I don't think people fully appreciate how apocalyptic things are for US science. I haven't had any new funding since 2024, but I'm still ok since typical grants are for three years. This means next year I will be completely out of funding and will have to fire everyone in the lab. It's not great.
The blue sky made a big difference too. The finishing touches really make it.
@natedimeo.bsky.social feels very much like the painting version of a memory palace episode. Some nostalgia, some loss, some reverence, very personal.
Where is the congressional appropriated money going? Just being withheld?
Reminder: All it would take to end the murder of American citizens by an untrained government goon squad is 16 Republicans in Congress voting with Dems to defund ICE (or 23 to impeach and remove Trump — 3 in House & 20 in Senate). That’s it. 23 Americans can vote for the public and end all of this.
The level of kleptocratic corruption in this regime is breathtaking, e.g.:
—Selling off Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae to big banks
—Bribes from ABC & CBS
—TikTok sale to Ellison
—Everything Qatar: the plane gift, the Idaho military base
—Whoever has bribed him by buying his scam meme coins
it is incredible to see the extent to which the Sensible Centrists are simply incapable of grasping the very simple and obvious fact that the president's concern with crime is a pretext, and that to deny claims of a sudden epidemic in crime is not to say that crime is nonexistent.
Let me try a few:
- GOPpledygook
- GOP Flop
- Repubs Flub
- Sloppy GOP
- Republicans in Ruin
- MAGA in misery
Maybe you can make one catch on. 🫡
Big screen. Big science. Stop by Booth #2456 at #AACR25 to see our single cell and spatial solutions like never before 🤩 From sample to insights—see what’s possible!
Forcing people to pay $130 for a passport in order to vote is just a Jim Crow poll tax by another name.
It is blatantly unconstitutional.
Great article by @nobelprize.bsky.social laureate @ardemp.bskyverified.social outlining the health, economic and national security benefits of US biomedical research, and the devastation of government efforts to destroy our leading edge.
www.cnn.com/2025/04/09/h...
an executive order is not a law
an executive order is not a law
an executive order is not a law
an executive order is not a law
an executive order is not a law
an executive order is not a law
an executive order is not a law
an executive order is not a law
an executive order is not a law
Harvard Medical School, are you OK with this outcome? Who will speak up for her?
Happy to share that the preprint to our new scATAC-seq multiplexing method, MULTI-ATAC, is officially online:
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court held that systems of political patronage like the one established by Thompson violate the First Amendment. Quoting one of its first patronage decisions, the Court reaffirmed that “conditioning public employment on the provision of support for the favored political party ‘unquestionably inhibits protected belief and association.’” Doing so “pressures employees to pledge political allegiance to a party with which they prefer not to associate, to work for the election of political candidates they do not support, and to contribute money to be used to further policies with which they do not agree.” It is “tantamount to coerced belief,” something the First Amendment plainly forbids. Nor did it matter that Thompson had not issued a direct order specifying that only Republicans would be hired, because “what the First Amendment precludes the government from commanding directly, it also precludes the government from accomplishing indirectly.”
Right now, DOGE is saying that any new hires have to be approved by their office.
In 1980, when IL Governor Thompson said any new hires had to be approved by his office, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional politicization of hiring.
What about now?
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...
Tapping this sign again. Gonna tap it every week.
Forget your savvy & your cleverness & your 3D chess. Just skip to the end, where you *fight*.
This totally misses a major category of college student facial hair. Somewhere 3 to 30 days post shave. Not quite a beard and never really clean shaven.
The image is from a "Transparency Center" document and lists guidelines regarding acceptable and prohibited content for insults. It mentions: 1. Insults about: Character, such as cowardice, dishonesty, criminality, and sexual promiscuity or immorality. Mental characteristics, including but not limited to accusations of stupidity, intellectual capacity, and mental illness, as well as unsupported comparisons among politically correct (PC) groups based on inherent intellectual traits. 2. Highlighted section: The document allows allegations of mental illness or abnormality when tied to gender or sexual orientation, referencing political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality. It also acknowledges the non-serious use of terms like "weird."
Meta literally created a LGBTQ exception for calling someone mentally ill as an insult. You can't do it for any other group except LGBTQ people.
I'm endlessly kind of baffled by the lack of urgency on housing California. This is the state's number one problem—a crisis so bad that's imperiling national Democratic ambitions. And all we can pass are heavily compromised bills that take effect in like five years, if ever.
New paper out in @ScienceMagazine! In 8 studies (multiple platforms, methods, time periods) we find: misinformation evokes more outrage than trustworthy news, when it does it's shared more + ppl are less likely to read before sharing. w/ @killianmcl1 @Klonick @mollycrockett 🧵👇
