NSF halts grant awards while staff do second review
science.org
science.org
As a professor working in AI, I'll probably be fine, but if I cannot get funding it will be challenging to stay in academia. Then again, both of my last major NSF proposals (which are in review) had either a required Institutional DEI Commitment Statement (that was for an NSF MRI proposal), and the other was a major AI proposal which required about 1/3 of the proposal to be aimed at broader impacts that were largely aimed at increasing diversity in AI. I do care about increasing the number of women, black, and Hispanic people in AI research, although I also had a section about how we need to increase our domestic production of AI scientists given that 70%+ of the PhDs produced in AI in the USA are non-citizens.
Both are still in review. I'm not optimistic, but the work required hundreds of hours to create those proposals....
I assume this is the goal
There should be some skin in the game for suppressing. If you want to participate in moderating things away, at the very least you should be willing & able to put your name on that act of denying the public.
Political articles are accepted, ignored or there is a redirect to duplicate discussion
I don't know what data you're looking at, such that you'd only see such a distinct subset of the total, but this is not true.
Non-factual and pro-Trump articles also get flagged—probably more heavily, in fact.
I have seen maybe 1 pro Trump article being flagged. From what I have seen, they tend to be ignored rather then flagged.
Articles that show [flagged] but are not [dead] have actually been flagged less (relative to upvotes) than articles which get flagkilled, i.e. flagged all the way to the [dead] state, where they cease to be visible to most users.
(Here are a bunch of past explanations about 'showdead' in case anyone wants more: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...)
HN has had a huge number of political threads in recent months, including quite a few about funding cuts along the lines of the present story. These submissions don't end up with specific discussions about the specifics of a given story; they end up with generic discussions repeating how people feel about the larger topics. Those topics, and those feelings, are certainly important—but it makes the threads largely interchangeable, and therefore even more repetitive.
Since frontpage space is the scarcest resource on HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), we can't have too many of these, or HN would turn into a current affairs site, which is definitely not what it's supposed to be (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
Btw I took a look at the users who flagged the current submission and I didn't see any evidence of political motivation.
Are there other topics besides politics that regularly get flagged for being repetitive?
Doesn't sound right to me.
When I look at the number of flagged political topics on /active (often which have clear connection to the software industry) I still only see a couple. Going from one such post on the front page to three doesn't seem like it would ruin the front page.
Why is "activation" bad?
What would "glut" mean to you? [...] Why is "activation" bad? [...] clear connection to the software industry*
The first two are basic concepts of how HN works, there is endless mod commentary about them (i.e. repetition, high-dudgeonery, etc) and you're surely familiar with them after a near decade here. The last one is a common misconception but HN's remit is not 'things with a clear connection to the software industry'.
If you want a different HN, advocate for that different HN instead of having me explain the existing HN to you - you can get better explanations elsewhere, beside the fact you're already likely familiar with them.
My claim is that it would not be so different that the front page is inundated with these topics while also ensuring that people are more able to talk about these topics when they feel it is relevant without being stifled by individuals.
I believe that I am advocating for that different HN. I believe that flagging topics because "too many" other political topics have been submitted recently is bad and should stop.
What would
There's no evidence to suggest this claim is true and a great deal that that demonstrates it isn't. This has happened on HN several times and you were probably around for at least one of them.
I believe that I am advocating for that different HN. I believe that flagging topics because "too many" other political topics have been submitted recently is bad and should stop.
I, too, believe that you are. What is not clear to me on why you believe these things and how they would improve HN. Like, you know the design of HN because a) you're using it b) it's been explained a bunch plus there's ready access to lots more. What's your design? How is this going to work, what part of HN has to be changed and what consequences do you think that would have? What about the kind of consequences the current design tries to avoid? "I'd like more of these stories on the fp" is not that, it's just a statement of preference.
You do you, I guess. I think that the community and industry is impoverished by these topics being limited in this manner.
HN has had a well-defined and stable set of principles for answering that for many years now. It goes back to the Snowden avalanche of 2013 [3], when the front page got overrun by follow-up stories and duplicate discussions, and there was a user backlash to that.
(I call these principles well defined and stable because they've held up well over the years, and because once we figured them out we haven't had to change them.)
It goes like this: when there's a Major Ongoing Topic (MOT) [4], we try to reserve frontpage time for articles that contain Significant New Information (SNI) [5], and which seem like they have a chance to support a substantive, and substantively different, discussion. Articles which don't contain SNI, we tend to downweight as follow-ups [2].
This applies to flags too. When an article meets the above criteria but has been flagged by users, we're open to turning off the flags [6]. When an article has been flagged but doesn't meet those criteria, we tend to leave the flags on.
Sometimes, an article contains SNI but also is written in a way that seems to have no chance of supporting a substantive discussion, for example it's so inflammatory or one-sided that it seems doomed to instant flamewar. In cases like that, we wait for a more neutral article about the SNI. If the information really is significant, one should come along soon enough.
That is the answer to your objection here: "we can't talk about the next thing because we just talked about the last thing".
We can and do talk about the next thing, but it's a question of what the "next thing" is: how do you define what counts as a next thing (a new story) rather than a repetitive variation on the last thing [7]? We do that according to the principles I just described.
Of course, this shifts the question to "which articles contain SNI", and users frequently disagree about that. But I'm not talking here about specific calls on particular articles, but rather the principles by which we make those calls.
The specific calls we make are inevitably inconsistent and sometimes mistaken. That's ok; we can't be consistent at the level of individual cases (though we're consistent at the level of principles [8]), and we can't not make mistakes, but we're open to reversing a call when users make a good case for why an article meets the principles and we made a bad call about it.
To make such a case, you have to know what the principles are and make your argument based on them.
Most users don't do that—rather they post blanket complaints about how "all $FOO stories are suppressed on HN", the mods are imposing their pro-$FOO or anti-$FOO agenda, and so on. This is understandable as a reflexive response to seeing things one dislikes [9] (e.g. an important $FOO story being [flagged]). But it doesn't help us do a better job as moderators.
To help us do a better job, you (I don't mean you personally, but anyone) need to address what HN moderation is trying to achieve: what kind of site HN is supposed to be (optimized for intellectual curiosity [10], not current affairs [11]), what the fundamentals are (e.g. frontpage space is the scarcest resource [12] and we can't simply turn off flags on all political stories or even all important ones), and what the principles are, as I've described them above.
---
[1] The mind resorts to indignation to amuse itself in the absence of new information - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] We tend to downweight follow-ups - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[3] The Snowden deluge of 2013 taught us how (not) to moderate a Major Ongoing Topic - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[4] For a Major Ongoing Topic, some but not all submissions should have major threads - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[5] The primary criterion for a new major thread is Significant New Information - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[6] How we think about turning off flags on a story - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[7] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787306
[8] Moderation is inconsistent at the level of individual posts, but consistent at the level of principles - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[9] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[10] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[11] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[12] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Thanks for the note. I definitely understand your reasoning. I will say that to me (a) finding out that NSF has blocked funding is a new and different point than that DOE has blocked overhead (or that NIH review panels were on hold). And (b) this news would not have reached me as soon if I hadn’t noticed it in the /active front page. And (c) that I come to the discussions partially in hope that I’ll learn more “secret” details about what is happening. (d) I recognize that much of the discussion is repetitive, but mixed in there is useful analysis and even more actual news reporting. (e) I understand that people get overwhelmed by the continued raging and conflate new news with seeming opinion. (f) I recognize that your job is hard but know that I really appreciate HN!
Everyday my paranoia increases, every day I become more of a conspiracy theorist. It's us vs. the people who can outspend us a million times over and we can't fight back. Why should any news organization tell the truth if lying gets them a fat paycheck. Why should anyone in charge of any public forum allow controversial topics to get posted when they can make a fat paycheck by blocking them?
I'm left wondering if this administration and its henchmen will manage to do the opposite of what the Apollo program left the US in its wake: A giant leap for the U.S. economy. It sure is creating a lot of long-lasting damage.
The NIH, which accounts for nearly all biomedical research, had a budget of $48B.
Lockheed Martin, a single defense contractor, received more than $60B in government contracts in 2024.
They need to continue to feed the republican base stories such as "We're fixing SCIENCE which the Dirty Liberal's have been RUINING for DECADES! CHINA!"
These people will burn down their own house and wealth to make sure others don't feel welcome. How hard is it to just learn to live with people that don't agree with you?
Yes
It also doesn't even matter. The Trump situation will end. At that point MAGA people won't be gone, and it'd be a pretty sad outcome if they were or felt repressed, or we'll simply end up right here again. The point is not to win, the point is to make things better.
You do it by defining 'success' as 'people in the top get complete control, everyone else gits nothing'.
The right has plenty of very strong hard right institutions of its own. Very very strong. But they're very rarely academically or scientifically notable, across the whole world (with notable exceptions of the Koch brothers & Federalist Society funded George Mason School of Economics). The right has enormous influence, their own schools & control within schools that they pay for! https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/us/koch-donors-george-mas...
I think we find very few examples going the other way, having such large scale divisional control & top down left control.
Its because of who the right is, what their priorities really are, and how they bias themselves against science, how they let their efforts be steered explicitly by money & funding that they are largely irrelevant: they are not, imo, unfairly denied opportunity or the chance to do their work. There's opportunity abundant, if they want to do genuine & reasonable research, they could do it in real universities. But as comedian & faux-conservative Stephen Colbert polemicizes, the right is sworn to forever fight 'reality's well known liberal bias', in the name of defending winner takes all amassed capitalism & pro monarchy pro feudal ideology, that alas is well represented by loud voices in Silicon Valley.
biod iversity
I can tell you most scientists are just trying to do their jobs, studying hard stuff. Unfortunately, we do not really have the resources to fight anything.
Tough situation, and lots of scientists are pretty frightened. Many junior scientists (myself included) are looking at leaving the country.
Really, "billionaire", that's what you're going with (emphasis mine)?! Isn't it more relevant that he founded and runs 2 biggest startups (as in, high velocity, high growth companies) in the world (Tesla & SpaceX) that run circles around both legacy companies and government agencies? So, yeah, if you want things to radically improve fast, of course you call someone like Elon.
It's sad that "unbiased news" basically no longer exists.
The answer would be, any description that doesn't lean right nor left. Maybe "technologist", "entrepreneur", "startup founder", "industrialist" etc.
It's obvious if you see measures like web pages getting deleted because they contain the word "privilege". You know, as in "privilege escalation". I'm sure the people at NSA who wrote these pages are happy about their work being in vain.
The fact you conflate these two demonstrates either a clear lack of earnestness or common sense. Take your pick.
God help us this is the way all of these conversations have gone over the last 8 years.
Group A: "You are gutting our scientific research infrastructure, a entity that has provided tremendous benefit to scientific progress worldwide and has been a source of national pride!"
Group B: "Yea well some tech companies voluntarily changed the name of their git branch from 'master' to 'main' so you all had it coming."
There's nothing I can do with that, except hunker down and hope all the horrors of this are felt by someone else.