The reviews raise real issues, but also understand the structure of the paper and why different readers would (and wouldn't) appreciate different aspects.
The science is spot on, including having context that we don't mention in the paper.
The world is changing, really fast.
In just 17 years, Seattle went from not having light rail to having the most ridden system in the nation.
We’ve proven how leadership & investment can change a city and people’s lives for the better
This is bad. Bad for researchers. Bad for science. Bad for universities. Bad for professional associations.
For example:
1. Every award would be vetted by political appointees, who could overrule peer reviewers and deny the award if it doesn't advance the president's priorities. 1/🧵
We're about to submit a paper and my collaborator fed it into an LLM and asked for critical reviews from numerous perspectives: subject matter experts in each technique, a journal editor, copy-writer, graphic designer...
To be honest I've never gotten more helpful feedback from my actual peers.
best* known
This is insane. Pulte is the failson of a major RE developer, and before 2025 was next known as a memestock conspiracist.
At FHA, he's been responsible for scrutinizing the mortgage applications of Trump critics to find "crimes".
Clearly that's what Trump wants US intelligence services working on.
Big, if true!
@jrossibarra.bsky.social 😹🪰🌽
Two new activities for #barettin, extracted from my pet sponge 'Geodia barretti' : promising activity against 1) chronic pain and 2) the most common and aggressive type of pancreatic cancer! Two papers from the Cartmell Lab👇
www.mdpi.com/1660-3397/24...
doi.org/10.1021/acs....
