] https://thinktankalert.com/rankings

[1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brookings-institute/

The US isn't the worst place to live, by any means, but we are currently machine-gunning ourselves in the foot and it would be nice to stop doing that.

Maybe smart folks don't want to be in racist xenophobic regime which marks them as undesirables from Day 1, run by publicly voted-in outright senile pedophile who managed to insult every single human being currently living at least once, mostly much more. It happens with narcistic egomaniacs, quite a lot in fact.

Since folks willingly voted in such person twice as the best person under the sun to represent and rule them, it tells something not-so-nice about future that even many not-too-smart folks catch easily.

At least that would be my logic if I would be in such situation. I never was since US was never an option for me, Switzerland offers much more for me than US ever could. And my taxes are not used for mass murder and start failed wars half around the globe, a small but significant detail. Most scientists have more morals than typical faaangs of these days from my experience.

QoL in the US is better if you are an average to above earner, and dramatically better if you are are high earner (like SWE's). In large part why the US brain drained so much talent from Europe over the last 30 years.

So better for the majority of people then.

If your information doesn't have those error bars it is just a feel good headline to make someone feel better about themselves by putting others down - this is EVIL and you shouldn't fall for it!

There are far too many subjective parts of quality of life to ever put a single ranking on them.

But would everyone except for "obscenely rich people" be better off somewhere else? If so, then where, and why aren't they leaving by the tens of millions for those places?

Because life is messy. Because leaving is expensive. Because being accepted into a successful country requires opportunities and circumstances.

The idea that the US is "the best place to live" is a persistent cultural myth. It's mostly good for a lot of classes of people, but even that's changing as of late.

Realistically, the question isn't meaningfully answered in isolation. One would have to see the bigger picture to put it into context.

* Vacation time in the US is paltry and often downright exploitative.

* Our for-profit healthcare system can easily wipe out any wealth you've accumulated upon a major medical episode, depending on what kind of coverage your insurance provides. Said coverage is usually determined by your employer.

* Education in the US is a joke compared to virtually every other developed nation.

* The homocide rate in the US is higher than 75% of other countries.

* Consumer protections in the US are virtually non-existent.

* Food quality is poor - e.g., virtually all foods have tons of corn syrup and other sugars added.

* The country as a whole is overly car-centric. Your day-to-day in the US virtually requires the use of a car, as most cities are not designed with walking or biking in mind, and only a few have useful public transportation.

Food - well that varies. Dutch food is... unexciting, to say the least.

I agree with your comment, especially if you don't plan to raise a family in the US, but still I think the difference isn't as great as what you say.

You have similar investment options in the EU vs US. Tax is high in California. And you probably won't retire at 40 with $400 a year unless you've been very agressive and lucky with your investment.

I can talk about my person situation, big tech in EU, I contemplated relocation in the US (which my company would sponsor). I'd be better off financially in the US after a few years but worse job security and WLB, but it's not night and day. Main issue in EU + UK is lack opportunities compared other US, but there are some.

No, not really. I mean, we potentially could, but not with the state of education as it is -- the top career goals for US highschoolers are athlete, youtuber, musician, actor... they want fame and fortune. And why shouldn't they, that's what America tells them is important.

At my university, we fill our masters and PhD ranks with international students. Even if we admitted 100% of the domestic students who apply each year, we wouldn't have a full cohort. And if we did do that, and they all did attend, the 15 other schools they applied to would fall short.

Not actually though, most reasonable people know that the only solution out will be war and massive restructuring.

I was pretty astounded and heartbroken watching my colleagues pass around a list of banned words so they could scrub their proposals. Then again, what options do they have? Either you get money from the government, corporations who have a very narrow idea of what they want to research, or you move to a country that takes research seriously.

The right was so concerned about what you couldn't say because it maybe damaged your credibility. But what we're having now is that same group doing find and replace cuts on grants that use a laundry list of banned words.

Anyone want to claim that the normies like techno fascism? Anyone want to claim that it was smart to line up behind Trump at the inauguration? Did you benefit from that?

Idiots who thought they were the smartest people in the room is who.

5calls.org

Figuring out the right amount of justice-seeking versus forgiveness is the top point of argument right now among the newly elected dominant party.

You want to toss your vote in the "let's just move on" bucket?

Timothy Snyder put out a great book about this called "On Freedom", which explains most of the power an autocrat has is given freely by people who anticipate what he would want and just offer it without being asked, precisely because they have a notion that resistance is futile. Tech leaders were right there at the inauguration, they didn't even try! So the role these tech guys played early on was teaching Trump the extend of his power.

If you look at how Trump handled schools and law firms, you see an excellent case of capitulation vs. resistance and how that played out. Take the situation with Columbia compared to Harvard. With Columbia, they capitulated to Trump illegally withheld $400m and agreed to all sorts of demands, only to be met with more demands. Harvard faced similar pressure, but decided to fight it and won in court.

In the law world, Trump made demands to several high-profile law firms. Paul Weiss, Skadden, and Kirkland & Ellis all capitulated to the demands, other firms saw these law firms capitulate and just offered up settlements themselves. 11 law firms entered into agreements with the administration, and they didn't even have to ask all of them! Meanwhile, every firm that challenged demands made by the Trump admin, including Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, won in court.

Tech giants didn't capitulate to the Trump administration because they felt they had no other choice, they did it because they felt it would be best for their bottom line. They have no principles, no backbone, and are opportunists who will say anything if a dollar is on the line.

Four years of this is a huge blow to the field, eight would mean a wipeout of a generation of talent.

The entire administration has done one thing: sell of all of the US's assets, and convert it into profits for the trump family. thats it. Every action taken since the first 40 executive actions signed, through doge, defunding USAID which murdered over a million children, or bombing Iranian schools, has been to enrich trump and his friends.

Thats it. It's very simple.

They traded away every piece of soft power they could find and exchanged it for cash in their pockets.

There's no longer a point in receiving academic training in the United States because no one will trust it. A prospective scientist won't want to define their research by hedging against zionism and fascism. I don't have an extensive publication list but I would rather not publish anything if I have to give Israel and Nazi's a seat at the table for every research project.

Top Astrophysicist Leaves U.S. After Trump Policies Affect Her Work

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50414524