771–780 of 877 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If it's not ideologically aligned it won't get funded." As I show elsewhere in this thread, the previous administration forced applicants to include irrelevant DEI language in grant applications.
Was it the Biden administration doing this? Are you sure this wasn’t happening at the university or state level?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am questioning your assertion that moving from the center is the way to win votes, and asking a question that highlights how ridiculous it is. That is a perfectly normal way to discuss something. Going meta is not.
You're sealioning while treating your own assertions as facts. It's an unedifying spectacle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not fielding good candidates for bad reasons and giving the election to @#$%ing Trump is on the Dems. Forcing grant applicants to include irrelevant DEI language in applications is on the Dems.
How much of the fault for the actions of republicans and trump rests on republicans and trump?
Pointing out to the Dems that they really have to fix themselves will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not fielding good candidates for bad reasons and giving the election to @#$%ing Trump is on the Dems. Forcing grant applicants to include irrelevant DEI language in applications is on the Dems.
maybe, but nobody is talking about that we're talking about the story in the article: republicans totally gutting science funding regardless of presidential candidates or DEI
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You’ve offered no evidence of “DEI in maths” Compelling or not, they offered some. Now it's on you to move the goalpost or concede the challenge which you issued .
No they didn't. The grant application to study laplacian equations mentioned that they would use some of the funding to broaden the range of scholars who could participate. You can't have DEI in math itself because it's fundamentally abstract. One might as well demand to know why there's any funding larger than that required to run a stationary cupboard because mathematicians famously only need pencil and paper (unli…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’ve been doing nothing for decades.
> They’ve been doing nothing for decades. Here's a list of the 250+ pieces of nothing that the 118th Congress passed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_118th_Un... If you're going to reach for hyperbole, at least make it defensible.
> It has been called one of the least productive Congresses since 1951
Let’s not measure productivity in terms of count of bills passed like measuring output by lines of code.
Healthcare reform, SS reform, fiscal sustainability, electoral reform, climate, immigration, information environment, cybersecurity, how many of these pressing issues have been tackled and solved by congress?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> some billionaire via tax cuts The current noisy news is taxes for the rich the same or higher, not "cuts".
Only for those too ignorant to actually understand what's being extremely loosely proposed. And he's totally non-committal about the whole vague thing. Hiking income taxes on W2 salaries isn't going to touch those billionaires. They'll still get massive tax cuts. And that's assuming he's actually saying these things in good faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. We did not elect the party majority in Congress or the Supreme Court. If anything, the weakness of our constitution has spoken. Take this as a lesson, and defend your democracy while you still can.
Trump is a reaction to what was there before him (and in between). Perhaps Obama/Biden were not that bad in comparison, but they went too far in one direction and now the reaction is going too far in the other direction.
US's global superiority has largely been driven by programs like the NSF, making the US the world leader for r&d and inventing completely new industries.
Why would you completely gut these programs with such amazing ROI?
Putting my conspiracist hat on, it seems like this only benefits countries like China/Russia that want to weaken the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For all intents and purposes, it's self driving. Except that you're responsible for its faults and errors, because you are the one driving. "Self driving" means I can be drunk, or I can put a kid in it, or an elderly person. That's what that word means: the car drives itself.
Why don't you add anywhere to that list? If the car drives itself, why is it geofenced into only places google has HD mapped down to the centimeter. My car can drive itself to Tahoe, can a waymo?
As long as you pay for the people you injure and kill on the way, you can let your Tesla drive you anywhere, even if it can't do it. You can let it try, and maybe it fails. That's totally fine. You will be held liable, but you get to enjoy your trip to Tahoe.
Self-driving companies that have to pay for the systematic faults of their systems will usually move different.