> I was really searching for a position that would let me do my work, which is to translate the fundamental science into industry impact. I’ve been entrusted with a very high position in my home country, but at the same time, I’m seriously concerned that, if I were asked by the [U.S.] Department of War to perform certain tasks, I probably won’t be able to do it. Things like [making better batteries for] drones, or humanoids for war fighting. Maybe they already have their own expertise. But I just don’t want to risk it.
> I also think it’s important that I maintain my reputation as someone who’s always building things, not destroying things. So, I decided it’s probably better for somebody else to [direct the DOE hub].
Really inspiring and hearth-warming to see a scientist to consider the full impact of their work, in such a direct way, and then not only thinking these things, but also acting on them to ensure she feels right with what she does. We really need more of these types of people in the world :)
This a nice qoute and all but China has a civil-Military program that allows their government to annex any necessary technology for their military but also puts strict building practices on civil made projects.
What makes anyone think that China as government won't do exactly what she fears, which is putting this battery technology inside drones, or humanoids for war fighting? The difference here is China won't ask.
nor will anyone else, the point isn't about weather generic use batteries will be used for military usage, or that someone who licence the technology builds military focused versions
the point is they themselves didn't want to _explicitly_ design components for specific forms of military usage
and they no longer feel safe to not be pressured by the US to do so
but that isn't even the main reason for moving mentioned in the article which are (in order they appear in): reduced funding, moving away from electrification, immigration policies and then the previous point
-----
as a side note your comment did sound a bit like you think Singapore is China, in the unlikely case you did idk. mix it up with Honkon: it isn't China in any form it was
Singapore is sovereign country. A lot of Chinese there escaped from China a century ago during Qing era. They are more in common with Malays in that region than China. Plus, if you read up Singapore policies, they are way more pro western countries than China. Try to read more before typing indiscriminately.
The difference here is China is going to use dual tech for productive civil until they can't vs US will use it to murder children immediately. This fundamental difference, US civil-military (i.e. AI) workers have to grapple with the fact that their work will absolutely kill people / collateral damage, usually within the fiscal quarter. In mean time, PRC talent watch drones do marathons, breakdance, or lift building material up mountains. Now eventually it may snap necks, but mean time talent contributing to PRC sleep soundly at night knowing they're not... you know murdering foreign kids.
Singapore and China hold strong economic ties. Furthermore if the Chinese government asks one of its citizens to do something the citizen must keep in mind where the rest of their family lives. There are countless articles of how the CCP will do things like fire an aunt or uncle, or deny a sister or brother access to college for not complying with their wishes.
Do you think Singapore as an independent country is strong enough to keep the Chinese government out?
And so they chose Singapore, that bastion of human rights?
More seriously, it will be interesting to track this person for a few years to see whether they thrive in Singapore. Good luck to her and hope she makes a difference.
Moving, especially internationally, is disruptive. Even in bad times, you need to look to where things are going, not where they are in the moment. The USA is dropping on various freedom indices; if you move for this reason, you must ask if will it drop further, will it stabilise, or will it recover? And the same for the destinations you consider.
Great chart! Thanks. I used it to compare a couple of other places too.
Yeah I don't see the gap between the US and Singapore closing in the next 5, 10, or 50 years. The current drop in the US is temporary. The lower score for Singapore is structural.
EDIT: but these are "just" stats, and do not speak to any person's personal position, like Meng's.
Of course. I'm not rooting for the US' downfall. It is a loss of western values. It saddens me, but it is a fact they're veering away from the French Revolution principles.
What was the last country Singapore waged war against, and when was that? AFAIK, I don't think Singapore has threatened the sovereignty of a single state after the inception of the country.
Probably it isn't a perfect country, probably no country is.
If decarbonization, immigration, and human rights are the drivers, there are better countries to pick than Singapore, including Japan, many in Europe, Costa Rica, New Zealand, etc.
On the other hand, Meng is probably right in picking Singapore from a self-interested position because that's where she studied (so has ties) and she believes it gives her a better stage for her research. Notably, she did not choose to go to China, which is where she grew up. So it is noteworthy that she has concluded better opportunities in Singapore.
her reason wasn't some my tech shouldn't be bad people high moral ground but that she felt she can't do here work on here previous job anymore and the next job happened to be in Singapore, and the reasoning in order was also
- reduced funding / many projects getting side lined
- US moving away from decarbonization
- immigration policies discrimination against Chinese born people (even if they have left Chinese citizenship behind/are US citizens)
- and here not wanting to be put in a position where she is pressured to work directly on batteries for weapon systems like drones (!= general use systems being used in a military context)
so she chose Singapore because someone in Singapore presented here with a good job offer where she doesn't have to worry about this things
i.e. this isn't about the US being "evil" and Singapore being better, but about the US no longer being as good a place for civilian use battery production scientist
When you think of the outlook of the USA, where for example the secretary of health and human services is a crusader against vaccination, do you feel like it’s a country that’s rising to meet the challenges of the future? Because to me it feels like we are in the beginning of a fall of civilization!
I don’t have the perspective to really say I know what’s going on, but I trust the scientist knows her business and her industry well enough to make a call for herself.
Do you have anything specific to show she’s making the wrong decision?
Yeah, probably seeing it from the "inside" sort of makes it seem like "beginning of a fall of civilization" but for the rest of us on the outside it looks like the slow fall of an empire/hegemony. Still dramatic I guess, but not as dramatic I suppose.
> If they are mapping that to "reduction in green energy" or "reversal of green energy adoption" I think they are very wrong indeed.
Because there is a global trend towards green energy use, caused by economic factors. It's bound to be more expressive outside the US, because of politics.
> Because there is a global trend towards green energy use, caused by economic factors. It's bound to be more expressive outside the US, because of politics.
"caused by economic factors" is precisely why I think the conclusion is wrong. The US, if nothing else, structurally prioritizes profit, even if it it does dumb, short-sighted things at times.
That's an ironic comment to see on hackernews, a forum most closely associated with silicon valley. Where creating attention traps and gambling apps while claiming to "make the world better" is accepted with a straight face.
That's not to "whatabout" it, but I do find it interesting how blind we are to our own delusions.
It's ironic to me to see comments like these, I've posted commentes on HN since 2013 sometime and never even visited SV, and do my best to reject what I see as the "worst ideas from SV", I'm probably almost purely opposite of that typical person. And there are a lot of people like me here too.
I don't think there are many "make the world better but actually I mean make myself more money" types are left here on the forum, if they are, they're a lot more silent today than they were around 2012-2014.
> “I’ve always been an internationalist,” says Meng, who became a Singapore citizen in 2004, “and I think that…”
Choices and decisions. And what of the scientific community in the US who don’t have ties abroad? Who don’t choose to leave the country?
If the government isn’t funding research, and a university position is not open, then you have to turn to industry. And if that doesn’t turn up, then you’re the most overqualified… librarian?
I’m thinking about the more diffused pattern of students with the aptitude and disposition for science going into industry. Is this the environment which drives more manufacturing in the US?
Is this the vision the administration is chasing? (If you look past the racism and corruption, and presume there is an economic outcome the president and all of the republican congress appears to support him for?)
Completely predictable. Science will leave these shores, either due to lack of funding, threat, or ideological disagreement. The amazing post-WWII economy will become stagnant, then start to fail, just like an engine that is starved of oxygen it will begin to sputter and choke. And everybody will be shocked, and try to assert control to change the behavior, which will work briefly then make it worse. We can only hope that no good alternative will exist, so that the gains by the rest of the world are disperse enough to allow the US to recover if the current oligarchy is overthrown politically.
> I was really searching for a position that would let me do my work, which is to translate the fundamental science into industry impact. I’ve been entrusted with a very high position in my home country, but at the same time, I’m seriously concerned that, if I were asked by the [U.S.] Department of War to perform certain tasks, I probably won’t be able to do it. Things like [making better batteries for] drones, or humanoids for war fighting. Maybe they already have their own expertise. But I just don’t want to risk it.
> I also think it’s important that I maintain my reputation as someone who’s always building things, not destroying things. So, I decided it’s probably better for somebody else to [direct the DOE hub].
Really inspiring and hearth-warming to see a scientist to consider the full impact of their work, in such a direct way, and then not only thinking these things, but also acting on them to ensure she feels right with what she does. We really need more of these types of people in the world :)
This a nice qoute and all but China has a civil-Military program that allows their government to annex any necessary technology for their military but also puts strict building practices on civil made projects.
What makes anyone think that China as government won't do exactly what she fears, which is putting this battery technology inside drones, or humanoids for war fighting? The difference here is China won't ask.
nor will anyone else, the point isn't about weather generic use batteries will be used for military usage, or that someone who licence the technology builds military focused versions
the point is they themselves didn't want to _explicitly_ design components for specific forms of military usage
and they no longer feel safe to not be pressured by the US to do so
but that isn't even the main reason for moving mentioned in the article which are (in order they appear in): reduced funding, moving away from electrification, immigration policies and then the previous point
-----
as a side note your comment did sound a bit like you think Singapore is China, in the unlikely case you did idk. mix it up with Honkon: it isn't China in any form it was
Singapore is sovereign country. A lot of Chinese there escaped from China a century ago during Qing era. They are more in common with Malays in that region than China. Plus, if you read up Singapore policies, they are way more pro western countries than China. Try to read more before typing indiscriminately.
The difference here is China is going to use dual tech for productive civil until they can't vs US will use it to murder children immediately. This fundamental difference, US civil-military (i.e. AI) workers have to grapple with the fact that their work will absolutely kill people / collateral damage, usually within the fiscal quarter. In mean time, PRC talent watch drones do marathons, breakdance, or lift building material up mountains. Now eventually it may snap necks, but mean time talent contributing to PRC sleep soundly at night knowing they're not... you know murdering foreign kids.
Are you saying China is gonna invade Singapore, or what are you trying to say? How is China relevant here?
Why is China relevant?
Singapore and China hold strong economic ties. Furthermore if the Chinese government asks one of its citizens to do something the citizen must keep in mind where the rest of their family lives. There are countless articles of how the CCP will do things like fire an aunt or uncle, or deny a sister or brother access to college for not complying with their wishes.
Do you think Singapore as an independent country is strong enough to keep the Chinese government out?
They moved to Singapore, not China. Those are different countries.
This comment have a huge Cotton vibe (48s video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgLQCfypDLk). Let me guess, you're from the USA?
And so they chose Singapore, that bastion of human rights? More seriously, it will be interesting to track this person for a few years to see whether they thrive in Singapore. Good luck to her and hope she makes a difference.
Moving, especially internationally, is disruptive. Even in bad times, you need to look to where things are going, not where they are in the moment. The USA is dropping on various freedom indices; if you move for this reason, you must ask if will it drop further, will it stabilise, or will it recover? And the same for the destinations you consider.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-index-vdem?t...
Great chart! Thanks. I used it to compare a couple of other places too.
Yeah I don't see the gap between the US and Singapore closing in the next 5, 10, or 50 years. The current drop in the US is temporary. The lower score for Singapore is structural.
EDIT: but these are "just" stats, and do not speak to any person's personal position, like Meng's.
It's still to be determined if the drop is temporary. From the outside (EU) I see a downward uninterrupted trend since 9/11 and the Patriot Act.
> It's still to be determined if the drop is temporary.
It better be! I think it is wrong to root for “downfall”, even if it makes sense to diversify your risk.
Of course. I'm not rooting for the US' downfall. It is a loss of western values. It saddens me, but it is a fact they're veering away from the French Revolution principles.
They are veering away from the American revolution principles... (Which preceded and directly inspired the french revolution principles)
> EDIT: but these are "just" stats, and do not speak to any person's personal position, like Meng's.
Oh indeed. There's unbounded ways to weight the different aspects of freedom that get combined into indices like this.
As for the current drop in the US being temporary… well, we can all hope.
What was the last country Singapore waged war against, and when was that? AFAIK, I don't think Singapore has threatened the sovereignty of a single state after the inception of the country.
Probably it isn't a perfect country, probably no country is.
If decarbonization, immigration, and human rights are the drivers, there are better countries to pick than Singapore, including Japan, many in Europe, Costa Rica, New Zealand, etc.
On the other hand, Meng is probably right in picking Singapore from a self-interested position because that's where she studied (so has ties) and she believes it gives her a better stage for her research. Notably, she did not choose to go to China, which is where she grew up. So it is noteworthy that she has concluded better opportunities in Singapore.
it isn't
but reading the article helps
her reason wasn't some my tech shouldn't be bad people high moral ground but that she felt she can't do here work on here previous job anymore and the next job happened to be in Singapore, and the reasoning in order was also
- reduced funding / many projects getting side lined
- US moving away from decarbonization
- immigration policies discrimination against Chinese born people (even if they have left Chinese citizenship behind/are US citizens)
- and here not wanting to be put in a position where she is pressured to work directly on batteries for weapon systems like drones (!= general use systems being used in a military context)
so she chose Singapore because someone in Singapore presented here with a good job offer where she doesn't have to worry about this things
i.e. this isn't about the US being "evil" and Singapore being better, but about the US no longer being as good a place for civilian use battery production scientist
When you think of the outlook of the USA, where for example the secretary of health and human services is a crusader against vaccination, do you feel like it’s a country that’s rising to meet the challenges of the future? Because to me it feels like we are in the beginning of a fall of civilization!
I don’t have the perspective to really say I know what’s going on, but I trust the scientist knows her business and her industry well enough to make a call for herself.
Do you have anything specific to show she’s making the wrong decision?
> Because to me it feels like we are in the beginning of a fall of civilization!
That's a bit dramatic!
Yeah, probably seeing it from the "inside" sort of makes it seem like "beginning of a fall of civilization" but for the rest of us on the outside it looks like the slow fall of an empire/hegemony. Still dramatic I guess, but not as dramatic I suppose.
It's not the only reason cited, the first one:
Also:> Meng took the job because she thinks the U.S. has turned away from a commitment to decarbonize its economy.
If they are mapping that to "reduction in green energy" or "reversal of green energy adoption" I think they are very wrong indeed.
> If they are mapping that to "reduction in green energy" or "reversal of green energy adoption" I think they are very wrong indeed.
Because there is a global trend towards green energy use, caused by economic factors. It's bound to be more expressive outside the US, because of politics.
> Because there is a global trend towards green energy use, caused by economic factors. It's bound to be more expressive outside the US, because of politics.
"caused by economic factors" is precisely why I think the conclusion is wrong. The US, if nothing else, structurally prioritizes profit, even if it it does dumb, short-sighted things at times.
I think there is more to it than just economics of the US.
If your work is not valued, if its more difficult to get grants etc.
That's an ironic comment to see on hackernews, a forum most closely associated with silicon valley. Where creating attention traps and gambling apps while claiming to "make the world better" is accepted with a straight face.
That's not to "whatabout" it, but I do find it interesting how blind we are to our own delusions.
It's ironic to me to see comments like these, I've posted commentes on HN since 2013 sometime and never even visited SV, and do my best to reject what I see as the "worst ideas from SV", I'm probably almost purely opposite of that typical person. And there are a lot of people like me here too.
I don't think there are many "make the world better but actually I mean make myself more money" types are left here on the forum, if they are, they're a lot more silent today than they were around 2012-2014.
> “I’ve always been an internationalist,” says Meng, who became a Singapore citizen in 2004, “and I think that…”
Choices and decisions. And what of the scientific community in the US who don’t have ties abroad? Who don’t choose to leave the country?
If the government isn’t funding research, and a university position is not open, then you have to turn to industry. And if that doesn’t turn up, then you’re the most overqualified… librarian?
I’m thinking about the more diffused pattern of students with the aptitude and disposition for science going into industry. Is this the environment which drives more manufacturing in the US?
Is this the vision the administration is chasing? (If you look past the racism and corruption, and presume there is an economic outcome the president and all of the republican congress appears to support him for?)
I wonder - everyone keeps talking about brain drain and how impactful it is, but is it quantifiable?
I think most researchers who loose their funding choose to do other things rather than migrate.
I guess the tax data can provide some insight but do we trust the current administration's reports?
Soon enough it will be
[dead]
Completely predictable. Science will leave these shores, either due to lack of funding, threat, or ideological disagreement. The amazing post-WWII economy will become stagnant, then start to fail, just like an engine that is starved of oxygen it will begin to sputter and choke. And everybody will be shocked, and try to assert control to change the behavior, which will work briefly then make it worse. We can only hope that no good alternative will exist, so that the gains by the rest of the world are disperse enough to allow the US to recover if the current oligarchy is overthrown politically.