top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 97 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 90 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    yeonmi-park "in North Korea, they ban topics from research that go against Kim Jon Un's party line."

    One thing that surprises me is that this is all words I would associate with culture war. I would have expected them to ban something like "poverty".

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I look forward to the future where scientific paperwork uses early 2000s type slang to dodge the basic word filter.

    this-is-fine

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 2 years ago*

    I've had some experience with the NIH process, and grant writing is actually 100% the same thing as resume padding. You'll have random people on the review boards complain that your grant doesn't touch on their favorite hobby horse.

    In the grand scheme of things if this looks like all this is is swapping out terms, it's literally always been this way. It just wasn't made into official documents.

    Sure this is idiotic, but this has been going on just unofficially for arbitrary things for years based on independent reviewers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 63 points 2 years ago (25 children)

    Seems like "barrier", "status", "polarization", "excluded", and "historically" are gonna hit some unrelated fields

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    Amerikan right wingers have never given the tiniest fuck if their policies have a disastrous fallout for education and science. Fascists in particular see intellectual impoverishment of the people as an additional benefit, remember German Physics?

    I'm honestly surprised this largely sticks to gender studies and research into racism etc., would have expected them to take the axe to climate science as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    They are doing that one abit more subtly. They can't challenge it directly, as that combats their opinions of themselves as 'scientific' but I am seeing papers coming out of Midwestern ecology schools (which are subsequently pushed hard on social media), that are pushing forward a hypothesis that 'we just don't know enough about the carbon cycle, there are lots of unaccounted carbon creating beings that could be helping with the warming', as well as people saying that because there have been no apocalyptic universal Hollywood spectacal collapse that 'the climate scientists got all their predictions wrong'.

    It'll creep into mainstream thought over time, especially as it becomes too late to change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    there have been no apocalyptic universal Hollywood spectacle collapse

    What do you call the LA wildfires?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    They aren't 'universal' (other than the studio, yuk yuk) enough, as apocalyptic as they should be. Already seeing people just blaming California state government, and not connecting it to the awful smog and fires coming down from Canada, because memory is basically a month for most.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

    Almost any of them could hit unrelated fields. "Female" could be referring to female plants.

    The flow chart does specify that decisions are made on banned terms AND context, so I guess that's how they'll avoid retracting denying nearly everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    This is for funding grant proposals, so they wouldn't be retracting anything. Doesn't look like they're looking at context at all, based on the flowchart, a proposal with a title like "Effects of colloidal silver on female Cannabis plants" would get rejected in the first step.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    But the flowchart says "keywords and context" at each of the steps. That's what I'm referring to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    As a programmer, that flowchart looks to me like the precursor to an automated system. The only way they could check the context in an automated fashion would be with some kind of AI, whose efficacy in doing so is going to be dubious at best given the language difference between most text on the Internet and grant proposals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 59 points 2 years ago

    “historically”

    Science no longer allowed to discuss the past

  • source
  • [–] 57 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    These people are pathetic. I know they feel big and strong right now because they have a bit of power they can use to go smash shit up. But like they are genuinely, unreservedly, without qualification... Pathetic.

    Like it would be hard not to laugh at them if one walked into my house... That and maybe a special treat for them. Simply pathetic

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 55 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    This study aims to impove our understanding of longitudinal double-spin asymmetry for inclusive jet and dijet production in polarized proton collisions at √𝑠 =200  GeV

    • Does the TITLE or ABSTRACT contain keywords and context that implicate the EO?
    • Yes
    • Retain flag, DEIA and other EO language found (Category 3)
    • END

    polarized gay protons BTFO

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 years ago

    biases

    statistics and machine learning nerds owned

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    How TF did we get out-maneuvered by these literal manchildren?

    And the government's priority is literally coddling their feelings.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    Small correction imo. They have billionaires literally funding everything they do, which translates into political power. The left, especially in the U.S., have no billionaires on their side, which means that we are without the means of production of political power in this country. The sad part is the Democrats who also have billionaires on their side and are still outmaneuvered, but the stakes are much less for them so they don't really care that much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago

    I guess the institution cannot reflect on itself if you ban the word 'institutional'.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago

    so all papers that talk about statistical biases (most papers) are just gone

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago
    [+] 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    "disability" fuck these fascists

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›