Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 676 posts

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#361

Post by warumdarum »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #341
jrmg wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re thinking tactically. All tactics, no strategy is the way of things currently - on the right especially, but on the left to some extent too. It’s maddening.

It seems to me that the right wingers have a pretty detailed strategy as you can see with Project 2025. I don’t see anything similar on the left wing. I think it’s pretty crazy that even with the current chaos the democrats still aren’t able to craft a coherent message why people should vote FOR them instead of just voting against the republicans. They look purely reactive. No clear message on health care, no message…

Also ignore all the obvious unabridgeable cultural differences like the non stop calling indian scammers harassing your parents. Reality is the best vaccacine to alot of ideology. The cofabulations to new wrongs about ancient wrongs they do nothing but advocate for the right.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#362

Post by croes »

Jerry2 wrote: post #176
tempodox wrote: post #163

If you want to stay a scientist, you have to emigrate. The art of continually licking the right asses to keep funding going is not science.

Emigrate where? And why do you assume that the country you're gonna emigrate to will have the funds necessay to fund the research? US grants are the biggest and most generous in the world. I think the USG spends over $900 Billion every year. Europe spends about 1/10th of that. Other option is China but as a foreigner, you will never get a grant there unless you work for someone else.

> USG spends over $900 Billion every year

If you spend $900 Billions on BS you will lose to other countries that only spend 1/100th of that.

Quantity over quality doesn’t work in science because reality doesn’t care who paid how much.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#363

Post by amazingamazing »

dgellow wrote: post #326
amazingamazing wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been here longer than you. I just rotate accounts after around 1000 karma (this account will be thrown away too soon)

If that's the case how are you confused by the content in HN front-page?

I am not confused. Sad. Go analyze the front pages for yourself with llm, it is becoming more political.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#364

Post by yoyohello13 »

petcat wrote: post #297
chadgpt3 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is a de-jure democracy, just like the US. In fact I'm not sure what difference there is between them.

USA has had 3 different presidents from opposing parties just in the last 15 years. Putin hasn't allowed a challenger in nearly 30 years and he actively bans them, imprisons them, or kills them. It's a big difference. > I'm not sure what difference there is between them. Good hyperbole

It remains to be seen whether this is just the start of a 30 year run. Although with Trumps health I don’t think he will make it that long.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#365

Post by xhkkffbf »

gwerbin wrote: post #168

More of the same at this point. If you are politically connected, or stay in an narrow lane of approved work, you get your grant. But if you stray from the politically approved path, or appear disloyal to our First Citizen and the Party, then your grant will be canceled. The remaining supporters of the incumbent party like to claim that they aren't actually doing anything worse than in the past, and if anything they…

[flagged]

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#366

Post by Erem »

hollerith wrote: post #252
Erem wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The spoils system… > contrasts with a merit system, where offices are awarded or promoted based on a measure of merit, independent of political activity. What is commendable about this? Why should anyone who isn’t close enough with political winners to get the spoils want this?

He's not commending it. He's using it to point out that the reaction, "Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap," is simplistic, hyperbolic and maybe a little hysterical.

Ah I read it as “the US was corrupt before, and that was OK because GDP was growing! So we are just returning to our roots now”

Now understanding the good faith argument better, doesn’t it even further support the ascendancy of China? The argument is: despite rampant spoils system corruption, the US eclipsed Great Britain on the strength of a large population with low trade barriers alone (both internal and external)

But China is now the country with the largest population and low trade barriers. So aren’t they playing the role of 1800s USA and we the role of Great Britain here in 2026?

Aside, I appreciate the content of your post, but it really does distract your point to sling insults like hysterical towards other commenters

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#367

Post by tootie »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #350

So...as a scientist, I can lose my funding if I exercise my free speech and publicly disagree with Trump? What is this, North Korea?

No it's worse than that. Your grant application must be actively aligned with their political agenda. If you are polite, deferential and apolitical but you want to study climate change you will be rejected.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#368

Post by harimau777 »

shaftoe wrote: post #311
filoeleven wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

A) this court has a number of originalists, more likely to reject grabs for power than more progressive judges. There's worse things than a court that tries to adhere to the constitution when the executive branch and Congress both routinely do not. B) do you really want to get to a place where the arbiters get politically reset and degraded every time the pendulum swings? This is the equivalent of a courtroom where a…

As for B. Yes definitely. That's a massive improvement over letting the Republicans be the arbiters for the rest of our lives.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#369

Post by TimorousBestie »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #287
hollerith wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Implying that this particular story ("WH proposes rules") is the final piece of evidence that might cause a reasonable person to conclude that the US is finished as world power does strike me as maybe a little hysterical. If someone has an extremely simplistic view of how our society works and where our power comes from, then it is regrettable for that someone to even offer a prediction in public about whether our so…

Final piece of evidence? Of course not. But it's part of a stream of news for some time now that points in the same direction. (And I have no idea why Rayiner was downvoted. I'm happy for them though—for sticking to principles and posting what may well be downvoted to oblivion. It's something I have become more comfortable with myself.)

Insinuating that the administrative state is racist by genetic fallacy while longing for a return to the era of Jim Crow is hypocritical enough for me to disregard his opinion.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#370

Post by harimau777 »

shaftoe wrote: post #321
mcphage wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they don’t, you know that they also agreed with it - this handwringing now is just for show. No, the left should use the things right broke to abuse the right—just like the right is breaking everything to abuse the left. Otherwise the right will never learn why breaking things is a bad idea, and they’ll just keep on breaking everything like they have been for my entire life and before.

Pretty sure the right generally believes the left has been doing the same. Previously, it was a more libertarian and constitutional argument: progressive causes since the new deal have assumed powers not granted. More recently this has completely flipped to a populist culture war argument that the left, in excesses seen in the DEI hayday before COVID, has lost its mind and began attacking and punishing people. My poi…

That seems like all the more reason to fight fire with fire. Right now its an existential fight so if MAGA can't be reasoned with then the only option is to fight back by ay means available.
Post reply on HN