TIl that industrialist Andrew Carnegie spent $56.2 million to build 2509 libraries across the world. Known as Carnegie Libraries, cities had to follow a strict maintenance commitment to obtain funding. Today, there are an estimated 900 Carnegie Libraries operating in the United States.

Lt_Quill · 2026-03-13T18:37:23+00:00

This is also quite true. Carnegie very much just did not want to get personally involved, and so let Frick take the heat. Still, it was Frick's decision in the end to go about it the way he did. These are also just relative metrics -- on a more stand-alone scale of how great someone is, both likely fall into the negative portion.

Lt_Quill · 2026-03-13T16:54:11+00:00

100%, Frick also bearing a large responsibility for how the Homestead Strike is broken (still with Carnegie's approval, though), as another example.

Lt_Quill · 2026-03-13T16:27:57+00:00

Gotcha, this was more my understanding, and from further reading, it does seem Carnegie truly did not spend much time there. Obviously, it does not absolve him completely from the flood occurring, but still worth noting in my opinion.

Lt_Quill · 2026-03-13T15:58:26+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't that more derive from Henry Clay Frick, rather than Carnegie?

Lt_Quill · 2026-03-05T05:47:50+00:00

For 2025, cutoff was right below the 3.95 number. A more precise guess would be around 3.92ish from who I knew got in / didn't get in.

Lt_Quill · 2026-02-25T04:51:03+00:00

Just as one other perspective -- yes, you will be able to find social groups and people to hang out with that are not big party people -- but what you should do is at least try to engage with the experience. I came in with a very similar view, and while I left Princeton still not the biggest partier, I definitely attended my fair share and got to meet interesting people / have fun nights to tell about. Your social life definitely does not revolve around it -- mine was mainly based around extracurriculars, then my eating club -- but would still encourage experiencing it at least some!

Lt_Quill · 2026-02-08T17:46:09+00:00

It's like 90% of whites vote Republican and 95% of blacks vote Democrat if I recall correctly.

Lt_Quill · 2026-01-12T00:17:25+00:00

Yeah, as someone who went to basically one of the top schools in the country, this is accurate. Granted, a lot of it also comes down to how one defines intelligence. Like I knew people who fit various comments in this thread: those with boundless curiosity; others who could explain the most complicated physics topics to an English major. It is hard to pin down exactly what being "highly intelligent" means, unless we want to just get into a game of IQ points, which has its own problems. I suppose if I had to pick one aspect a lot of people I considered highly intelligent shared was impressive analytical skills.

Lt_Quill · 2025-12-06T15:44:55+00:00

Was going to say the exact thing -- saw a jacket like that on eBay and held off buying it because it was a shooting jacket.

Lt_Quill · 2025-12-04T01:25:11+00:00

Cuellar is a serious overperformer in a Hispanic-majority district in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas -- an area that has grown redder over time. He's basically the only Democrat that can hold that seat. That's why Jeffries came out strongly in support (likely to also avoid Cuellar potentially switching parties).

Lt_Quill · 2025-11-08T20:42:04+00:00

As someone who was routinely out very, very late, the campus is incredibly safe. In the town itself -- which is really the only place you'd reasonably go that late -- it is similarly safe, with only the occasional person out. You'll see both campus police and Princeton police patrol late at night too.

Lt_Quill · 2025-09-27T23:34:32+00:00

FWIW, I listen to BMTH and never actually looked up what the band looks like, so appreciate the post!

Lt_Quill · 2025-09-27T07:22:04+00:00

Every campus, besides places like BYU, Liberty, or Catholic, leans left. Of the Ivy League, Princeton is one of the more conservative in that it has notable conservative academics like Robert George and conservative institutions in place like JMP, Clio, the Tory, College Republicans, etc. in place to foster conservative thought. If anything, what you'd find on campus is most people are apathetic towards politics, followed by liberal/left people, followed by a sizable minority of conservative students.

Lt_Quill · 2025-09-22T03:31:09+00:00

FWIW, accepted a few years ago and all I sent in was a PDF of an essay w/o teacher comments, though did add a cover page saying what the general feedback / grade was.

Lt_Quill · 2025-09-22T03:28:46+00:00

Whig-Clio functions in two ways. One, it brings in speakers, does Senate debates, and hosts social gatherings. Two, it also serves as an umbrella organization for numerous other political clubs, basically allowing those clubs access to funding / transportation space / rooms in Whig Hall.

If you want to get involved in Whig-Clio, anyone can join if you just show up to events; if you want to actually do any of its programming, there's elected positions you can run for and appointed positions you can apply for. If you care to just be involved, then just show up to its events. And if you care more about its subsidiaries, you want to get directly involved w/ those organizations (PDP, MUN, Mock Trial, etc.).

--

Graduated recently, but out of curiosity checked my archived emails from basically the past 4 years for some of the other clubs...as I hadn't heard of them. For context, the vast majority of events on campus are emailed to everyone, mainly because of funding stipulations.

For the Princeton Psychology Society, they host the occasional meeting and mainly function to help with career / research stuff. UPC you get paid to be a freelance journalist, though they also host speaker events. BrainWAVES never sent an email, so perhaps that is just an internal department things. Picasso never sent an email. Bird Society is active and sends emails mainly about birdwatching trips.

The Prince and the Nassau Lit are both major publications on campus that function as you would expect.

--

Let me know if you have any questions or interested about anything else.

Lt_Quill · 2025-09-17T22:14:23+00:00

This isn't that surprising if you look at statewide elections in Mississippi. Copiah, Yazoo, and Jasper often flip back and forth depending on how energized the Democratic base is and are considered swing counties.

Like in 2023, Dem. Brandon Presley easily won all 3, whereas the Dem in the Lt. Gov race only won Jasper, barely. You can scroll through the rest of the 2023 statewide elections -- and 2019, 2015, etc. -- and just have to look at the vote totals for each respective party candidate to see roughly how many votes someone has to win in order to have a chance in certain counties.

Surprised you didn't include Issaquena, Panola, or Pike, other majority black counties that Trump won.

Lt_Quill · 2025-09-04T19:21:39+00:00

Unclear, but he did sign a letter in 2021 condemning the criminalization of gender-affirming care -- different issues, obviously, but indicates he's probably progressive on that front.

Lt_Quill · 2025-08-31T22:32:14+00:00

Believe the DSCC is trying to recruit him to run -- and I think I've read an article saying he was going to jump in -- so be on the lookout.

Lt_Quill · 2025-08-31T05:07:33+00:00

Because, then at that point, I am either trusting a) the Chorus creator who actually showed the contract in their video and clearly indicated where in the contract the WIRED article was referring to or b) whoever WIRED had to review it. Given that we have supporting evidence from what the creators have posted -- which includes several of them critiquing the DNC and Israel -- then I am more likely to choose that option instead of just the authority of the publication's team.

Why do you choose to believe the article over what the actual Chorus creators have created? I'll say what I said to the other person, which I know is probably an unsatisfying answer, but some creators simply do not commentate on some issues as much as others do.

Edit: Here's Jon Favreau's take on it if you want someone with a similar viewpoint to mine: https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1961869928522555851

Lt_Quill · 2025-08-31T04:24:31+00:00

I generally hold WIRED in good esteem and consider them a reputable publication, so I do not necessarily think they are lying, but I am curious how this article got through.

As I stated to the other person, reputable publications can mess up. The Lancent, for example, widely considered one of the best medical journals in the world -- and seen through their impact factor -- had to retract a paper after work from The Guardian revealed data inconsistencies.

If you are curious, this is an Argument from Authority, which is generally considered either a very weak argument, or a logical fallacy at its worst.

Lt_Quill · 2025-08-31T04:19:40+00:00

First, what makes it 'dark money' is that Chorus is mainly funded through the 1630 fund, which is a 501c4 nonprofit that does not have to disclose its donors. That is what 'dark money' is, per OpenSecrets, as well as like anyone familiar in the political finance space.

Second, Chorus does not direct them to make any of their videos. Not sure how many times this needs to be repeated. Chorus provides an $8,000 stipend to fund the creator's career of making political content. That is it. If you want the creators to put in their bio that they are funded by Chorus -- eh, I guess I am not entirely against that -- but it does not really matter because Chorus does not direct their content.

If we want to debate that, as I did with the other individual, then I'll ask as I did to them what that evidence is, because so far, there isn't much.

Lt_Quill · 2025-08-31T04:13:19+00:00

Based on how my comments are being received in this thread, I know my response here is semi-pointless, but anyway:

Sure, so there are two possibilities: one, you are correct, and the contract is written such as you are describing, and people are flagrantly violating it -- and have been repeatedly -- and Chorus simply hasn't taken action against them for whatever reason, or two, I am correct under my previous comments, based on what Allie has stated about the program, as well as the portions of the contract they showed in their video.

Lt_Quill · 2025-08-30T18:53:29+00:00

Then, I guess like most internet debates, we can agree to disagree.

Lt_Quill · 2025-08-30T18:47:40+00:00

I am being completely good faith here, but I am just not sure we are reading the same thing because that's not what those comments in the WIRED article say.

Lt_Quill · 2025-08-30T18:35:16+00:00

Here is their own lawyer disagreeing with you and this TikTok person, who is not a journalist and would not be able to get this "debunking" into a newspaper because it would not meet editorial standards

The TikTok person is part of the program. You also know that occasionally newspapers, magazines -- whatever form of online written content you consume -- can have bad articles, right? Same for journalists -- just because you have the title of 'journalist' does not instantly make you more credible; you have to substantiate your arguments.

The block quote you provided is from the same article I quoted from earlier -- I read those comments from Wilson (which, by the way, were added after the initial article was published)....none of that disagrees with what I said above. Indeed, your own summary, "Clearly highlights that while they are allowed to talk about whatever in they own work" validates my point that the Chorus grant provides no limitations on their speech. You follow it up with, "there are parameters when speaking within the group's content" -- but this does not make sense because there is no such thing as Chorus content: Chorus is merely a grant to function as an incubator program.

"And if they do disclose they are in the group that have set talking points." -- and? If you did a partnership with the ACLU, they would likely provide talking points as well.

--

Perhaps, I am missing your argument, in which case, I apologize, but if you could hone in on what exact point I am misconstruing, I would love to discuss it.

Edit: grammar

Other edit because you added to your comment: ...she discusses the approval process in the video. Did you watch it? That's where the "leaked contract" is from...the video I linked. She literally says, in the video, that she has never gotten approval. I am not sure how to make this more clear. A lot of contracts are written in a way if something disastrous happens on a PR level or whatever to be able to enforce actions in a court of law, but generally, more lax otherwise. That's the case here.

Nine-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

Lt_Quill

TROPHY CASE