Skip Navigation

Posts
5
Comments
34
Joined
7 mo. ago

Mainly on @Aatube@kbin.melroy.org . This account to moderate subs while providing actual reasons for deletion! A feature mbin appears to lack?

  • The article is about something much more sinister than not giving out appropriated money: The administration is now giving out nearly all of the appropriated money, but by paying a termed lump sum to far fewer projects—the only money these projects will ever get for at least four years, paid out in one payment right now, effectively halving the grant money projects receive while simultaneously meeting the obligations to congressional appropriations, decreasing investment in science and research, and preparing to allow for drastic budget cuts to science research next year.

    The article explains this much better than I can, complete with visualizations after every sentence since this is _The Upshot _:

    In the past, the N.I.H. typically awarded grants in five annual installments. Researchers could request two more years to spend this money, at no cost. Under the new system, the N.I.H. pays up front for four years of work. And researchers can get one more year to spend this money. Which means that they get less money on average, and less time to spend it.

    As a result of this quiet policy shift, the average payment for competitive grants swelled from $472,000 in the first half of the fiscal year to over $830,000 in the last two months.

    From $472,000–a-year to $830,000–for-four-years, and that’s unadjusted for inflation.

  • The Conservative government response to a 2016–17 parliamentary petition demanding proportional representation said that "A referendum on changing the voting system was held in 2011 and the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the FPTP system."[209] Tim Ivorson of the electoral reform campaign group Make Votes Matter responded by quoting the petition's text that "The UK has never had a say on PR. As David Cameron himself said, the AV referendum was on a system that is often less proportional than FPTP, so the rejection of AV could not possibly be a rejection of PR."[210]

  • I'm hoping it's not just because the outgoing one was controversial. If it is, then I'll probably remove this post since rotation of the Interpol president is bound to, required to happen every four years and it is borderline schadenfreude.

  • I think the uplifting part of this is supposed to be that more people are going for more non-perishable foods that'd last longer and give families more means to survive than measly plastic-wrapped bars. It's... a stretch, but I don't think we should remove it. Feel free to downvote the post if you don't think it's a good fit for our commag.

  • Removed: I don’t see how this is supposed to be uplifting

  • Your submission in "US news outlets refuse to sign new Pentagon rules to report only official information" was removed as schadenfreude or toxic politics .

  • It is not.

  • Your submission in "Still No Kings: Millions to Protest Trump On Saturday" was removed as toxic politics (rule b).

  • Your submission in "DHS agents retreat as Chicago cops refuse to shield them from swarming protesters" was removed as schadenfreude.

  • I am once once again asking for your bars—what should be the bar/criteria for removal?

    I think we should ask for and respect the decision of the community instead of imposing our own judgements. And of course, we still remove personal attacks (not that your admittedly negative-ish comment counted as one /gen).

  • What would be your criteria for removing a post as "orphan crushing machine"? (Also, political posts meeting the "More clarification" paragraph at https://lemmy.world/post/30918729 are already removed, the most recent but weak example being the post on Sanders having his tour go to NYC for a Mamdani town hall.) (Separate threads, separate comments.)

  • What would be your criteria for removing a comment?

  • Uplifting News @lemmy.world
    Meta Featured

    Negativity in Comments

  • I would've removed the post if I saw it before it gained traction. The thing with these things is people usually upvote them because they see it at !all instead of thinking it fits !upliftingnews, and too much of these posts can dilute the quality of our community and drive away users who wanted the specific thing we're looking for.

  • Your submission in "Sexual predator Noel Clarke loses libel case against The Guardian" was removed as not uplifting.

  • Your submission in "LA Ice protests spurred US military to identify ‘hotels to avoid’ due to ‘harassment’" was removed as not sure if schadenfreude but definitely not uplifting.

  • you know what?

    you've just darn saved this post from removal, my friend.

  • This might break rule b) and I don't find it uplifting (a bit orphancrushingmachine when you think about it, even) but I don't think there's much use in deleting this at this point.

  • Your submission in "Police seize supercars worth more than £6m in crackdown on antisocial driving in London" was removed as i don't see what's uplifting here, sorry.

  • Your submission in "Horror moment superyacht bursts into flames off Ibiza coast before sinking" was removed as schadenfreude. Note that this is your second time breaking the rule in three days.

  • I do not find it comfortable to dehumanize such a large group of people, especially the ordinary citizens who may well be trapped under their regime. The context here is completely unrelated to Russian soldiers, who are guilty but also definitely not mindless anyways.

  • Lemmy.world Support @lemmy.world

    guy repetitively referring to russians as "orc"s

    lemmy.world /post/34093868/18717922
  • Uplifting News @lemmy.world
    Meta Featured

    Enumerated list of rules

  • Uplifting News @lemmy.world

    Please stop linking to utubepublisher