Unironically yes. Because it means that scientists are willing to lie or suppress results that offend their moral and poltical sensitbilities, and this should affect your credence in literally any scientific result reported by the institutional scientific research system.

It doesn't necessarily mean they lie or suppress results, it can just mean they don't pursue areas of study where the outcome is either a) nothing happens or b) bad actors use your results to "other" a whole group of people. What good can come from yet another study on race and IQ? Be specific.

Just saying, "We should do science for science's sake" is not enough. We've done that. Go read The Bell Curve and knock yourself out. What people like you seem to want is continued, motivated hammering of the issue.

Are you taking the perspective of a car-driver risking getting a ticket for technically violating a traffic law, or a resident concerned about drivers technically violating traffic laws on the roads near where they live?

Neither, but what I'm describing is the resident concern.

Cameras make it easier to gather evidence that will let the criminal justice system try and incarcerate those desperate people. It's a lot harder to commit a crime if you are currently locked in prison.

The actual reason this matters is because of the implications it has for race-based affirmative action programs in cognitively-demanding fields; i.e. "why are there visibly no black people and lots of Asians in this advanced math class, and what should we do to fix the problem?"

There is no political agreement on whether having or not having affirmative action programs is racist (or against which racial groups).

Attempts to regulate social media are attempts to engage in poltical censorship.

Where's any politcal censorship? Its simply adressing a public health issue.

Characterizing people seeing information on the internet as a "public health issue" that justifies censoring that information is insane totalitarianism. If I were a British citizen I would be trying to get Starmer and the 60+ backbenchers who called for a youth social media ban to get kicked out of parliament over this.

I hate to have to tell you, but the British govt. is also against people enriching uranium in their back gardens.

The police would've been justified in arresting everyone present the second they broke through the door with the explicit intent of disrupting the career fair. This is exactly the kind of mayhem and violence that the police exist in order to deter; if the police were unwilling or unable to arrest the protesters, the event organizers should have done so.

Yeah! Just like at the United States Capitol.

If this person was on a visa, this is enough of an excuse to start looking at the fine print to see how I can get this person's visa revoked.

But that is not what is happening, and they have stated that they were at the event for a short period of time, quite possibly at the portion that didn’t occur inside the event.

The willingness to assume one version of events, and then go down that path to award consequences, is premature.

I know a number of people who have immigrated from Scandinavian countries to the US, generally for high-prestige or high-paying work. If quality of life in Scandinavia was consistently higher than in the US, they wouldn't be doing this.

How are you extrapolating overall quality of life from some anecdotes of high-prestige or high-income workers? Seems like a fallacy of composition slipped in somewhere.

People also immigrate in the other direction. And more generally, it obviously happens sometimes that people move from one country to another with a lower average quality of life.

The actual problem is that there's a law requiring a permit for kiddie pools with a fine attached, that was mostly unenforced previously, so a lot of people got into the habit of breaking it.

Better than simply not encoding the actual invariants you care about.

These are both pretty reasonable semantics for these functions. `UInt8.ofNat : Nat -> UInt8` might reasonably map the infinite number of `Nat` values to `UInt8` by taking the natural number modulo 256. And it's sensible enough that subtraction with natural numbers should saturate at 0.

These aren't the only reasonable semantics, and Lean will certainly let you define (for instance) a subtraction function on natural numbers that requires that the first argument is greater than or equal to the second argument, and fail at compile time if you don't provide a proof of this. These semantics do have the benefit of being total, and avoiding having to introduce additional proofs or deal with modeling errors with an `Except` type.