to be fair the unemployment numbers have always had major problems.
And the CPI, for over a decade now, is an insult to statisticians and economists everywhere. There have been absolutely egregious policies for calculating the CPI, quite brazenly misleading: (completely unjustified hedonic adjustments, comparing chicken to meat, just because people can no longer afford beef, etc)
I think this article is mainly upset about the reduction in scientific funding.
Your comment sounds like there are problems everywhere and somehow destroying everything to create an information Wild West everywhere is justified.
The article is about the fact that data should be kept for historical purposes, even though better metrics should come into existence. The fact that public funding to research is being cut is a clear cut example of data erasure, mainly because modern science is data-driven.
That's because the author in question is the one who had their funding cut.
Their research revolves around "Critical Data Theory" which sounds very stemmy at first, but looking deeper it has nothing to do with stem and is in the sociology department that focuses on oppression. Based on critical theory (remember critical race theory?), they study oppression in how people archive historical records.
Another professor pretending to be of a technical nature, yet in reality is just writing op-eds. No different than a NYT hit piece.
Go look at their undergrad degree and google their field. It tries everything in its power to attempt to look like a technical field, while just being another DEI course.
This is like saying "instead of taking a fixable broken thing we've thrown it out" but there's no current intention to get/build a new one. In fact, the goal continuously has been for it to throw it out, often when you look a little close, by moneyed interests.
Trumps administration and the efforts behind the party has done amazing work pointing out each and every loophole politicians have, often purposefully, left in our attempt to create a governance that supports society. Its our job to close them.
A similar example would be "to be fair, our education system has always had problems" - yes. and its been a purposeful choice driven by moneyed interests to not have nationally funded egalitarian public schools cloaked in verbiage like "states rights"
> I’ve observed that scientists across disciplines are managing mountains of data assembled from federally funded research, but defunding will prevent them from sharing the data that taxpayers paid for.
They have "mountains of data," yet the firing of three people compromises that somehow? Has it been compromised? Has the size of the data they're accessing decreased?
> The institutions under attack are universities, data repositories, libraries, archives, statistical agencies that have earned their legitimacy through decades of transparency and authentication of verifiable information.
To be absolutely fair: a lot of these institutions also lost legitimacy by aligning themselves with one major political faction and alienating the other. Politics is more than elections and legislative debates, and that was a major political blunder on the part of those institutions. Some of the stuff Trump's done (like to the BLS) is egregious, but the universities have spent so long being outspoken bastions of the left that they should have realized the right would someday be in power decide to send the money they'd been getting elsewhere.
Infrastructure should aim to be bland, try to stay on the lagging end of controversies, and aim for universal support. Trying to use it to win some controversy just makes it vulnerable.
Can you provide examples of sources of information that MAGA considers neutral? The MAGA in my extended family who live in rural America think that scientists promote evolution solely because they're God-hating atheists who are trying to convince Christian children that God doesn't exist.
> 4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
> 5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
Phd in Critical Big Data (aka Critical Race Theory for archiving) and undergrad in women studies. Had her funding cut by Trump because someone had the idea that tax-payer money shouldn't be funding "research" into how archiving has racism and oppression.
to be fair the unemployment numbers have always had major problems.
And the CPI, for over a decade now, is an insult to statisticians and economists everywhere. There have been absolutely egregious policies for calculating the CPI, quite brazenly misleading: (completely unjustified hedonic adjustments, comparing chicken to meat, just because people can no longer afford beef, etc)
I think this article is mainly upset about the reduction in scientific funding.
Your comment sounds like there are problems everywhere and somehow destroying everything to create an information Wild West everywhere is justified.
The article is about the fact that data should be kept for historical purposes, even though better metrics should come into existence. The fact that public funding to research is being cut is a clear cut example of data erasure, mainly because modern science is data-driven.
That's because the author in question is the one who had their funding cut.
Their research revolves around "Critical Data Theory" which sounds very stemmy at first, but looking deeper it has nothing to do with stem and is in the sociology department that focuses on oppression. Based on critical theory (remember critical race theory?), they study oppression in how people archive historical records.
Another professor pretending to be of a technical nature, yet in reality is just writing op-eds. No different than a NYT hit piece.
Go look at their undergrad degree and google their field. It tries everything in its power to attempt to look like a technical field, while just being another DEI course.
There is nothing wrong with studying past oppression.
But of course some people love to make it hard to study it, because it is uncomfortable to hear about it on the emotional level
My understanding is that it isn't about documenting oppression but rather how current methods of archiving can be oppressive and have "cultural bias".
I may be wrong on this, but this is generally what critical theory and its sub fields are all about.
The question under consideration is whether we should be compelled under threat of violence to fund this speech.
Ah I always get triggered by "to be fair..."
This is like saying "instead of taking a fixable broken thing we've thrown it out" but there's no current intention to get/build a new one. In fact, the goal continuously has been for it to throw it out, often when you look a little close, by moneyed interests.
Trumps administration and the efforts behind the party has done amazing work pointing out each and every loophole politicians have, often purposefully, left in our attempt to create a governance that supports society. Its our job to close them.
A similar example would be "to be fair, our education system has always had problems" - yes. and its been a purposeful choice driven by moneyed interests to not have nationally funded egalitarian public schools cloaked in verbiage like "states rights"
> I’ve observed that scientists across disciplines are managing mountains of data assembled from federally funded research, but defunding will prevent them from sharing the data that taxpayers paid for.
They have "mountains of data," yet the firing of three people compromises that somehow? Has it been compromised? Has the size of the data they're accessing decreased?
Is there an actual result here?
> They have "mountains of data," yet the firing of three people compromises that somehow?
Yes? It compromises time series analyses if you simply stop collecting data at certain time points.
> The institutions under attack are universities, data repositories, libraries, archives, statistical agencies that have earned their legitimacy through decades of transparency and authentication of verifiable information.
To be absolutely fair: a lot of these institutions also lost legitimacy by aligning themselves with one major political faction and alienating the other. Politics is more than elections and legislative debates, and that was a major political blunder on the part of those institutions. Some of the stuff Trump's done (like to the BLS) is egregious, but the universities have spent so long being outspoken bastions of the left that they should have realized the right would someday be in power decide to send the money they'd been getting elsewhere.
Infrastructure should aim to be bland, try to stay on the lagging end of controversies, and aim for universal support. Trying to use it to win some controversy just makes it vulnerable.
> Infrastructure should aim to be bland
Can you provide examples of sources of information that MAGA considers neutral? The MAGA in my extended family who live in rural America think that scientists promote evolution solely because they're God-hating atheists who are trying to convince Christian children that God doesn't exist.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
> 4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
> 5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Phd in Critical Big Data (aka Critical Race Theory for archiving) and undergrad in women studies. Had her funding cut by Trump because someone had the idea that tax-payer money shouldn't be funding "research" into how archiving has racism and oppression.
To be fair, democrats are more trustworthy then conservatives.