My bad.

Exactly, his approval rating isn’t “low” at all. It’s 39%, well above the approval rating of, say, Merz (19%) or Macron (27%).

Yes, by a broad definition. They can be considered democracies because elections, while not free and fair, are not directly rigged, opposition parties are allowed to contest them, and the press is partially free. Contrast this to a country like China or Russia, where elections are a sham, opposition is banned or controlled, and the press is tightly controlled by the government.

I will say though that both V-Dem and the Economist are being somewhat generous. Considering recent events in Hungary, one could argue both countries should really rank lower than Hungary.

It requires a broad definition of democracy to consider either of those democracies. The V-Dem Institute puts both in the second tier of “electoral democracy” behind the “true” democracies, termed “liberal democracy.”

From Wikipedia, the electoral democracies are those that:

Regimes that possess the bare minimum to be considered a democracy. They are “de-facto accountable to citizens through periodic elections”, but are not liberal democracies and lack further entrenched individual and minority rights beyond the electoral sphere. Basic electoral democracies may not possess a fully developed rule of law, legislative and judicial oversight of the executive branch, protections against the “tyranny of the majority”, and only minimal fulfillment of Robert Dahl’s institutional prerequisites for democracy.[13]

Both countries are also considered to be backsliding toward autocracy.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? “No,” says the man in Washington, “it belongs to the poor.” “No,” says the man in the Vatican, “it belongs to God.” “No,” says the man in Moscow, “it belongs to everyone.” I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different.

• Claude in the near future, probably

American voters are doing their part to “help,” crying about “high” fuel prices (less than half of what they are here) when one of the big issues is that undertaxation of petrol has led to underinvestment in alternatives.

“Somewhat” is doing some heavy lifting there. Of course I mean: important enough to alter their vote. So 22% per the article say the Israel-Hamas conflict is “very” important (which was less in 2024). Those who would base their vote on it is a smaller subset. Those who would base their vote on it and not think Trump was significantly worse a yet smaller subset of this subset. Some of the 22% might favour a tougher approach against Hamas, and/or support the Gaza genocide.

All this is even still ignoring the fact that Jewish Americans heavily favour the Democrats, and while many certainly aren’t Bibi fanboys, the Democrats cannot afford to alienate this part of their voter base (and in the oligarchic system of the US, that they have above-average incomes also makes them more valuable voters), making it less than obvious that a more hardline approach towards Israel would bear electoral fruit.

You don’t need to bet, you can just look up surveys on whether or not US voters say the Israel-Palestine conflict is important to them, and you’ll find that an extremely small minority of voters say it is.

Trump won mainly because, among swing voters, he was ranked more favourably than Harris when it came to the economy and immigration.

Oh my bad, I interpreted the comment as saying it should be a general requirement.

ArXiv uses an endorsement system so that not everyone can post there. However, sometimes dubious “scientists” manage to slip through the cracks, which is why there is moderation for cases such as these.

ArXiv is a place where researchers put papers before they are accepted and peer reviewed (“preprints”). Requiring this would defeat the purpose of arXiv, which is to allow fellow researchers to see material that is not peer reviewed before it is published. Before arXiv, this happened only through informal discussions and meetings during conferences.

Citizenship? That’s a whole different ballgame. Residency is not hard (if you can work/study), citizenship depends on the country and can be quite difficult to get. Though having said that, it’s generally easier than in the US, and in some EU countries it is almost automatic after 5 years of residency. (No citizenship at birth though.)

Most EU countries do not have green card quota or any kind of similar system. The main obstacle, for those for whom studying isn’t an option and family reunification doesn’t apply, is finding an employer willing to hire you over a local. Studying is definitely the easiest way, and can in fact be a lot cheaper than dealing with US tuition fees for institutes of similar quality.

I see. Well, I worked as an academic in Europe for many years and so have spoken to non-EU colleagues (many of them with families) about their experiences. There is bureaucracy to be sure, but as long as you have a valid reason to move (study or work, usually), it’s not too bad. We’ve had people moving over within a few months of being offered a position, and these were usually people from Asia, for whom it can be more difficult than US citizens.

It’s so goddamn hard to get passports and work permits and move out internationally.

Is it? Have you tried figuring out what is necessary for it?

Just “speaking English” typically won’t get you a job unless you have a degree to back it up.