gammarator

Or maybe needing.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_class_airline for a small number of examples

While it’s interesting to see renderings in past styles graphic design, ultimately it’s going to ring false. Even if it’s executed well it’s just a costume or pastiche, with no real connection to the style.

What made these historical design movements actually memorable was usually a set of newly-possible techniques joined with young people with a set of shared community values.

So if you want to make something that will read as authentically “2026” to future generations, you should make brainrot. :-)

I think you’re right that some of the angst here is due to a fairly insular community having its culture disturbed by commercial forces.

(academic.) Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of outsiders are missing core knowledge (or are cranks), so the optimal prior from a time management perspective is to ignore them. AI just makes engaging more costly because there’s more volume and it’s harder to get signal on whether they know what they are talking about.

Zuck & co released Wirehog in late 2004… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirehog

The book “Strangers in Their Own Land” covers similar ground.

> Researchers expect it will remain the most comprehensive 2D map of our universe for years to come.

This is Rubin Observatory erasure

Roman was literally donated to NASA by the National Reconnaissance Office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O...

The new “concise” output option that just shipper in Claude Code seems to help.

Note that those jobs are miserable: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/white-collar-workers...

As a young Midwestern nerd in the 90s, getting one of those cow boxes delivered to our home was better than Christmas. (Christmas happens every year!). Somehow I can still remember the new computer smell…

he just...he tweeted it out

At the present moment I think science is way more threatened by the OMB absconding with the grant budget than it is by AI.

“Just outside of Boston,” you say? They were coming to get Avi Loeb.

Again, the status quo is that funding recommendations are made by expert peer review by PhD scientists. Political appointees literally do not have the knowledge to make the calls this policy directs them to.

> the bureaucrats that were making the decisions before were not

Russ Vought was not elected either.

Here's a more concise summary of the proposed changes: https://elizabethginexi.substack.com/p/summary-of-key-change...

I don't think any practicing scientist of any political persuasion will think these are good for science.

Science progresses by sharing knowledge openly and publicly, so others can evaluate it, criticize it, and build on it. These severe restrictions on collaboration, publication, and public communication will damage science's naturally open, merit-based culture.

We will all suffer due to lost discoveries--maybe not today, but over years and decades.

"R&D" is not the same as "grants supporting fundamental science."

You are misreading how Broader Impacts (BI) works. From your link:

> Some examples that illustrate contributions in each of the five areas are given below. Proposals need not address all of these areas, and PIs are advised to focus on those areas in which they are well prepared to make meaningful contributions.

"Broadening participation of underrepresented groups" is only one of the five areas, and no proposal was required to use it. I had proposals funded that focused on workforce development, for example. I saw others focus on science communication to the public (now forbidden in the memo this post is about!).

Proposals that passed grant panels were first and foremost always those that would great science. At ~10:1 oversubscription rates or more, proposals don't pass without it. The BI component needed to be credible but could be handled lots of ways.

Fundamentally, Congress recognized when defining BI as a component for merit review in the NSF that fundamental science only pays off in the long term. BI is a pragmatic choice to ensure that grants also yield near-term benefits to society as well.

The political system, representing the taxpayer (primarily via Congress), has always dictated scientific strategy--do we build the Superconducting Supercollider or cancel it; do we return a sample from Mars or not; do we sequence the human genome. How big a budget do we devote to medical research compared to physics, etc. Scientists advocate, but politicians decide.

However, the nuts-and-bolts day-to-day tactical decisions have before been made through expert peer review, by scientists. Given a fixed and finite budget set by Congress, what is the best way to make discoveries?

Having been on grant review panels, it's brutal--at 5 or 10:1 oversubscription rates, your peers will find any flaw in your proposal.

Political appointees are deeply unqualified to make these judgments. To take a very specific example: the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is headed by Michael Kratsios. He has a BA in politics and has never written a scientific publication. (Every prior OSTP head was a PhD scientist.) The OMB memo says he and those like him should decide what to fund without deferring to scientists. How is he going to assess which of 50 proposals on (say) "hypothalamic SH2B1 neurocircuits and SH2B1 signal transduction pathways" is the good one?

He can't, so he'll either choose AI or graft. Both are destructive to our once world-leading scientific enterprise.

> the text of this piece is entirely human-generated, including the infelicitous phrasings and penchant for two-dollar words.

“I aim for the stars… but sometimes I hit London.”

“and, like, sort of ethics”

I have a 20 year old Malm dresser that made four moves and is doing just fine.

(I do have it screwed into the wall as it’s been recalled for tipovers.)

You’ve got to normalize by dollars spent, though.

Ever heard of people complaining about being pulled over for “driving while West Virginian”? Why or why not?

Oh look! https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-whole-thing-was-scam

I would not be surprised if Sam A. helped engineer this whole situation… “Child’s play,” like replacing a reddit ceo.