I am not intrinsically opposed AI. I am opposed to its environmental and social impacts.
I constantly see spamming AI bots that send zillions of useless or poor-quality PRs to OSS.
I see PRs that add features, but are really huge, making maintenance even harder in the future without the help of AI. AI creates bloatware everywhere.
I see AI trained on stolen data without respecting licenses.
I see data centers popping up at a scale never seen, consuming more and more energy. more and more resources (They basically consumed all RAM/SSD of 2026).
"It drives rising energy prices in poor communities, disrupts wildlife and fresh water supplies, increases pollution, and stresses global supply chains. It re-enforces the horrible, dangerous working conditions that miners in many African countries are enduring to supply rare metals like Cobalt for the billions of new chips that this boom demands. And at a moment when the climate demands immediate action to reduce our footprint on this planet, the AI boom is driving data centers to consume a full 1.5% of the world’s total energy production in order to eliminate jobs and replace them with a robot that lies." [0]
I am tired of people that have no concerns about climate change or the impact of their collective actions on other humans.
I hope that one day everyone will be judged for their role in this system.
I use AI. I think it is moderately useful. I also think it's a sort of dead end technology that will die sooner or later because the economics make no sense, and likely never will.
It's also very destructive in a societal and environmental level. I didn't pick this music though. The only thing I can do is either dance or stand around while it plays.
> I am tired of people that have no concerns about climate change or the impact of their collective actions on other humans. I hope that one day everyone will be judged for their role in this system.
I have a more practical approach - I reject that individual action is meaningful to fight climate change.
Ir requires societal and political action for anything meaningful that might move this needle. Individual action will do nothing to fix systemic problems, you will only giving yourself a debuff for nothing.
Vote for parties that want to tackle the issue seriously, support initiatives at societal and political level that may so something in the right direction, etc.
"I am not using AI because it has a negative effect in climate change" will do nothing while a gargantuan amount of money is pumped into it so GPUs may turn electricity into bullshit text, code of questionable quality, and images of dubious taste.
The question is so loaded… these are tools. I’m evaluating them like any other tool and using them where they’re helpful and not where I perceive them to be unnecessary or cause trouble.
It also seems to me that some people are leaning on them for things they should not be. It can help you research psychology; it cannot be your therapist.
In these strange times, apparently that makes me “resisting” or “a Luddite.”
I’m not discounting you feeling this way but this argument feels performative or virtue signaling in the same way I’ve had to deal with people making the same argument about “I don’t have kids because children ruin the planet, we all should have less kids”. There are so many “what about”s here that unless the person making the argument is living in tent sustainably growing their own food that it doesn’t feel like it’s intellectually honest.
> constantly see spamming AI bots that send zillions of useless or poor-quality PRs to OSS. I see PRs that add features, but are really huge, making maintenance even harder in the future without the help of AI
Is there a possibility of using automation to fix this very issue? Before you admonish me of burning more carbon to address output of burnt carbon, hear me out.
For example: if these PRs are on GitHub, then we have a set of actions that:
- run a regression test suite to ensure there are no net new bugs.
- Then it verifies whether the PR has high quality tests for the feature they're implementing
- runs a suite of complexity, readability, security tests and gathers metrics about them, automatically closing poor quality PRs and even blocking accounts that submit them?
I argue these automation are great to have for any project - those that have AI contributions or not.
> I see data centers popping up at a scale never seen, consuming more and more energy. more and more resources (They basically consumed all RAM/SSD of 2026).
> consume a full 1.5% of the world’s total energy production in order to eliminate jobs and replace them with a robot that lies
From my perspective, this is an extremely reductive view of AI. My view is that we are fundamentally undergoing a shift in knowledge work and these are all costs that will bear fruit for decades to come.
Imagine freeways being built on barren land. In decades to come it will bear fruit entire new cities and farms. Right now all that construction for those freeways in progress alarm anyone thinking of the climate but the farms that will be possible thanks to these freeways will offset the debt and even support the cities around them.
I promise you I spent more energy air conditioning my house this month than the collective energy of all my prompts over the past year to date while refinaries are being blown up in multiple countries right now. It's a silly argument. The hardware coming out now is 10x faster while using the same amount of energy as a regular desktop while I'm gaming. I legit can't take this "please think of the environment" argument seriously. The math ain't mathing.
what about the environmental impact of AI, especially agentic AI? I keep reading praise for AI on the orange site, but its environmental impact is rarely discussed. It seems that everyone has already adopted this technology, which is destroying our world a little more.
The environmental impact of AI replacing a human programmer is orders of magnitude lower than the environmental impact of that programmer. Look up average US water consumption and CO2 emissions per capita.
And then add on top the environmental impact of all of the money that programmer gets from programming - travels around the world, buying large houses, ...
If you care about the environment, you should want AI's replacing humans at most jobs so that they can no longer afford traveling around the world and buying extravagant stuff.
Yes the environmental impact of an AI agent performing a given task is lower. However we will not simply replace every programmer with an agent: in the process we will use more agents exceeding the previous environmental impact of humans. This is the rebound effect [0].
Your reasoning could be effective if we bounded the computing resources usable by all AI in order to meet carbon reduction goals.
>The environmental impact of AI replacing a human programmer is orders of magnitude lower than the environmental impact of that programmer. Look up average US water consumption and CO2 emissions per capita.
The programmer will continue to exist as a consumer of those things even if they get replaced by AI in their job.
on top of that for sure all programmers AI is replacing are all extravagantly traveling around the world (especially ones in America that make the most dough and 90% do not have a passport)
I believe the orange site's consensus was that it's approximately one additional mini fridge or dish washer worth of consumption on average. You've got users who use these tools barely 1k tokens per week. Assuming it's all batched ideally that's like running an LED floodlight for a minute or so. The other end of the spectrum can be pretty extreme in consumption but it's also rare. Most people just use the adhoc stuff.
If you read the book, my point should be crystal clear - that environmental impact which aligns with The Party goals (shareholder profits) the best, is painted the least concerning of all.
I am an EU citizen and I am concerned about the collapse of the US and more shortly about its expansionism claims. US has such a military dominance and violent culture that I am afraid it will produce a global war. I now think that the EU needs to rearm, not to defend against Russia, but to protect us against US collapse and expansionism. China is our better bet in this coming disaster.
It's so weird for an EU citizen to claim that the US has a violent culture. Since 1776, Europeans have killed each other at a much higher rate than Americans. The US is far from perfect but let's have a sense of proportion.
Supposedly Hiram Maxim was prompted to invent the machine gun when an acquaintance told him:
"Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others' throats with greater facility."
It's autism that is said that it can be weaponized; the population is armed. But arming population does not necessarily increase violence within it: compare with highly armed populations of Switzerland and Israel.
The problem of the US is indeed with high incarceration rates, long sentences, bad prisons where more hardened criminals educate the newcomers to be more efficient criminals; this whole system is screwed, and needs to be replaced.
Lack of access to health care, while increasing mortality and decreasing morale, is not violence; rather, it's a lack of mercy, and lack of resources. That same lack of resources limits access to (quality) health care in EU, but in different ways: long wait times, limited prescription of expensive but efficacious drugs, etc.
> It's autism that is said that it can be weaponized
is this a typo? I'm autistic and can't see how autism has anything to do with weapons or being weaponized. in fact, I usually see the opposite (sheer numbers being weaponized against autism), but I'm probably the most biased possible source for that.
"Weaponized autism" is a meme about passionate internet communities working together (and succeeding) to pursue goals "average" non-internet-overusing people would not think about much.
A good example is Paramount's decision to delay the first Sonic movie in response to internet backlash about Sonic's design.
(Google old sonic movie design vs new).
Many people who participate in these things clearly do not have autism, but are spending a lot of time and attention on something broadly considered frivolous by society.
Please don't take offense. It's merely a meme reference, not some slighting of autistic people.
I'm saying this as a father of a girl diagnosed with autism; she's lovely, brilliant in some aspects, and... difficult in some other aspects. Life is harder for her.
The US? I'm pretty sure it was the British, Spanish, and other European colonizers who killed off most indigenous New World inhabitants long before the USA even existed. And although that genocide involved a significant amount of violence (some perpetrated by the US government in the later stages), most of the deaths were caused by the inadvertent spread of infectious diseases.
I suspect you may have an overly sanitized view of the US impact on indigenous populations, at least in North America. You might want to read about the "Indian Wars" post US revolution and efforts by the US government such as those to eradicate bison as a means to wipe out the Plains Indian tribes, the Trail of Tears, the California Genocide, etc., etc.
Not at all. I am fully aware of the terrible, genocidal crimes that the US government (or private US citizens under government protection) committed against indigenous populations. And I make no excuses for those. But if you look at the numbers, Europeans caused a lot more total deaths in the Americas.
Is there actually a difference? The people you call Americans and the people you call Europeans are the same people (in this time period). It doesn't matter if they changed the design on their flags before they charged into certain battles.
Assign the labels or draw the lines however you like. It doesn't change the main point. I was responding to @holyra above who claimed that the USA has a "violent culture", but there is no historical evidence to support such a claim. Over any lengthy period you look at the USA has on average been no more violent (and generally less so) than most European countries. I just find it funny when Europeans who are ignorant of their own history and traditional proclivities try to claim some sort of cultural superiority.
Even in the US, we cover this very explicitly in our history courses. Europeans did displace and kill a lot of natives, but it was the US that almost genocided them long after colonization was over.
See: the Trail of Tears, the actual, literal death march of natives out of their ancestrial lands because "manifest destiny"
There were wars in most parts of former Yugoslavia, not just Kosovo. If the US pulls out of NATO (and I don't think we should), how long do you think it will take until the other European powers fall back on their old habits of killing each other? And don't presume to tell us some nonsense about how Europeans have changed and become more peaceful.
It's pretty much the peak of hysteria to think China is a reliable ally for a western democracy. It's like you're totally disregarding the fundamental issue that China is an absolute autocracy, fundamentally incompatible with western democracy. You don't like the US. Fine, fair enough. But let's not get crazy here.
> China is an absolute autocracy, fundamentally incompatible with western democracy.
Lack of direct threats to sovereignty, reliability (in the sense of honoring commitments) and basic diplomacy are characteristics that trump ideological compatibility in domestic functioning. The EU is not gonna buy the chinese equivalent of the F-35, no one thinks they are "friendly" but a turn to China is inevitable. It doesn't help that your democratic institutions are closer in the spectrum to a Putin "election" than a Swiss one.
This is even more true for weak and small countries, Trump's Panama obsession has caused irreparable damage to an already frayed positive perception. Paraphrasing an interview with then Chilean president Ricardo Lagos when he explained to Bush his decision to not vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq in the security council:
How did you approach that moment of saying no to the United States?
I mean, I think there are two important elements here. The first is to understand that Chile is a small country. The international role we play is not very big. But precisely because we are small we demand rules in the international arena. Because if there are no rules, the big ones will mistreat us. Consequently, I explained this to President Bush on several occasions: We need rules because we are a small country. Bush found it difficult to understand the point about rules.
Democracy can't work without freedom of speech whis is seriously broken in mamy EU countries.
In germany it's completely normal to get raided by police and all your digital devices stolen for posting pretty harmless memes or opinions.
I always thought that when Americans say they’re a democracy they mean that in sort of propagandist way. Like, installing democracy as justification for military aggression.
But it seems that now some people really believe it? The bi-partisan system sponsored by corporations, where candidates are vetted through the systems - it reminds me of the Chinese communism with two parties instead.
Just compare it to Swiss democracy.
When was the last time an candidate from an independent political party became a president in the USA?
Democracy can't work without freedom of speech whis is seriously broken in mamy EU countries.
In germany it's completely normal to get raided by police and all your digital devices stolen for posting pretty harmless memes or opinions.
>I am no longer considering the US as a democracy.
Despite the current administration being in power explicitly because it genuinely won a recent election in which the incumbents would have preferred to win instead. Trump's frequent shittiness and feces throwing aside, he got his second term through the long-established and very stable American democratic process.
That you would then go from this to claim China as somehow better, a country in which authoritarian one-party rule is absolute and in which nobody can throw an incumbent out of office, is just.... really absurd.
not to dispute, but the fact that most of our stuff is 'made in china' might play into the public perception of this dynamic more than the political labels attached.
The parliamentary structure of the invader doesn't matter very much to the invaded. The assessment that the US is more likely to invade another country than china is not ridiculous anymore.
The parliamentary structure does matter actually. There is no way for the president of the US to launch a war of conquest without approval of the US Congress (there are a limited set of military actions the president could authorize under the war powers act or an existing AUMF but they would not merit being described as an invasion). That would require majority support in both houses of Congress, which can barely hold together long enough to pass a spending a bill.
IMO the simplest and most realistic way to reconcile "democracies don't invade each other" and "the US might do invasions now" is that the US is not a democracy within this model.
It certainly still is in a technical sense that is sometimes useful. But by other metrics, like "can the president start an unpopular war with a steadfast former ally" uhhhhh. If the military refuses an elected president's order to invade is it still a democracy?
>If the military refuses an elected president's order to invade is it still a democracy?
Yes, because the military can't follow an illegal order, which is what a declaration of war without the approval of Congress would be. The military also can't spend money Congress hasn't authorized, even if the president tells them to.
>Yes, because the military can't follow an illegal order, which is what a declaration of war without the approval of Congress would be.
Congress hasn't actually declared a war since World War 2. The President sends troops wherever he likes, whenever he likes, for whatever purpose he likes and Congress rubber-stamps their approval after the fact, and they call it something other than a war.
You're correct that the military can't follow illegal orders, but what you're describing as an example of an illegal order is just the way the US military industrial complex works.
In every major conflict since the creation of the war powers act became law, an authorization for the use of military force was passed by Congress prior to major combat operations. This was true in the Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan, and the War in Iraq. There were cases where the president invoked the war powers act for short term deployments of forces, which did later result in Congress authorizing additional use of force (e.g. Lebanon), but nothing even close to the scale of invading a stable, sovereign state.
America had nothing close to a violent transfer of democratic power for a long time too. Not sure if you've noticed, but a lot of things are happening that "are unthinkable to happen" recently.
I don't think this argument is landing that strongly.
In the modern post-WWII era that would be Tibet, Korea, India, USSR, and Vietnam. Maybe also Philippines, depending on what you consider to be an "invasion". Depending on your perspective, China might have had valid reasons for some of those conflicts but regardless of the reasons the fact remains that they at least temporarily invaded territories claimed by numerous other countries. Who's next?
Right, an exceptionally short list of relatively minor instances when compared to the US.
Tibet doesn’t count either, it’s been a part of China for centuries and it was the serfs and slaves that sought reunification to escape the monks’ brutal rule.
I'm a US citizen but I'd be a lot more concerned about the EU if the US falls but not because of the expansionist talk. I do not want to see expansionism rise at all, but the leader we have right now is also a coward and a bully. He might be willing to go for a small country like Panama (and that would still be an _insane_ move) but NATO is still really strong even without the US and I don't think he'd be willing to risk anything but a sure thing.
More likely in my book is the existing wars in the EU spreading, and civil war breaking out in the US. The EU wars are already expanding, loosing stability, and generally getting more politically divisive even if US policy had a strong impact on them. Those tensions aren't new, and at least from this side of the pond it seems like the US was keeping those expansionist actors in check more than encouraging them. Things are not going well in the US politically, and I'll leave it at that.
From the economic side, if there is a US economic collapse, and its definitely not going up, the economies that are going to hurt the most are going to be those built on top of the US dollar as they have outsourced control over the fundamental tools you can use to stabilize your economy in rough times.
> the leader we have right now is also a coward and a bully
These labels are being misapplied in my opinion. What people saw after the first assassination attempt was the opposite of cowardice, and I think it helped Trump win. As for bullying - there’s certainly some. But you can also look at how Biden bullied private companies to implement the Democrat’s censorship machine and find that bullying appears in many forms. Is the EU any better? Given their love of censorship and slip towards authoritarianism, I don’t think so. What about Canada? We saw their authoritarian handling of protests, where they literally denied protesters access to financial assets, and I view that as extreme bullying.
> He might be willing to go for a small country like Panama (and that would still be an _insane_ move)
Would it be insane? The canal was built by the US. It is a key part of economic and national security. Panama is violating treaties around its handover (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/1/senators-sound-alarm-...). Why do you think China is so upset about the recent sale to Blackrock? It’s because they have been quietly gaining control over the canal.
> the economies that are going to hurt the most are going to be those built on top of the US dollar as they have outsourced control over the fundamental tools you can use to stabilize your economy in rough times
I would say the opposite is true - they benefit from the world’s most powerful and best managed currency. That stability makes them resilient as well. Countries trade in dollars and accept debt in dollars for basic but well thought out reasons. They aren’t making irrational choices.
Panama is not an ally of the US. Neither officially, or even unofficially if you consider all their recent cooperation with China. Violating a treaty in a way that affects national security would require a change from Panama or action from the US. Hopefully diplomatically, but if there’s no change, then maybe retaking the canal is the only sane outcome. To me the insane part is Panama building relations with a communist dictatorship in secret, undermining the conditions of the canal being handed to them.
Panama has been us aligned and a huge trading partner since the late 80s. We don't have any mutual military aid pact or anything but we give them a substantial amount of aid and they give us favorable trading conditions through their sovereign property.
They are a sovereign state. They get to build relations with whoever they want. That's how sovereignty works. The way you win those countries over is with the use of soft power, something that China understands but seems to be outside the grasp of the current admin, who is banging around like a band of drunken apes.
They must abide by treaties, so no they don’t get to build relations with whoever they want. The canal’s handover came with requirements. If they don’t want to uphold those, and treaties mean nothing, why would their sovereignty be respected? But I do agree soft power is better and that the US government has poor strategy here and in general.
Also I’m not sure what you mean by “huge trade partner”. Panama isn’t even in the top 20 trade partners of the US.
You're somewhat mistaken with this assessment. The modern convention is that any treaty can be annulled simply by one of the parties declaring "what kind of idiot would have made this treaty".
It's worthwhile to stay informed on how modern global norms treat treaties.
> China is our better bet in this coming disaster.
The US values democracy and free speech more than any other country. The EU only somewhat shares these values, which we can see from the normalization of censorship in its regulations, frequent calls to ban political parties, and the cancellation of election results in Romania. Europe has a vast history of expansionism, which we saw in brutal colonization across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Greenland itself is a result of expansionism.
China is also a country that is pro censorship and doesn’t value democracy. It annexed Tibet and Xinjiang and will do the same to Taiwan. The CCP has caused tens of millions in deaths, not just in the annexed areas but even among its own people.
I can see Europeans practicing some of those same authoritarian tactics China does. So maybe I shouldn’t be surprised at this statement of viewing China as a better partner. But it still seems odd to see people here admitting that they prefer an authoritarian dictatorship as their friend. In my opinion it says more about Europe than America.
"The US values democracy and free speech more than any other country"
I hope we will finally make peace
with reality and stop giving sh*t about things valued in this or that country.
It is completely irrelevant for the EU what US values or loves and what kinds of authoritarian practices are present in China. What matters is what they can give us and what do they want in return.
US makes it clear it won't give us anything, and will demand a lot. It is China, then.
> The US values democracy and free speech more than any other country.
Trump is destroying democracy and free speech (notably press freedom).
Regarding freedom, I don't buy the US vision. The US culture values individual freedom at the expense of the many.
From my point of view, freedom is not possible without equality between people.
Otherwise, some people impose their will (their freedom) on others.
In this sense, regulation is an instrument of freedom.
> Trump is destroying democracy and free speech (notably press freedom).
Can you name specifics? What freedom does the press not have that they had a few months ago? How is there any less democracy now than before? Nothing has changed about the rights of people to vote or publish - if anything these things are getting better by removing wasteful spending propping up one side of the press, stopping illegal immigration, etc.
> The US culture values individual freedom at the expense of the many. From my point of view, freedom is not possible without equality between people.
It’s an interesting point that I need to think more about. Personally, I still think individual freedom is the only real freedom. The US law is well thought out in limiting individual “rights” in minor ways (like not being able to harm others) while preserving most of it. Those choices let everyone live freely and more equally than any other system.
> Can you name specifics? What freedom does the press not have that they had a few months ago?
Every week, Trump is threatening the free press that criticizes him.
He suspended the Associated Press from acceding to the Oval Office just because they speak about "Gulf of Mexico".
He said that that negative cover of his actions should be illegal.
> How is there any less democracy now than before?
A free press is an important pillar of democracy.
By repeatedly threatening or even attacking it, you are attacking the very fabric of democracy.
Democracy is not just voting, you have to be informed otherwise you are blind. You must also be educated to make decisions in your own best interest. A true democracy requires that anyone has access to education.
Democracy also needs time to make decisions, and to make decisions collectively (at least in a parliamentary way). Trump decides unilaterally by issuing decrees.
This is closer to a dictatorship than a democracy.
Moreover, he decides so quickly that the DOJ cannot ensure that the Constitution and Human rights are respected.
Some of Trump's allies even claim that the USA will need him in 2029: they are ambiguously threatening the very existence of an election.
Trump is attacking free speech by banning the use of some terms in emails, attacking schools (e.g. Columbia) and threatening companies with DEI programs.
I could go on.
> if anything these things are getting better by removing wasteful spending
Even if it was true, you need time to change something.
Otherwise you break lives and companies.
The AP has no right to participate in a press conference put on by the administration, just like a random person can’t show up. Not only can they be excluded, but there is also no requirement that the administration even do news conferences at all. That doesn’t mean any right of the press has been infringed. As I said, they still can publish whatever they want.
> By repeatedly threatening or even attacking it, you are attacking the very fabric of democracy.
You’re suggesting that the press is above criticism, and I disagree. I think the press does need to be held accountable when they are biased or spread misinformation or do bad work to chase clicks, for example. But this is different from their rights being infringed. Just like the press can say what they want, with only some exceptions, so can the administration. That seems balanced to me.
> Trump decides unilaterally by issuing decrees. This is closer to a dictatorship than a democracy.
Why is it that executive orders are executive orders under one administration but “decrees” under another?
> Moreover, he decides so quickly that the DOJ cannot ensure that the Constitution and Human rights are respected.
This isn’t the DOJ’s job. If someone thinks their legal rights are violated by an executive order, they can file a lawsuit and fight it in the courts. There is also no such thing as “ensuring human rights” in American law - there’s just enforcement of the laws passed by Congress and upholding the constitution (which may include ensuring human rights but it might mean something different from what you intend).
This is a tangent, but I want to point out that the previous administration was the one who repeatedly violated the constitution - for example when Biden and his appointees would yell at tech companies to pressure them into censoring the public (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/mark-zuckerbe...). That’s literally a violation of the most important right in the US constitution.
> Democracy also needs time to make decisions, and to make decisions collectively (at least in a parliamentary way).
Democracy did make a decision - to elect Trump. I don’t think democracy requires every single daily decision of the administration to be reviewed - that’s just impractical, and no country does that. The executive branch has the right to do its job.
> Trump is attacking free speech by banning the use of some terms in emails, attacking schools (e.g. Columbia) and threatening companies with DEI programs.
You’re mixing a few different things here. A president banning things like DEI in their own agencies is legal. A president removing funding for schools who break the law or enable criminals, as was the case in Columbia, is legal. There’s no unlimited right for any school to get free taxpayer money. And as for companies with DEI programs - given that many of those companies break the law by discriminating based on race and gender as part of their DEI programs, they deserve punishment under the law. You framed this as “threatening” them, but I view it as simply holding them accountable.
The press is and has always been an important part of the balance of power between the people and the barely concealed sociopaths that we choose to govern us. Full stop . When people start suggesting that the lugenpresse is some kind of enemy class it's time to get the Nazi smashing machine going.
The AP is the nation's premier news source, it's relied upon by nearly every other news source for coverage. Banning the AP from the White House for not hewing to the WH's ideological garbage is an attack on the free press, even if it is not (and I think it likely is) a violation of the First Amendment.
Then we have the attacks on Perkins Coie and other law firms for their legal work, revoking their credentials - another violation of the First Amendment, which protects not just speech but action.
The Secretary of State revoking a green card for protected speech? Again an assault on the First Amendment.
Trump repeatedly sues media organizations, several of which have folded in a way to basically pay a bribe.
Revoking funding to Columbia, a private university, for not being draconian enough against people protesting a genocide in Gaza? Also a free speech violation.
And as for the Biden admin pressuring social media companies on Covid and election misinfo? The administration was simply requesting that the companies review content that was against the guidelines - stuff like Alex Berenson's disinfo on vaccines and illegal tweets about voting by SMS. The former kind of content likely killed 100,000s of people, the latter was illegal.
Spare us your Trumpy gaslighting on DEIA - having a goal of having a more diverse and inclusive workplace and educational institutional isn't illegal.
Maybe try doing your own research instead of sputtering out MAGA talking points.
How about those Palestine protestors having their citizenship revoked for expressing their opinion? Supporting Palestine is illegal in Europe too, of course, but they haven't revoked citizenships over it (yet).
No one has had their US citizenship revoked. Some legal permanent residents (not citizens) who have supported terrorist organizations such as Hamas might be deported depending on the outcomes of their court cases. I don't support those actions but let's be clear about what's actually happening.
Expressing their opinion? The protestors literally assaulted Jewish students. They illegally took over property. They prevented people from accessing the classes they pay for. This was an illegal riot and terroristic to any observer.
Also no one has their citizenship revoked. People who are immigrants but not yet citizens are getting booted for breaking the law in numerous ways, including supporting sanctioned terrorist groups. It goes well beyond legally protected speech, even for America.
Then I must have mixed up details from two different stories. But he's relevant anyway. Are permanent residents exempt from the first amendment, or is he being deported for something other than his speech?
Denaturalization means taking away someone's citizenship. Nobody's citizenship was taken away in this specific case.
I think most would agree that "taking away someone's permanent residency card" is not on the same level of outrageous as "taking away someone's citizenship." I agree that both are drastic measures, but one is way more outrageous.
Whether it was justified in this specific case or not, and to which degree, is an entirely separate story.
If you mixed it up with some other case and manage to locate it, please reply with a link, because I am genuinely curious too (not trying to be snarky, I mean it). So far, I was not able to find a single case of a US citizen getting denaturalized recently, except this one[0]. But this one kind of makes sense, since he lied on documents during the naturalization process about his involvement in extra-judicial killings in El Salvador back in the day (which would have almost definitely prevented him from becoming a US citizen, in the first place, if he was truthful):
> Arnoldo Antonio Vasquez, a native of El Salvador, is alleged to have concealed and misrepresented his involvement in the extra-judicial killing of 10 civilians in San Sebastian, El Salvador, in September 1988, when he was an officer in the Salvadoran military. Vasquez was previously identified by then-Vice President Dan Quayle in a list of Salvadoran soldiers responsible for these killings. Vasquez concealed his involvement in the San Sebastian killings throughout his immigration and naturalization proceedings. Vasquez was naturalized as a U.S. citizen Jan. 13, 2005.
I didn't have the courage to quit my PhD while I was alone (my supervisors were not involved in my work from the beginning; I had almost no comments on my writings, including my thesis...). It took me 5.5 years (instead of the average 3.5 years in my university) to graduate. I extended my 3-year contract with 2 years of teaching and the remaining 6 months I was without a contract.
I finished my thesis. However, It completely destroyed me: 2 years later I am still severely depressed with severe generalised anxiety disorders.
I also had the same issue as the author: absent supervisions. I had only two meetings during my phd and they never reviewed my papers (I tried everything to motivate them and I finally gave up). I did everything on my own. It was very hard. I learned the hard way (try and fail... do it again...). I finally finished my phd with great appreciations from the jury. However this ends with a considerable cost: I am completely broken. I now suffer of a severe depression and generalized anxiety disorders. I take several medications and this does not help so much. I lost a lot of friends. My life is basically a journey in hell since several years now.
> This sounds unreal. How did your supervisor managed his subordinates so they wound not spend their time in leisure activities?
Self-pressure? I cannot spend my work time in leisure time, otherwise I ashame. It is pretty even the opposite that I experienced: I felt ashame in my leisure time to not work to get more progress on my phd.
We were only two phd students supervised by the same pair of supervisors. In fact we saw our supervisors a lot. However this was more in a friend way. Every time we switch to work-related discussions they found excuses to leave or just say that they will take some time later to ask our questions / reveiw our drafts (and this never happen).
In the case of the other student, he was more lucky and find an unofficial supervisor that help him a lot. I find some support from another researcher at the end of my phd. And thanks to him I had some review of my manuscript. This gave me some confidence to finish the writing.
Yeah, I have seen many of my colleagues to feel ashamed to take all vacation time (around 28 workdays in a year) to go home or on vacation. It sometimes felt like unarticulated competition who takes less. Perhaps, it can explained by insecurity that your name is going to be taken off the paper you are coauthoring with others.
I guess in your situation the supervisors were present in taking care of your self motivation and checking your commitment to your PhD when having informal conversations. Also, it sounds you were in control of your PhD project and could set up goals and strategy achieving them yourself.
> How did your supervisor managed his subordinates so they wound not spend their time in leisure activities?
They are not there to babysit, and many want self motivated people. If you spend your time doing leisure activities, you will either spend too much time getting the PhD, or simply not get it.
Also, in large enough research groups, the advisor delegates almost everything to postdocs. I knew one guy who, every time he met his advisor, would have to answer the question "So what was your thesis topic again?"
This seems very much US and academic field specific. Here in Europe when I did my PhD in physics the supervisor is the boss designing the project and giving out orders on tasks to be accomplished. As somewhere in this thread one mentioned it is a true apprenticeship.
It is though very much opposite of what new PhDs expects judging that from my own experience, conversations and confronting my supervisor who eventually frankly said that “academic freedom is not for PhDs”. This created an environment which reinforced itself.
This made me look PhD as a job which I tried to treat as such looking through cost/benefit lense. Probably, if my supervisor would not keep up with regular meetings I would have done less (after being introduced with concept of “academic freedom” for PhDs).
I would not look in that as lack of self motivation. In contrary at the beginning many PhDs were quite curios on what they do and what happens around them. But by the end of it many my colleagues went away from academia to work it in finance because it pays and frankly many have said that PhD is just a job. Thus I would assert that self motivation does not make PhD thesis alone unless if someone cares about it.
> This seems very much US and academic field specific. Here in Europe when I did my PhD in physics the supervisor is the boss designing the project and giving out orders on tasks to be accomplished.
Many (most?) professors in the US are the same. The other kind, though, is not that rare.
I am not intrinsically opposed AI. I am opposed to its environmental and social impacts. I constantly see spamming AI bots that send zillions of useless or poor-quality PRs to OSS. I see PRs that add features, but are really huge, making maintenance even harder in the future without the help of AI. AI creates bloatware everywhere. I see AI trained on stolen data without respecting licenses. I see data centers popping up at a scale never seen, consuming more and more energy. more and more resources (They basically consumed all RAM/SSD of 2026).
"It drives rising energy prices in poor communities, disrupts wildlife and fresh water supplies, increases pollution, and stresses global supply chains. It re-enforces the horrible, dangerous working conditions that miners in many African countries are enduring to supply rare metals like Cobalt for the billions of new chips that this boom demands. And at a moment when the climate demands immediate action to reduce our footprint on this planet, the AI boom is driving data centers to consume a full 1.5% of the world’s total energy production in order to eliminate jobs and replace them with a robot that lies." [0]
I am tired of people that have no concerns about climate change or the impact of their collective actions on other humans. I hope that one day everyone will be judged for their role in this system.
[0] https://drewdevault.com/2026/03/25/2026-03-25-Forking-vim.ht...