51–60 of 201 posts
Can I see a source for “forbidden” or “banned”? I see the author claiming these words get “flagged”, but also no source other than his post. Surely HN users wouldn’t be so quick to just believe a random mastadon post because it aligns with their own , right?
Details here in Science: https://www.science.org/content/article/exclusive-nsf-starts...
[flagged]
do you think that is reasonable?
now, apply that to science funding.
What I find most disappointing and frustrating is that accessibility has gotten caught in the crosshairs of this anti-DEI crusade. I expect this will lead to a lot of suffering among the most vulnerable groups of people.
It's been clear from the beginning that getting rid of equity and inclusion included disabled people; does nobody remember when Trump made fun of the disabled reporter in his first term? He hates them.
[flagged]
Submissions with these words may get additional review.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way? This is a list of words to identify applications that the Trump admin wants to deny grants to. Isn't that restricting research quite broadly based on very ideological grounds? This isn't about US research priorities, it is just political interference.
[deleted]
In particle physics we usually use these terms which will be at any proposal. This is an interesting textbook definition of false positives when you have list that is using too common words. - Minimum "Biased" data - "Discrimination" or "Discriminatory" variables - Phase space "excluded" - "Inclusion" of data/variable/anything - "inequality" -> wow bell's inequality and all this theory work about inequalities will be…
Also "polarization".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way? This is a list of words to identify applications that the Trump admin wants to deny grants to. Isn't that restricting research quite broadly based on very ideological grounds? This isn't about US research priorities, it is just political interference.
flagged != forbidden