I love this idea in principle, but when our school ran something similar to connect grad students who didn't have the opportunity to socialize due to covid remote work, I got a feeling some of them just showed up for the free coffee (we did free coffee chats instead of meals) and just weren't that interested in the social aspect.
You can't give people free stuff and then complain when they only come for free stuff. That was literally the whole tactic - that people will come for the free stuff, and some of them might also engage in the secondary activity.
Would that be a problem? I mean, you want them to socialize, and they'll do for a while, even if not for "the right reasons".
If some of them do so more because the free coffee is that valuable to them, what's the downside with letting them have the free coffee you wanted to give away anyhow? Imho that would be a good opportunity to get them more support, not a problem with that approach.
This concept can work outside the context of a school, as various coffee shops and social gatherings are conducive to it. Doesn't have to be coffee, could be wine and cheese, beers from around the world, or other light offerings.
The "trick" to it, in regards to dating opportunities, is the place has to be quietly accepted as a "safe" hookup spot, as well as have a good setup for people to move around and talk to each other. What I mean by setup, is the design of the place. Like having lots of benches or chairs in a row or parallel to each other, not facing (can make people uncomfortable when approached by strangers) or far across from each other (which can cause yelling as hard for people to hear each other), where people can easily sit next to each other. It also must be accepted or encouraged by the staff, managers, or owners that people there, even though strangers, can approach and talk to each other. Bad behavior is not accepted, but polite talking is.
It's tricky, because women will avoid or condemn a place that gets a bad reputation (which is easy to create on social media), be it deserved or not. The place has to be considered safe, cheap, respectful, welcoming, and fun. The combination of such appears hard to get right, so can be hard to find. Places that are good for such socializing, can also be surprising and unexpected ones. And when people do find them, they tend to be quiet about them, to avoid it getting a bad reputation (which can ruin it).
Many places that seem like they could or should work for socializing or hookups, often are actually bad. Be it the design (separate tables that are far apart) or the environment that's created (talking to strangers discouraged). For instance, if those managing it or owners are overly protective or strict, then people may come just and only for say the coffee. No talking to others, drink up, then leave or be nearly completely absorbed into a computer or smartphone. The environment, which encourages and allows polite socializing, has to be created and maintained.
On the issue of bias - I'm not confident that paid news is necessarily less biased than news that relies on clicks and ads. Two potential issues:
1) A news agency might be further incentived to publish biased, "echo-chamber" type of news if they are more effective at convincing readers to pay.
2) Detailed news with in-depth research and thorough analysis is expensive to produce, so news agencies that produce such material, if they were to rely on subscriptions, need to charge appropriately expensive fees. This means only a select group of people can afford this news. To generate more revenue, such a quality news sources are incentived to cater content to this limited audience set. Over time this can make quality news inaccessible and even irrelevant to most of the public.
I can't comment on China and other fields, but in the US for AI and robotics, in which I do research / publish in, there is definitely a growing trend of an over-emphasis on novelty research that disregards reproducibility in favor of "wow" factors and fancy demo videos. A lot of highly cited research papers/labs tend to be the most heavily promoted ones (on Twitter, in the press, etc), and they're not necessarily impactful/useful for the rest of the field.
Amidst this worrying trend of shallow research, begging for petty cred and grants more than knowledge, you have to wonder what has become of ethics, of integrity in science. Globalized academia needs some soul-searching, IMHO.
" you have to wonder what has become of ethics, of integrity in science"
When was there any more ethics or integrity in science than any other time? The AIDS crisis was a shitshow of choosing prestige and recognition over the lives of a generation. The discovery of DNA was off a woman who was hardly recognized. Henrietta Lacks' cells. The syphilis experiments.
The discovery of DNA was done by Friedrich Meischer, a brilliant Swiss biologist. At the time, nobody knew what the nuclein he purified did (and, the results were considered so surprising that his own thesis advisor redid all the experiments manually before letting the data be published).
What you are referring to is the use of Rosalind Franklin's X-ray fibre diffraction images by Watson and Crick to elucidate the 3D structure of DNA, and, depending on the accounts you read, whether she got due credit is arguable. She did publish in the same Nature journal issue as W&C (https://www.nature.com/articles/171740a0.pdf), she got credit for the photos (see the acknowledgements in the W&C paper, http://www.nature.com/genomics/human/watson-crick/), and she was dead by the time the Nobel Prize decision was made (so she could not have received the prize).
I understand many feel very strongly that she was cheated, and while I do believe she was definitely slighted and not given enough credit, the underlying story is fairly complicated. I recommend reading both Dark Lady and Eighth Day of Creation and then forming your own opinion. personally I thought her personal diaries, which she willed to Aaron Klug and were used in the writing of Eighth Day, were really illuminating.
Sorry, you're right, the story is complicated, but that it is so complicated draws further the question- where are we getting the idea that science was full of ethical humans doing purely ethical things?
won't big players like FB benefit from this? It seems more likely that people would port data from smaller networks to bigger ones than the other way around.
A PhD is not only about solving some specific problem. It is more about learning how to solve problems, and more importantly, choosing what problems to solve.
Having a PhD should mean that the person is capable of making consistent progress in ill-defined problems without much external support. Of course not all PhDs can do this, and you don't need a PhD to gain these skills, but they correlate strongly enough that it makes sense to just filter some jobs by whether or not someone has a PhD.
I understand that the scope and scale of the technology transfer agreements may be unreasonable, but surely these foreign companies aren't "forced" to oblige? I'm not sure if it's on China that many companies find it more profitable to have access to the Chinese market than to hold on to their IPs.
When China was admitted to the WTO, manufacturers in China gained access to other WTO member markets on better terms than they had before.
And, in theory, in exchange for that access, outside companies gained new access to the Chinese market - to investing in factories there and selling products and services there. That was supposed to be part of the WTO deal.
But, the requirement in China that state owned companies had to be partners, that IP had to be transferred to these state partners as an additional condition of doing business -- that's what is unusual, that's where the word "forced" enters the conversation.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think WTO rules reallly allow for that sort of required government involvement.
No WTO is about trade and it is fairly silent on investment. See https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/invest_e/invest_info_e.... "As an agreement that is based on existing GATT disciplines on trade in goods, the Agreement is not concerned with the regulation of foreign investment. The disciplines of the TRIMs Agreement focus on investment measures that infringe GATT Articles III and XI, in other words, that discriminate between imported and exported products and/or create import or export restrictions."
I think a recent EU complaint to the WTO about IP transfer rules in China does a better job of explaining the issue than I have. Bloomberg wrote about it in June:
In its complaint, the EU is targeting rules in China on the import and export of technologies and on Chinese-foreign equity joint ventures. Certain provisions “discriminate against non-Chinese companies and treat them worse than domestic ones,” violating WTO requirements that foreign businesses be put on an equal footing and that IP such as patents be protected ...
EU's complaints depend on the TRIPS agreement https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.... , which appears to be silent on investment as well. If EU obtains a favorable ruling it would likely require China to treat patents owned by foreign entities equally as those owned by the Chinese. However it is unlikely to say how China should regulate foreign investments. Indeed under WTO countries have no obligations to allow foreign investments at all. Plus TRIPS contains this as well: "More precisely, Article 7 (“Objectives”) states that the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations." https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/techtransfer_e....
Ok. So, it's about equal IP protection and not investment. Thank you for the clarification.
Based on what you're saying, it sounds like the EU and other countries could impose a wide range of conditions or restrictions onto Chinese investments or purchases without running afoul of WTO rules. Interesting stuff.
Looks like I stand both corrected and downvoted. Gotta luv HN!
The theory has always been that countries would compete with each other for FDI, but the reality is a little more complicated. When Amazon put the location of its new headquarter out for bid many cities are willing to throw any concession at Amazon. However that does not mean cities like SF or NYC would do the same. Not every location has the same attractiveness for business. Similarly not all countries are the same in their attractiveness to business. You can't expect countries to not take advantage of the differentials and offer identical terms unless doing so is in their own interests.
On the other hand, as a thought experiment, what would have happened if China had been more open or fair to foreign investments? Then even more businesses would have invested in China and thus subject themselves to the influence of the Chinese government. For an example (not to imply any moral equivalence) see the tremendous power the US government wields over transactions conducted entirely between foreign entities.
