Taiwan!
10.03.2026 23:57
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Taiwan!
It’s Trump’s War. We’re Stuck With the Bill.
Check, please.
www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/o...
Operation Concepts of a Plan
The new BPB record, "We Are Together Again," is a ray of light in dark times. Profoundly rich. Get it. bonnieprincebilly.bandcamp.com/album/we-are...
flat circle, baby!
I find the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran to be, among other things, baffling in basic ways. It was good to talk to Richard Haass and Nate Swanson, in no small part because I found that they are almost as baffled as I am. Luckily, they also shed a lot of light. www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgHH...
This week's cover @thelancet.com
I guess what I see is intense opportunism, which might yield different results when incentives shift. Which is very bad in its own way! But the massive scale of Netflix would create perverse incentives of its own—and the track record there is also pretty poor, albeit in a different way.
But will they be worse than Netflix on those counts in a post-Trump future? I'm not so sure.
Thanks! Why disagree with 3 though? Premised on idea that Paramount is sort of situationally suboptimal (eg as long as Trump is president) whereas Netflix is sort of congenitally suboptimal (eg...well, it's Netflix)
would love your reaction to this; not sure i am right, wonder what you think bsky.app/profile/jvog...
would love your reaction to this; not sure i am right, wonder what you think bsky.app/profile/jvog...
Curious for knowledgable reactions to this proposition:
1. Ideally, Warner would not be sold to anyone.
2. If it gets sold, it's clearly worse in the short term if the buyer is Paramount instead of Netflix.
3. A sale to Paramount is possibly better in the long term than a sale to Netflix.
most depressing part of this might not be the AI but just the phrase "Your Child's YouTube Feed"
Have you read The Nimbus yet and if not when will you be getting on that
Yesterday morning kids were sent running from their bus stop in panic because ICE showed up. This guy at today’s ICE Out of Lindenwold protest is a must watch 😭. @maddow.bsky.social
If I understand that data correctly, it casts doubt on the idea that humanities research at universities is reliant on any foundations or nonprofits, much less reliant on a single one (Mellon).
But jhdale.bsky.social kindly pointed me to a related but distinct chart, which undercuts Harper's argument in a different way: however dominant Mellon might be among foundations, foundations account for only 13 percent of funding for humanities. 70 percent comes from universities themselves.
I did look for it, albeit briefly, but I couldn't find a pie chart that shows overall humanities research funding to universities divided up by individual foundations. I'm sure the data exists but I haven't seen it broken down in that way.
many thanks!
Dear friends on Bluesky, it's been an overwhelming week since the mass layoff at the Post. I'll be continuing the work and would be so grateful if you sign up here to keep up with my future journalism. docs.google.com/forms/d/1dlh...
Thanks, could you please point me to the table or chart that shows this breakdown? I can't seem to find it! Much appreciated.
I will say that the more I think about it, the more pronounced the lack of an empirical basis for the argument becomes. Somebody should take up that basic question: even just a pie chart breaking down all foundation grants to humanities at US universities would go a long way!
Yeah, he addresses this objection in the essay—albeit in a sort of half-hearted way.
That's the strongest critique of the piece: the reporting is thin, which reduces its persuasiveness. But I think your second point is part of what he's arguing, as well. Whatever the merits or flaws of his critique of Melllon, I think he wants more funding of humanities, which would be good.
Yeah I think that’s a valid criticism: that there’s no such thing as “apolitical” humanities.
I don’t know. If the aim is to spur more philanthropies to fund the humanities, that would reduce dependence on Mellon and would be a good thing in the midst of Trump’s onslaught.
Yeah, the tone he uses in places open it up to accusations of motivated reasoning. Like the real target is “wokery” and Mellon is a McGuffin. But that doesn’t invalidate the validity of the core argument, to me.
