Proportional elections have different dynamics, especially if elected candidates are determined by personal votes (and not by predetermined ranks on the party list). A successful politician mostly needs to find a niche and maintain their visibility and support within that niche.

My personal rule of thumb is that any non-citizen who becomes a tax resident due to hitting the six-month rule is an immigrant.

From what I've understood, the collapsing glacier either contained enough liquid water or melted enough from the impact that it continued flowing downstream. It covered ~20 horizontal kilometers in about 7 minutes before hitting the border crossing.

In the university I went to, Department of Statistics used to be part of the Faculty of Social Sciences. It was impossible to graduate from social sciences without taking a few classes of statistics. Then in some reorganization, Department of Statistics merged with Department of Mathematics. Except that old-school statisticians didn't want to move to the Faculty of Science, and they somehow managed to keep their offices in the Faculty of Social Sciences.

My ideal Mac Studio would have an NVMe slot or two for additional internal storage, and those slots could be accessed without opening the case. But Apple won't do that, as convenient internal storage upgrades would likely lower their profits.

In the absence of civic order, personal relationships between the elites are what matters. Your thugs can easily take everything you own, but they don't inherit your relationships. A billionaire in an isolated self-sufficient bunker has nothing to offer to thugs who are already inside. A billionaire in a bunker that relies on trade with other nearby bunkers is in a much stronger position.

Bernie is probably the most well-known democratic socialist in the US, but he is not a member of DSA. By his political positions he would be either in the left wing of Finnish Social Democratic Party or in the mainstream of the Left Alliance. He would probably choose the Left Alliance, since it is more like a coalition of like-minded activists, while the party is the primary actor for the Social Democrats.

AOC, another well-known democratic socialist, would also fit in the Left Alliance. She is part of the moderate wing of DSA. But if you start looking into the ideological wing, you find plenty of actual socialists who would make Finnish mainstream leftists uncomfortable.

The first recorded uses of "meritocracy" are apparently by Marxist sociologists in the 1950s. They used it to describe a dystopian society, where merit serves as a moral justification for social classes, and social class determines the opportunities available to gain and demonstrate merit.

Of course the idea that career success and influence should be based on demonstrated ability and effort is ancient. But once you start building a society based on that idea, you run into Goodhart's law.

Some academic cultures have a tradition of formal debates. They are based on the premise that an educated person should be able to argue convincingly for or against any idea, regardless of whether they believe in it. A natural corollary is that you should not let convincing arguments convince you, as the merits of the argument have little to do with the merits of the idea itself.

LLMs have made the situation worse. People's ability to generate convincing arguments now greatly exceeds their ability to evaluate the value of ideas.

I've received some individual grants from private foundations in another country. Those grants were essentially unconditional gifts, as there were some tax benefits with such grants. I could have spent the funding period surfing in Bali instead of doing research, and nobody would have had the standing to complain.

Things change if the funder wants to maintain control over how the money is spent. Once there are regulations and compliance requirements, things become risky for the individual. If you end up in a situation, where a reasonable person would employ a lawyer or another professional, it's safer to have a legal entity between you and the funder.

That approach failed around 2000. When the left was protesting against globalization, social democrats had people like Blair in charge, leaving no moderate options for those opposing globalization. And when the nationalist right started growing a bit later, the center-right similarly rejected them and the issues they raised.

You could say that the center-right and center-left parties fail, because they are no longer center-right or center-left. Instead, they are divided into ideological and moderate wings. The former want to address the same issues as the more radical parties on the same side, but they are unwilling to collaborate with the other side. The latter are all for collaboration, but they are unwilling to disrupt the status quo.