The trump admin is a hive of scum and villainy worthy of a comic book universe, and Musk is inextricably linked. Thus anyone using twitter or grok or buying a Tesla or using starlink is complicit.
EDIT: or working for these companies!! Couldn’t pay me enough to do it.
Math professors at my alma mater were instructed to remove references to “inequalities” to increase their chances of getting funded. The <= and >= type of inequalities.
This is one a level that would be deemed too absurd for a sci-fi movie. But it's the reality.
Putting also words like "climate mitigation" on the list can only imply the list makers are true climate change deniers. Not just "we want to make more money with oil".
I mean if the DoD thought the projects were worthwhile to begin with, yes, I think it is eyebrow raising to cancel grants based on a keyword search for "solar energy," "hydrogen energy," "electrification," or "geothermal energy."
That the administration thinks these terms signify "wokeness" or whatever is depressing. Not difficult to imagine research grants with military applications using these words. Follow the war in Ukraine much? Energy infrastructure is frequently in the headlines.
The DoD has carried out a number of studies on mild traumatic brain injuries (MTBI), for obvious reasons. Not sure if the NSF keywords apply there but if they do then they can no longer do this work to help treat injured troops because it has the word evil word "traumatic" in it.
>a handful of federal agencies confirmed earlier this month in court documents that they cut grants if researchers’ projects “expressed, or were presumed to express, viewpoints disfavored by the Administration.”
Why is this bad? The Administration is democratically elected so nominally represents the viewpoints of the majority people - why should taxpayer funding go to disfavored research?
>The UC researchers allege the grant terminations violated their First Amendment rights by targeting their work based on viewpoint and subject matter and have asked the federal judge overseeing the case to rule the revocations unconstitutional.
More weird fascist technocratic fantasies from academia. Why would you be constitutionally entitled to continued public funding?
As bad as this is, I don't see how it is fundamentally different to the ways in which research grants have been doled out before. Hasn't it always been somewhat political?
Granted, the methods used here are asinine. But I don't think USG research has ever been apolitical and there have always been special words that grant writers knew to use and not use. Part of being in research is getting grants and it has always been a silly game. This just seems to take the silly game to whole new levels.
Looks like they accidentally put some right wing conspiracy language on the list. No one would ever seriously call their own policies "social engineering" when the word is associated with dictatorship and cyber attacks.
My favorites are: exclusive, historically, pollution control, systemic. There had to be an absurd amount of false positives but I doubt they care when they are anti-science in general.
I think hacker types look at this list and think, "Wow--that's inept." But I also feel that the administration looks at the list and says, "No, it's absolutely brilliant."
And I figure that's because our goals are different.
As stupid as this list is, there is seldom any reflection about why half the country felt this was necessary. I don't accept "because they are just dumb trump voters" as a reason. Obviously the left was doing some things that half the country felt were deeply unacceptable.
39 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 5.8 ms ] threadBanned Words List
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49319573
EDIT: or working for these companies!! Couldn’t pay me enough to do it.
That's understating it. Musk was the lead role in the cutting, he'd have OK'd the list if not partially authored it.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/u-budget-d...
Also not allowed to use "solar energy", "Geothermal energy", "EV infrastructure", "electrification", "Hydrogen energy".
Welp, America, you either gotta kick this administration out, or enjoy cosplaying the 1800s.
how's that iran war thing going btw?
That the administration thinks these terms signify "wokeness" or whatever is depressing. Not difficult to imagine research grants with military applications using these words. Follow the war in Ukraine much? Energy infrastructure is frequently in the headlines.
But no, they still seem to busy on Twitter being angry about a Muslim Mayor in New York.
Why is this bad? The Administration is democratically elected so nominally represents the viewpoints of the majority people - why should taxpayer funding go to disfavored research?
>The UC researchers allege the grant terminations violated their First Amendment rights by targeting their work based on viewpoint and subject matter and have asked the federal judge overseeing the case to rule the revocations unconstitutional.
More weird fascist technocratic fantasies from academia. Why would you be constitutionally entitled to continued public funding?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Granted, the methods used here are asinine. But I don't think USG research has ever been apolitical and there have always been special words that grant writers knew to use and not use. Part of being in research is getting grants and it has always been a silly game. This just seems to take the silly game to whole new levels.
Looks like they accidentally put some right wing conspiracy language on the list. No one would ever seriously call their own policies "social engineering" when the word is associated with dictatorship and cyber attacks.
And I figure that's because our goals are different.