dangaristo.bsky.social
science journalist | good physics, bad physics, and sometimes ugly physics
Signal: dgaristo.72
Email: [email protected]
566 posts
4,704 followers
237 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I think the point is that she doesn't believe it's being used as a reference, which I have some sympathy for.
IMO, an LLM hoovering up copyrighted work for commercial gain should probably fail fair use mainly for its effect on the original work.
comment in response to
post
Finally, a largely inaudible question about the allegations by NSF staff that HUD Sec. Turner has requested specific extravagant things, like an executive dining suite.
Turner denies it. In the audio he seems somewhat upset.
comment in response to
post
Mostly inaudible question about keeping the new NSF location in the area. Youngkin says he's "incredibly committed."
Peters (from GSA) also addresses this and says there's a desire to keep the location close (he would be on Virginia), but no promises.
comment in response to
post
Sec. Turner follows up to say "I would only add that you know, we're well aware of our colleagues here at NSF, and we also want to be very gracious in our move."
comment in response to
post
Two questions from (I think) Ben Peters at the Washington Business Journal.
Bottom line: the whole NSF building is to be for HUD. Timeline for the takeover is sooner rather than later.
comment in response to
post
Peters cont. on an inaudible question about what will happen to NSF.
comment in response to
post
Michael Peters, Commissioner of Public Building Service at GSA, explains why this is a "win for everyone involved."
comment in response to
post
Okay, sharing some of the press conference. This was transcribed by AI, but I've done some cleaning up.
HUD Sec. Turner on why they are moving into the NSF building:
comment in response to
post
Well then. youtu.be/ZdctWVC7LQM
comment in response to
post
Statement from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Ranking Member on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee):
comment in response to
post
I did not make it up.
comment in response to
post
Sure would like to go back to just reporting on physics, though.
comment in response to
post
Since this news is reaching folks a bit unfamiliar with the landscape:
NSF=National Science Foundation
HUD=Housing and Urban Development
Here's the NSF building, which is in Alexandria, VA. It was completed in 2017.
comment in response to
post
Here's the official union statement on the HUD takeover.
Small correction that's not included in the screenshot: "Correction: currently 1,833 NSF employees work in the NSF headquarters building."
comment in response to
post
There seems to be some amount of confusion about the sourcing here, so for clarity:
I am a journalist; I was provided this information by multiple NSF staff. I am reporting it because it is credible and important. Separately, I have contacted NSF/GSA/HUD. I will provide updates when I have them.
comment in response to
post
I'm a journalist sharing information provided to me by NSF staff, that's the source.
comment in response to
post
If you have an available Executive Dining Room, quite possibly.
comment in response to
post
I mean, I'm a professional science journalist who has been closely covering the NSF's crisis for Nature the past 5 months reporting what staff have told me 🤷‍♂️
comment in response to
post
Some of his requests, per NSF staff:
- Dedicated suite for him in the 19th floor
- constructing an Executive Dining Room
- reserved parking space for his 5 cars
- exclusive use of 1 elevator for the Secretary
- hosting the Secretary’s executive assistants in the 18th floor.
comment in response to
post
Oddly, staff say that neither NSF management nor OSTP have been involved, and the decision was instead driven by the HUD Secretary, Scott Turner, who will be imminently taking over the 18th & 19th floors of the (soon-to-be-former?) NSF building.
comment in response to
post
I had not appreciated just how _fast_ the telescope (which is enormous) needs to move to cover the night sky in a few days.
comment in response to
post
Rockefeller. CUNY has some very good physics.
comment in response to
post
Betteridge's law strikes again. www.nature.com/articles/d41...
comment in response to
post
There are several more pages justifying the decision to vacate the policy as unlawful opposed to issuing a permanent injunction as relief—notably, she cites res judicata (vacatur prevents NSF from issuing a substantively similar policy).
Anyhow, here's the conclusion:
comment in response to
post
Judge Talwani on whether to remand or vacate. She is not gentle: "the deficiencies in NSF's reasoning are severe."
comment in response to
post
The judge finds that "efficiency, consistency, and effectiveness" are aspirational goals, not reasoning.
Talwani: "the court cannot discern from the Policy Notice how NSF concluded the 15% Indirect Cost Rate would further NSF’s stated goals, the 15% Indirect Cost Rate is arbitrary and capricious."
comment in response to
post
Count III (violates cost recovery) basically fails because the 15% rate violates Section 200.414(c) and ultimately it "deviates from a regulatory framework that ties indirect cost
rates to actual indirect costs."
(One gets the sense that 'deviates' was choice wording by the Judge.)
comment in response to
post
Neither is the 15% rate really a deviation because it sets a new norm.
comment in response to
post
For count II (whether it violates 2 C.F.R. § 200.414), Talwani rejects this for reasons similar to DOE and NIH:
On using 15% for a 'class' of awards, she writes: "construing 'a group of federal awards' to IHEs to encompass all awards to all IHEs would allow the exception to swallow the whole."
comment in response to
post
Here's how Judge Talwani concludes on count I (that the 15% rate is against NSF statutes). She rejects a flat 15% rate, but notes that does not preclude any across-the-board cap.
comment in response to
post
Chevron is dead and Loper Bright is the law of the land. It's Judge Talwani's discretion, not the agency's, in ambiguous legal territory.
comment in response to
post
AAU & co. have four claims about the 15% rate:
1. it's contrary to NSF statutes
2. violates 2 C.F.R. § 200.414 (agency must accept negotiated rates
3. violates required cost recovery (actual costs)
4. arbitrary & capricious
comment in response to
post
Judge Talwani swats down the NSF's claim that the court lacks jurisdiction; she cites a case referring to this as "the sort of routine dispute that federal courts regularly review."
comment in response to
post
(OK, literally just got off a plane so only now getting to read the decision in more detail)
Court first addresses the question of standing, which is fairly clear cut:
comment in response to
post
I am more than a little dubious about the specificity of what EEGs can reveal, but I do love the simple idea of students writing an essay with ChatGPT and then coming back to it and seeing how much they remember. Could even generate multiple choice questions asking "did you write this line?"
comment in response to
post
Arguably happening at USDA. www.science.org/content/arti...
comment in response to
post
A reasonable theory of change might be: the GOP majority is razor-thin, most reps are not literally Russ Vought, a show of popular support can both persuade and provide cover for a vote that goes against admin recc.
comment in response to
post
One possible view: Government-funded science in a democracy is tied to the health of the democracy. Science foundering under an unhealthy democracy would be then a feature, not a bug.