Date: 2021-09-18 01:35 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] anna_wing
Ideologically-based science is bad news for whichever country is practicing it, as the unfortunate influence of Trofim Lysenko on the Soviet Union illustrates.

Last week's (4-10 Sept 2021) Economist observed that University of California life-sciences departments were rejecting faculty applicants on the basis of their diversity statements rather than their research. If that sort of thing catches on in the US, and given that a lot of the people in STEM research in the US aren't from the US anyway, this is going to be a really good recruiting opportunity for STEM departments elsewhere.

Date: 2021-09-18 07:37 pm (UTC)
dewline: Text - "On the DEWLine" (Default)
From: [personal profile] dewline
Are you equating Lysenko Doctrine with promotion of diversity within STEM departments at universities?

Date: 2021-09-19 03:04 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] anna_wing
It would depend entirely on the longer-term effects of the policy on research output, which is what I was referring to. According to the article, the university in question was doing this in 2019, so it would be some years before any effect, both in the US and internationally, could reasonably be looked for, especially taking into account COVID-19 restrictions on international travel.

The article didn't say what criteria for increasing diversity the university was using (I understand that nearly 50% of STEM PhDs in the US go to non-US citizens, so there would be plenty of diversity by that metric), but there should be ways to do it that don't imitate the approach of Soviet or Maoist institutions, or indeed those places in the US that reportedly only hire faculty who conform to locally-acceptable ideas about the theory of evolution or mixed-race marriage. But obviously, universities have the right to make their own operational decisions.

Date: 2021-09-18 02:23 pm (UTC)
dewline: Text - "On the DEWLine" (Default)
From: [personal profile] dewline
1. That sounds horrifically familiar from other places. Ottawa's been irregularly dealing with periods of "level zero" ambulance availability over the last few years, pre-Pandemic.

2. Good news there!

3. Worrying.

6. Sounds similar to the taxi situation for related reasons.

Where Eagles Dare :

Date: 2021-09-18 02:58 pm (UTC)
mlknchz: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mlknchz
OK...
1 TOO many Eagles. They just need one eagle, not a raid
2 Why fly right over where the AAA is? there are many routes to Mt Doom. Frodo only used that route because
of the surrounding mountains
3 Why fly so low? This is the helicopter scene from the Skull Island film all over again.
4 Why not fly at night in Bomber Command fashion?

One eagle, one hobbit; it's JUST crazy enough to work. :)

Re: Where Eagles Dare :

Date: 2021-09-18 05:57 pm (UTC)
calimac: (JRRT)
From: [personal profile] calimac
1. Party needed more than one person. (Dropping the Ring in the mountain isn't a "oh just send one hobbit and hope it works" business.) When Gandalf rescued Frodo and Sam, he needed three eagles, so he wouldn't even have been riding on the same one as Frodo as the movie shows.

2. Limited range, especially with burden. Even Black Gate to Mount Doom and back again is really stretching it, judging by the Eagles' range in previous uses.

2a. Also, exactly what part of the mountains around northern Mordor were you expecting was not guarded?

2b. Especially if, as the movie implies, the Enemy were expecting this possibility?

3. They thought they were high enough. This is mentioned in the film.

3a. Also, Nazgul.

4. Favorite time for Nazgul.

February 2026

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 2425262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 24th, 2026 01:48 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios