Stealth is somewhat overrated, especially 5th gen. Sure you get a lower radar cross-section which means you are less visible to X-band radar but near-peer adversaries or even non-peer technologically advanced adversaries don't rely only on X-band radar, to say nothing of distributed array radar where the transmitter and receiver are not in the same location. More than one networked war plane in the air are essentially distributed array radar. There are other bands which admittedly as not as good as X-band in terms of how much energy you need and how accurately you can locate things. But you can send a missile in the general direction using say S-band and have the missile turn on it's seeker once it's closer. Once the missile is close enough, a stealth plan can no longer hide. This is what the Russian S-400 and S-500 do for example.
Even when Serbia was bombed during the Clinton years, American stealth bombers escaped not due to stealth but because they used decoys towed by fiber optics which transmitted what the missile seeker expected to receive from the plane while also aggressively jamming the missile seeker so the missile hit the decoy not the plane. One stealth bomber was hit anyway.
Safran and other European manufacturers arguably produce decoys that are as good as anything US planes have, arguably better because they decided not to go all in on stealth and focus on other measures instead. Stealth is certainly better to have than not but stealth also means somewhat worse aerodynamics and much less serviceability. You need to apply stealth paint and cure it any time you work on the plane. The plane needs more work and is harder to work on because of the tradeoffs made to achieve stealth. So instead of 75%+ of the planes being available at any one time, you only have about 50% of the planes available at any one time and total operational costs are much higher.
Given these disadvantages, it's not completely clear how much of a benefit 5th gen stealth is in a near-peer conflict. If the US is fighting Iraq fine. Now, if you can actually achieve what defense manufacturers say they will achieve with 6th gen stealth, where you have much lower RCS to all bands of radar from all directions, that could be a game changer but we don't actually know yet. The F-35 still doesn't do everything it was supposed to be able to do when the program started, so I would take these claims with a large grain of salt. And stealth countermeasures will continue to evolve.
I don't know the situation at MIT in particular but overall creating some budgetary pressures for universities is probably a good thing. Every since it became near impossible to discharge student debt due to legislation in the Bush presidency that was designed to make student loans more easily available, the money spigot has been opened far too wide and this is largely funded by debt taken on by 18 year olds who aren't particularly good at making decisions. The result has been a massive amount or real-estate acquisition and a crazy growth in the administrative staff. I recently saw a Brown undergraduate talk about how they pay 90K a year because they have one administrative non-teaching staff for every two undergraduates. I went to the college directory of my own college and was amazed at the number of administrative staff relative to teaching staff. It was absolutely nothing like this in the late 90s. And the teaching itself is being eviscerated with adjunct professors and grad students being asked to do teaching and getting paid next to nothing. And you have universities complaining about how they don't have enough funding for research and they need MOOAAR. Like many government interventions, no matter how well intentioned, the Bush era legislation has led to much bigger problems existed then. It think it's a great that universities are being forced to tighten their belts and I hope this continues for at least a few years until some sanity prevails again in US higher education. Making student debt, particularly that taken on by 18 year olds who graduated with something like an English literature degree would do a lot to rectify the problems that have been created.
I know this is a common argument, but I would love to see some hard data about expenditures on administrative staff in Universities. Every time I look for this, I find that the expenditures on administrators has mostly gone up in the Health Care sectors of Higher Education. Instructional, student affairs and research administrators are up modestly.
Do you have any sources or citations to support the broad claims about increases in administrators or broad surplus revenue? As non-profits, if tuition is going up and all other fund sources are flat, then expenditures have to go up as well, there is no owner's profit to absorb excess revenue.
The best data I has is from the Education department, see the last part of this chart (Expenditure per full-time-equivalent student in constant 2022-23 dollars):
I'm won't claim that universities don't have a problem with adminstrative bloat, but looking at simple top-line numbers like number of non-teaching staff can easily be misleading.
I don't know about Brown specifically, but schools like MIT receive large amounts of federal funding to do research. Administrating that funding requires staffing (paperwork for proposals, contracting, accounting, invoicing, etc). MIT probably also has non-teaching research staff that are entirely grant-funded. I'd be surprised if undergrad tuition is paying for any of this.
He he. If you think the costs for an education will go down because they're seeing fewer applications and they're getting less funding from other sources, I have bad news for you.
Organizations don't really shrink well. When times are good, they hire a lot of people that are marginally necessary. Over the good times, these roles become well-integrated into how the organization does business; whether or not they were necessary at first, people start depending on that person for a task, their approvals become part of a critical workflow, they develop special institutional knowledge without which the institution won't function, etc. When the organization needs to shrink, the marginally-necessary roles all get laid off. Except now you have all these unfilled dependencies. Other remaining employees depend upon the now-gone employees to do their jobs. Communication processes break. People get demoralized as they realize the organization is broken anyway, and quiet-quit or start looking out for their own self-interest.
You run into Gall's Law in action: "A complex system that doesn't work cannot be patched up to make it work: you have to start over with a working simple system."
Lots and lots of things are going to break as fertility declines and the population shrinks. Education is going to be one of the first ones hit because it explicitly deals with young people, but likely this will go right up to capitalism and the state.
In my department we have research staff to look at research proposals and make sure they're good before they're submitted to the grant agency.
Someone might look at the budget and say "This is administrative bloat because it is not teaching focused so we are cutting them."
What's the downstream effect? Well now those professors who relied on the research staff have to take time out of their schedules to do deeper reviews of their work, so they reduce teaching time and increase research time.
They are not as skilled as the dedicated staff, so now there are fewer proposals being accepted. This means less money to the university, and particularly the department.
So what does the department do? They stop hiring undergraduate graders and they institute a hiring freeze. Now that means they cannot admit as many students, teaching costs go up, class sizes go up. And for the admitted students, now they've lost their work study, so it means fewer students are going to enroll because their aid has decreased, effectively increasing tuition. This can be a vicious downward spiral if not checked.
So the original intent of "tighten belts and reduce waste" is really "we made everything worse for everyone"
If every university were subject to similar constraints, the average "quality" of research proposals would go down (everybody would have less time to spend on it) but since the pool of research dollars is assumed constant everyone would still get roughly their same slice - just with less overhead.
How it would actually work is only the best schools would keep their funding while lower tier schools would be shut out entirely and be forced to severely reduce their research agendas. There's a school near me that just went from College to University status because they grew their graduate program enough, they would probably not weather the storm the same as MIT.
On a system's level, that's probably the desired outcome in a world where total science funding is shrinking and fewer people can be employed as scientists.
In your example, I'd be more worried about the case where the specialized design reviewer knows what the available sources of grants are and procedure to apply to them, and the professor has since forgotten that knowledge, and so the department now cannot bring in any grants or revenue. That'd kill science even at established institutions like MIT or Yale or Harvard, even if they have very good researchers.
Capitalism handles this problem well because a dysfunctional company can be replaced by a nimble startup.
There's not really an equivalent in the education world, because of how the university prestige economy works. Prestige is sort of like a natural monopoly: The more prestigious your university, the more talent you attract in terms of students and professors. The more talent you attract, the more prestige you generate via their discoveries. And both talent and prestige lead to donations, which in turn attract further talent and prestige.
Right, capitalism has a natural answer for this, which is one reason it's proved so robust over generations.
The solution for the prestige economy is as Paul Graham wrote:
> Prestige is just fossilized inspiration. If you do anything well enough, you'll make it prestigious. Plenty of things we now consider prestigious were anything but at first.
Basically people need to defect, ignore prestige, take the hit, and do what they want to do regardless of what other people think. Note that this will destroy the job market, because so much of it is based on prestigious credentials because people are apparently unable to screen for the qualities that are actually needed to do the job. But the job market is in the process of being destroyed by AI and liars and lying AI anyway. The future looks like a bunch of new startups starting from scratch and inventing new ways of doing things, and largely ignoring the existing "real world".
The part I'm worried most about is government, which is another natural monopoly that serves as a social Schelling-point, and one that has become badly outdated for the conditions we're about to face. Unlike prestige, however, you kinda can't just ignore the existing government and do what you want. It's very, very rare for a government to get replaced peacefully, particularly a replacement that doesn't just change the people but wholesale ways of doing things. While I'm hoping that that's what happens, history has plenty of examples of revolutions that ended up extremely bloody, and didn't actually solve anything.
The part that makes me concerned is efforts by leaders to change the structure of our democracy from rules explicitly laid out in the Constitution to rules implicitly laid out in party bylaws and customs. Gerrymandering in particular is bad news: instead of having voters choose their leaders, it lets leaders choose their voters. Also the increasing centralization of power within the executive branch and within the federal government, the increasing politicization of the courts, and the influence of money on politics and politics on money.
All of these make the system more brittle. Democratic capitalism is effective because it tolerates partial failures well; if you get a bad leader, vote them out at the next election. When people no longer believe that they can vote out the bad leader, or that voting out the leader will change anything, then that release valve disappears.
Further counter argument- It seems that (elite) undergraduate students care about their professors research (versus just teaching). Else Harvey Mudd would be much much harder to get into compared with MIT?
I agree there are real problems in higher education. But the explanation that universities simply became bloated because student loan money was too easy is very incomplete.
At universities like MIT, Stanford and others, many undergraduates do not pay anything close to sticker price. Students from lower and middle income families often receive major aid, and in some cases pay no tuition at all. Full tuition is paid mostly by wealthy families and international students. I myself went to the most expensive university in the country circa 2005, but paid less than state school because they gave me a bunch of grants (not mere loans). For this reason, undergraduate education is mostly break even or a loss leader at many institutions.
Tuition inflation is also tied to inequality. If very wealthy families can pay $60k-$90k a year out of pocket, elite universities can set prices at that level, acting as upward price pressure in the broader market. That's just the magic of the market dynamics at work.
> I went to the college directory of my own college and was amazed at the number of administrative staff relative to teaching staff.
Some bureaucracy may be wasteful, but some exists because modern research universities are genuinely complex institutions. Yes, fewer administrators are tied to teaching, but a professor's job is only about 30% teaching, and classes are not in session 25% of the year. I never understand this idea that all or most of the administrative staff at a university must go toward teaching or else something is wrong / broken.
Large universities are small research communities verging on city status, not mere schools. If you want mere schools we have those in various forms (SLACs, community colleges, trade schools, etc.), but it seems to me people also want all the advanced stuff coming out of the research output these universities produce. The higher the tower of knowledge, the more it's going to cost to build on and maintain it, and the costs don't go up linearly.
> And you have universities complaining about how they don't have enough funding for research and they need MOOAAR.
Research is also and expensive loss leader. Labs, buildings, equipment, safety systems, compliance, grant administration all cost a lot of money, to the point that research is also a loss leader. At my institution we charge about 65% overhead on research grants, but for every research dollar we bring in, it costs 70 more cents for the university to support said research.
The upside is that these universities produce enormous value in the form of scientific discoveries, medical advances, new startups, an educated workforce, and regional economic growth. They bring in foreign and nonlocal money and spend much of it locally. Many of them are economic engines in places that otherwise would be considered "flyover country", acting as an anchor for educators and their families, students, and that attracts hospitals, other schools, restaurants, and suddenly a local economy is formed. You think there would be any economic activity at State College, PA if it weren't for Penn State University? It'd just be another part of Pennsyltucky. Instead there's a whole thriving town there; per capita, State College is in the top 5 economic regions in PA, and Penn State as a whole accounts for 10% of employment in PA (it's not a coincidence the other top 4 economic regions in PA are full of colleges and universities).
So yes, universities should control costs, reduce administrative excess, and protect students from bad debt like you said. But simply starving them of funding risks damaging one of America’s most productive assets. The better goal is a funding model that reduces student debt, preserves world-class research, demands accountability, and recognizes that valuable institutions are not cheap to run. But that's not what's happening, not even close.
Most universities subsidize their undergraduate program using graduate and professional degrees. And these degrees are often glorified immigration programs. Yes, even at elite universities.
It's true that master's degree programs and professional degrees help subsidize undergraduate degrees, and that's a good thing for several reasons. First, it brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars to local communities to help educate Americans. Second, it creates lasting bonds between America and the peoples of foreign nations; either the students learn and stay here to create value in America, or they go back home and bring with them American values and (hopefully if the program did their job right) a good view of Americans and America. If the only things we export are bombs and war, that reflects poorly on us as a country. Third, it means that when the world's top talent aspires to come to America rather than some other country for their education. Fourth, their presence in a local community creates demand for services and goods, and the fact there is constant churn creates enough sustained demand to support local economies in remote areas.
Really I don't see many downsides unless you're leaning heavily on the idea immigration is a bad thing for America.
> And these degrees are often glorified immigration programs.
I think you'll need to support that statement with a better argument.
That's an interpretation, not a fact. And “glorified immigration program” is not a neutral factual label because it implies the educational function is mostly pretextual. I can understand your perspective, but please stop pretending to me that you're simply making factual statements and not a value judgement.
It is pretextual for a lot of foreign students, I don't know how anyone can deny that in good faith. Its definitely not a value judgements because I never said whether it's a good or bad thing on net. Sometimes good things have to be smuggled through a pretext.
"pretextual for a lot of foreign students" means something very different from "these degrees are often glorified immigration programs", which is how you entered the discussion. Can you at least admit that if you're here in good faith?
Yes I'll admit that these statements imply different things. But I maintain that advanced degrees at American universities are functionally an immigration program and that this is unspoken yet by design
Unless I'm missing something, the linked article from MIT is about more than graduate students. That article talks about how changes introduced in 2025 are causing taxation on budgets that (as far as I can tell) affect all students.
The prior poster is making the case that might not be a bad thing, but its not just graduate students
Investing in educated population in future is investment in given society itself. Triple that for US where most folks remain in adulthood, so brain drain aint an issue. State/society would get those money 10x back easily.
But then who could push through some redneck agenda that is actively harmful to future of given society, but with apropriate emotional charge to ruffle feathers and get people into voting against themselves. You need simple people that can easily believe the dumbest shit you can cone up with. Smart educated folks usually know better, definitely on average.
I dont claim there is some big conspiracy around this, that would be too convenient copout when human greed and stupidity is enough, but it would make a typical Bond villain chess move.
Really, there is no good excuse for public education to not be accessible to whole public. Unless you want class based society, which US in many regards is and will be for foreseeable future.
Unfortunately, when you try to starve the beast, it's the essential functions that get slashed instead of the leadership and adminstrative apparatus. The animal is harmed further while the parasite intercepts the generated value.
The idea that simply having a lot of parameters leads to overfitting was shown to not be the case over 30 years ago by Vapnik et al. He proved that a large number of parameters is fine so long as you regularize enough. This is why Support Vector Machines work and I believe has a lot to do with why deep NNs work.
The issue with Vapnik's work is that it's pretty dense and actually figuring out the Vapnik-Chervonekis (VC) dimension etc is pretty complicated, and one can develop pretty good intuition once you understand the stuff without having to actually calculate, so most people don't take the time to do the calculation. And frankly, a lot of the time, you don't need to.
There may be something I'm missing completely, but to me the fact that models continue to generalize with a huge number of parameters is not all that surprising given how much we regularize when we fit NNs. A lot of the surprise comes from the fact that people in mathematical statistics and people who do neural networks (computer scientists) don't talk to each other as much as they should.
Strongly recommend the book Statistical Learning Theory by Vapnik for more on this.
Nope. Abuse should never be accepted. The right solution for actual abuse of a policy like this as opposed to an error is to immediately fire the person conducting the abuse. The inability or unwillingness to make decisions like this fast is the root cause of a lot of nonsense that goes on at businesses.
If it's an error, you correct and accept errors as the cost of doing business.
> A good strategy would be to have them be a lead on a minor project that
> requires technical chops and communication. Ensure there is a daily standup
> and grind them on details and timelines. Get them some juniors as direct
> reports to expose their lack of knowledge, then have meetings with these
> junior devs about project performance.
Do not do this. You do not need a “strategy”. Just do it! Rip off the band-aid. Either tell them the truth or give no reason even if asked. Reverse the mistake asap and get moving on your company’s mission. You don’t need one second more of this. Nor does anyone else at your organization. Do it today! Do it dispassionately. Do it as nicely as possible. You are going to feel bad because you are a good empathetic human.
Some people will have a reaction. Some people will “have a reaction” to try to get more out of you. You are not responsible for either. You are responsible only for your own actions. Figure out what you should give them to be fair and add a little extra so you are sure it isn’t unfair.
Plan what you will say and do in advance and have someone you trust with you in the meeting. Stick to your plan. Even the best hiring processes succeed only 50% of the time (though this goes beyond just a bad hire). Firing, and firing quickly is just as important as hiring well.
Also remember that if an applicant tailors to a hiring process to this extent, that’s not just a failure of the process. It’s dishonesty. Even if the applicant were competent, you absolutely don’t want to entertain someone dishonest in your company.
I've been using a Mikrotik for about 2 years now, switched from an Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X when I upgraded to 1gig at home. It works great and has been rock solid since setting it up. I even have 4 port bonding setup to my main switch because neither has SFP+.
However, it was kind of a bear to get all setup. In terms of setup difficulty it goes Mikrotik -> EdgeRouter - any consumer focused router. I've been putting off setting up VLANs for about a year and a half because I just know I'm going to break everything.
You do need to cap fountain pens because the inks are water based.
If you need to take quick notes and drying out is a problem because the pens are uncapped and capped a lot, get a Lamy 2000, vintage (not new) Parker 51 or a Pilot Vanishing Point. The first two have slip caps and hooded nibs so cap and uncap really quickly and don't dry out due to the hooded nib. The Vanishing Point also has a hooded nib but you click it like a ballpoint pen to expose and hide the nib. Also don't use quick drying inks.
If drying out is a problem because you don't write frequently enough, there are two solutions. Solution 1: Buy a Platinum (Preppy for low end, or 3776 higher end). It has a really good cap. Both will take a long time to dry out. Or even better, write more frequently.
It's extremely rare to get a nib that isn't tuned pretty much perfectly if you buy a brand new pen made by one of the Japanese big 3, Pilot, Platinum and Sailor from an actual fountain pen retailer (online or brick and mortar). I've never gotten a remotely bad nib from any of those nor have I heard of someone getting a remotely bad nib from one of them.
If you buy from eBay or used elsewhere or for that matter Amazon, you do sometimes get a bad nib because someone has tried to tune one of these nibs and botched it and then decided to try and sell the pen new.
A lot of times, with Pilots especially, if they're sold for the Japanese domestic market the tines are extremely tight and the pens write very dry, to the point of needing adjustment for writing in roman-derived script. I have a few nice Pilots and of the high end ones bought from Japan, a little bit of skipping or dryness was common out of the box.
Most nib complaints can probably be resolved with proper adjustment and maintenance. If people were doing that, I'd expect the complaints to be more focused on how the nibs defy their efforts, as opposed to how the nibs write poorly.
Even when Serbia was bombed during the Clinton years, American stealth bombers escaped not due to stealth but because they used decoys towed by fiber optics which transmitted what the missile seeker expected to receive from the plane while also aggressively jamming the missile seeker so the missile hit the decoy not the plane. One stealth bomber was hit anyway.
Safran and other European manufacturers arguably produce decoys that are as good as anything US planes have, arguably better because they decided not to go all in on stealth and focus on other measures instead. Stealth is certainly better to have than not but stealth also means somewhat worse aerodynamics and much less serviceability. You need to apply stealth paint and cure it any time you work on the plane. The plane needs more work and is harder to work on because of the tradeoffs made to achieve stealth. So instead of 75%+ of the planes being available at any one time, you only have about 50% of the planes available at any one time and total operational costs are much higher.
Given these disadvantages, it's not completely clear how much of a benefit 5th gen stealth is in a near-peer conflict. If the US is fighting Iraq fine. Now, if you can actually achieve what defense manufacturers say they will achieve with 6th gen stealth, where you have much lower RCS to all bands of radar from all directions, that could be a game changer but we don't actually know yet. The F-35 still doesn't do everything it was supposed to be able to do when the program started, so I would take these claims with a large grain of salt. And stealth countermeasures will continue to evolve.