3 ms·

I think it means the next administration would have to hire new people to offer grants to researchers. This would bring new perspectives into the process. There

I think it means the next administration would have to hire new people to offer grants to researchers. This would bring new perspectives into the process. There is never any shortage of researchers to fund. And that the ranks of researchers, which are often stagnant due to a shortage of jobs for PhD holders, would experience turnover in the interim, creating openings for fresh voices when the funding resumes. Ideally, imo, the grant process could be distributed across more organizations rather than being as centralized as it has been. The next administration might be free to do so if the existing orgs are no longer thriving at that time.

intended 2y ago
why.. where will the money come from? And next administration? This is 14 DAYS since election. March isnt even here yet. There are 4 tax filings before the next election. Please take a look at things like demonitization, or many "harsh" medicine programs in other countries. The fallout is going to be decades. The government is going to pivot to bread and circuses. The sides are going to get more entrenched, and then theres going to be riots and violence. This will pass, and new crap will come in. This is banana republic territory, not America territory.
- odyssey7 2y ago
  The Alzheimer’s debacle was already a generation. Perhaps a timely retirement or two would have cut that short. When I have the privilege of working with new college graduates, they get me out of my old modes of thinking. And they are quite talented. We will still have college graduates in four years. Granted, if you believe there is a significant risk that the United States falls into irreversible autocracy within the next four years, the analysis does change. However, I just don’t buy it. There are two branches of government that check the executive branch. Trump has been elected as a lame duck with no possibility for a second term.
  - intended 2y ago
    I’ve lived in developing nations. People who have lived in first world countries are prone to miss many crucial signs of banana republics. And why not - it looks hysterical from the surface. The crux of the matter is institutions. And your institutions have been under attack since watergate. In addition, our society is unprepared for a media industry that must be profitable and fast paced. I would think about what red lines y9u would have had in the 90s. And where your red lines are. Call it being the 90s back again. Then decide what you think the outcomes are likely to be.
    - odyssey7 2y ago
      While I still don’t think it’s likely, there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong. The conversation is shifted to a slightly different topic at this point, but going back to the NIH and the NSF, they aren’t exactly democracy’s bulwarks. Considering 90s norms for the present is interesting. I see social taboos that I’m grateful we’ve revised, though that social progress is not what you’re talking about, I understand. But I would still say that you can’t step in the same river twice, and that the red lines of yesterday might or might not be important today.
      - intended 2y ago
        >though that social progress is not what you’re talking about Right! but its a point that we can acknowledge. We've made progress on overcoming some taboos. Hmm, in a way, we've overcome taboos here as well, its ok to be an asshole politically. So the question becomes one of utility and morals - some taboos were ok to remove, others were not. You can use that to compare how certain red lines have moved more in accord with your values, and others are being breached. Either way, this is a tool for you, and others who read this, to look to their own values and judgement, and decide objectively if they should reasses and start responding. From my experience, the answer is heck yes. For people who are in a constant state of gradual escalation, their red lines get massaged fully out of shape, and you look to your peers to see if you are nuts. Which is why the idea is for you to judge the red lines for yourself, against your own ideals. At least thats what I am thinking by brining that comparison up. The 90s werent so far away that they couldnt be used to compare agains today.

intended 2y ago

why.. where will the money come from? And next administration? This is 14 DAYS since election. March isnt even here yet. There are 4 tax filings before the next election. Please take a look at things like demonitization, or many "harsh" medicine programs in other countries. The fallout is going to be decades. The government is going to pivot to bread and circuses. The sides are going to get more entrenched, and then theres going to be riots and violence. This will pass, and new crap will come in. This is banana republic territory, not America territory.

odyssey7 2y ago
The Alzheimer’s debacle was already a generation. Perhaps a timely retirement or two would have cut that short. When I have the privilege of working with new college graduates, they get me out of my old modes of thinking. And they are quite talented. We will still have college graduates in four years. Granted, if you believe there is a significant risk that the United States falls into irreversible autocracy within the next four years, the analysis does change. However, I just don’t buy it. There are two branches of government that check the executive branch. Trump has been elected as a lame duck with no possibility for a second term.
- intended 2y ago
  I’ve lived in developing nations. People who have lived in first world countries are prone to miss many crucial signs of banana republics. And why not - it looks hysterical from the surface. The crux of the matter is institutions. And your institutions have been under attack since watergate. In addition, our society is unprepared for a media industry that must be profitable and fast paced. I would think about what red lines y9u would have had in the 90s. And where your red lines are. Call it being the 90s back again. Then decide what you think the outcomes are likely to be.
  - odyssey7 2y ago
    While I still don’t think it’s likely, there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong. The conversation is shifted to a slightly different topic at this point, but going back to the NIH and the NSF, they aren’t exactly democracy’s bulwarks. Considering 90s norms for the present is interesting. I see social taboos that I’m grateful we’ve revised, though that social progress is not what you’re talking about, I understand. But I would still say that you can’t step in the same river twice, and that the red lines of yesterday might or might not be important today.
    - intended 2y ago
      >though that social progress is not what you’re talking about Right! but its a point that we can acknowledge. We've made progress on overcoming some taboos. Hmm, in a way, we've overcome taboos here as well, its ok to be an asshole politically. So the question becomes one of utility and morals - some taboos were ok to remove, others were not. You can use that to compare how certain red lines have moved more in accord with your values, and others are being breached. Either way, this is a tool for you, and others who read this, to look to their own values and judgement, and decide objectively if they should reasses and start responding. From my experience, the answer is heck yes. For people who are in a constant state of gradual escalation, their red lines get massaged fully out of shape, and you look to your peers to see if you are nuts. Which is why the idea is for you to judge the red lines for yourself, against your own ideals. At least thats what I am thinking by brining that comparison up. The 90s werent so far away that they couldnt be used to compare agains today.