Calm down, guys. It's transitional, and it's not unusual.
From the article:
> The hiring freeze is governmentwide, whereas a pause on communications and travel appears to be limited to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), NIH’s parent agency. Such pauses are not unprecedented when a new administration comes in. But some NIH staff suggested these measures, which include pulling job ads and rescinding offers, are more extreme than any previously.
...
> Previous administrations have imposed communications pauses in their first days. And the administration of Barack Obama continued a cap on attendance at scientific meetings first imposed by the George W. Bush administration, which in some cases meant staff canceled trips to meetings.
> But an immediate, blanket ban on travel is unusual, says one longtime researcher in NIH's intramural program. “I don't think we've ever had this and it's pretty devastating for a postdoc or graduate student who needs to present their work and network to move ahead in their career,” the researcher says.
This is not an extraordinary event. It is not an attack on the NIH. It is a transitional pause, which is substantially normal when administrations change hands. The wailing and moaning is silly. Give it a week.
FWIW, I was around (i.e. working on NIH funded grants) for the last transition, and I don't remember this happening. I agree and hope that it might not be an ominous sign, but I don't think it's the norm. We're being asked to pull out of not only conferences, but even out of cross-organizational Zoom chats that involve certain institutions. Where I work, the people who've been doing this longer than me are not saying "relax everybody, this is fine," they seem to be freaking out a little bit too.
>But some NIH staff suggested these measures, which include pulling job ads and rescinding offers, are more extreme than any previously.
> halted midstream a training workshop for junior scientists, called off a workshop on adolescent learning minutes before it was to begin, and canceled meetings of two advisory councils. Panels that were scheduled to review grant proposals also received eleventh-hour word that they wouldn’t be meeting.
> “People are just at a loss because they also don’t know what’s coming next. I have never seen this level of confusion and concern in people that are extremely dedicated to their mission,” the scientist says.
>But an immediate, blanket ban on travel is unusual, says one longtime researcher in NIH's intramural program. “I don't think we've ever had this and it's pretty devastating for a postdoc or graduate student” who needs to present their work and network to move ahead in their career, the researcher says.
"The incestuous relationship between the NIH, CDC, and vaccine makers—with all of the conflict of interest it entails—cannot be allowed to continue, and the revolving door between them must be locked. As Severino writes, “Funding for scientific research should not be controlled by a small group of highly paid andunaccountable insiders at the NIH, many of whom stay in power for decades. The NIH monopoly on directing research should be broken.” What’s more, NIH has long “been at the forefront in pushing junk gender science.” The next HHS secretary should immediately put an end to the department’s foray into woke transgender activism."
This event is entirely extraordinary and politicized. Nothing will be better "in a week". The actions being taken were telegraphed well ahead of time and were widely known to be part of a strategy to destroy the NIH and replace it with some kind of propaganda arm.
Your suggestion that bad behavior by all-male teams would be improved by the addition of women rests on a couple of assumptions that are not true: that women are inherently better behaved than men, and that women naturally see each other as being on the same team.
I have been through some really awful experiences in the workplace in the last few years, and some of the most egregiously abusive behavior came from another woman. Women can be incredibly cruel to each other, and this woman in particular seemed to have it out for other women. Women are not inherently saints, and they are not inherently kind to other women.
On the other hand, I have often, often worked on teams that were (except for me) all men, but by and large they were men who had mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters that they loved, and who therefore had no trouble relating to me with respect and affection. While it is true that some men treat women specifically badly, and that some men treat people generally badly, it is not true that men in general treat women badly. Quite the opposite.
It does take a moment, as a woman, to find your feet socially in an all male space. But does it not always take a moment to find your feet in any new space? I have generally found that what makes it go smoothly is the fact that we are all hackers. If anything, it is all the walking on eggshells about sexism that makes social integration awkward at first. People are trying to figure out how they are "supposed" to behave around me, worried that I will be aggressive socially and legally. When we focus on the work we do together and the love we have in common for the field, we become friends naturally and get along well.
I myself think all the hand-wringing over demographics has been a waste of time at best and counterproductive at worst. I think it makes more sense to focus on developing virtue, civility, and good leadership among the people who find themselves here.
> I have been through some really awful experiences in the workplace in the last few years, and some of the most egregiously abusive behavior came from another woman. Women can be incredibly cruel to each other, and this woman in particular seemed to have it out for other women. Women are not inherently saints, and they are not inherently kind to other women.
In my teens my mom tried to reenter the workforce and got an office job, and she absolutely hated working with other women because of this. She wanted to work with men because in her experience, women were so much worse.
I don't think women are inherently better behaved than men, or that they naturally see themselves as being on the same team. It's that the dynamic where it feels fun or funny to tell a joke that makes a minority in a group feel bad is less likely to arise when there are multiple people who wouldn't be laughing, or perhaps even telling them to give it a rest. Nothing to do with comradery, just the natural tendency of people to not like when their personal identity is threatened in some way.
FWIW, I do think most men with wives and/or daughters are generally thoughtful coworkers, but I'm not sure that's a majority in most tech workplaces, especially the ones that skew young. Thinking back to my own experience, I think, I was blind to a lot of the things I'm speaking about (or perhaps even resistant to the idea of calling it out) until I had a long-term partner.
It is always so refreshing to read this kind of thing.
For a number of years I had the sense that I might be going crazy, because it seemed that throughout my whole working life I'd encountered good and bad people of both sexes, but never witnessed the kind of systematic targeting of women that both mainstream and alternative media sources told me was rife. How could it be that I couldn't see what was apparently right under my nose? So it's reassuring to know that there are also women who have had a similar experience.
I'm not the person you're asking, but I may be able to satisfy your curiosity a little. I have given birth without anesthesia -- in fact, I did so twice. I found it arduous and difficult, and there certainly were moments of pain, but I would not describe the experience overall as exactly painful.
You know how when you've been running for a long time and you really want to stop? That was the primary unpleasant sensation for me. Something between a muscle cramp and a side ache, though quite intense. Really uncomfortable, really hard work. Very distressing if you freak out about it and get frightened, but actually a pretty cool experience if you lean into it. Toward the end of labor there was some significant pain, enough to make me yell, but there was also so much going on that I was very distracted from it. You can experience some pretty significant pain and not be very badly distressed by it if you're super focused on some goal and working hard for it, and boy does childbirth have that effect. ;)
Now, you shouldn't overly generalize from my personal experiences. Every pregnancy is different, and every delivery is different. But I have always thought the characterization of childbirth as the greatest possible pain was overblown. In my experience, it was more like a major athletic event which involved some significant injury - a marathon or a boxing match or something in that neighborhood. You do really injure yourself enough that it takes some weeks to heal, but I honestly think that part of the equation is comparable to a bad sprain. Maybe a bit worse, but much more like an athletic injury than some of the horrible diseases people get.
At any rate, it is not the most significant pain I've personally experienced. That prize goes to an infected gall bladder / passed gall stone. I've also had leg cramps which I thought were more painful than childbirth, though they didn't last as long. To relate it to the original claim, I definitely think it's plausible that dysentary is worse. Internal organs dying is high on the pain scale.
(If you're curious about why I chose to avoid anaesthesia, I hadn't liked it during my first delivery. I had a long and painful labor during which anesthesia was delayed, and when I finally got it, I found it didn't much lift my distress -- I later understood that was because my pain wasn't pain exactly, it was me doing a poor job of working with my body. Aaand I was at a dumb hospital that had put me on my back, which is painful, and I didn't know any better. Anyway. I didn't see it as really relieving my discomfort, but it did confine me to bed for a couple days and robbed me of being my most alert and best self during a very important moment in my life. My second two deliveries were better experiences than my first.)
Yeah, I’m going to say you were pretty lucky. With my first I had pain significant enough to be traumatic, before the stage where I could get an epidural. I used to tell people if I’d gone out and had my husband run over my leg with the car, it would have hurt less and I could have gotten pain relief in the ER. It wasn’t as bad the second time though. It is truly a large range of experiences.
I am a skeptic about the diagnostic criteria for hypertension, and especially about low targets for management. Cochrane did a meta review not long ago that made it sound like the signal was pretty weak below about 160/100 (as you might expect, if the measurement wasn't very accurate, which I don't think it is). I'm not saying it's not dangerous at much higher levels, but if you're freaking out at 140/90 because a chart says STAGE TWO, imo you can take a chill pill.
Not surprised to hear about Cochrane's results. The science does smell funny. I read a bunch of hypertension papers this last year (I have a home machine and wanted to know how to interpret the results). Beyond the fact that inter-reading repeatability is very poor and a lot of the explanations are very ad-hoc ("fear of doctors" etc), there are other issues.
First problem: natural variance across healthy people is huge. Doctors have a target they think everyone should hit but it's just a gross average, they don't seem to take into account the possibility of genetic variance at all.
Second related problem: it's common to be told what a healthy BP is for an "adult" although BP averages for men and women are quite different, and BP is also heavily affected by age (controlling for health).
Third problem: correlation is not causation. It's a cliché because it's a real issue. The public health community is prone to blurring the line between "two variables are found to be related in a study" and "one therefore causes the other" without doing the work to prove causality, and when I went looking for what studies established BP->cardiovascular disease causality it was remarkably hard to locate firm evidence. It could easily be the other way around. Indeed in most hydraulic systems it's understood that pressure is the result of other mechanisms and under/over pressure is the result of malfunction in pumps or piping. In healthcare they argue it's the reverse: that over/under pressure is the cause of malfunction elsewhere. There's probably a circular relationship but all the material targeted at regular people makes strong claims of causality when the underlying literature seems far less certain.
Fourth problem: perhaps unsurprisingly given the third problem I found studies where people were put on anti-hypertensives and there was no improvement. Actually I read one study where the treatment outcome was purely negative: there was no effect on heart disease or other outcomes of interest but there were lots of patients who fainted due to excessively low BP. This study seemed reasonable well constructed but the negative outcome didn't seem to reduce the field's certainty in anything (a super common problem in public health). Doing trials like this is hard because any time anti-hypertension drugs fail to work it's interpreted as evidence that the damage was already done earlier in life thus requiring ever longer studies to detect.
Fifth problem: a lot of the underlying scientific claims trace back to one longitudinal study in a single village in Japan, done decades ago. It's remarkable how often you follow citations and end up back at this dataset. When you look at what the study did it's kinda sketchy and not particularly convincing, but because the BP->CVD link is hypothesized to be a very slow acting effect it takes a huge effort to collect data. The field seems to be caught in a loop where they exaggerated their confidence early, so now there is not seen to be much point in doing better studies because it'd take years (bad for your career) and why study something that's already "known".
There can be only one answer to that - the Bible. Twenty years ago, I was convinced the content alone justified the claims of a divine origin, which opinion has only grown stronger in the years since. Even if you don't believe in it, it is worth reading as literature - an extraordinarily epic story, and a lot of stuff to say about humanity and divinity along the way. Everything else, comparatively, seems to me like it was written by children.
But that's a useless answer, as the purpose of such a question is to generate recommendations, and that's unlikely to be a new one to anybody.
One of the books that's impacted me the most in the last few years is Homer's Illiad. I used to wonder why we read The Odyssey in high school and never talked about The Illiad, but I don't wonder now! I think all the violence in Illiad would warrant more than a PG-13 rating. ;) But it is a great story about men and gods and struggle and war, with a lot to say about what mankind is and what it can be, and a lot of heroes to want to grow up to be someday. The introduction to my copy includes the quote, "It is a good thing that war is so terrible, otherwise we would grow to love it too much." That quote will make no sense to most people; if it resonates with you, this book is your kind of book.
I am currently reading through Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology, as I am looking for wisdom on how to navigate the highly technological time I find myself in. I haven't finished it, but I find the insights profound, and I see the ideas everywhere. I think it may prove to be the best thing I've ever read on the topic of what it means to interact with technology and remain human.
Shakespeare is legendary for a reason. I haven't read one of his plays yet that that I didn't deeply enjoy. They never hit right in high school, but as an adult I find them profound. I giggled my way through A Comedy of Errors recently and it still makes me smile.
A Christian recommendation - I've very much enjoyed Jeremy Taylor's 1650 Holy Living and Dying. Probably the best book on Christian life I've read, and I've read quite a few - and it's a book that rarely makes people's short lists. It's long and I haven't finished it, but as much as I've read so far continues to impact me.
Edit: I almost forgot! I read The Princess and the Goblin several years ago. It is a fairy tale intended for children, and is yet one of the best books I have ever read on the subject of girlhood, and I have spent a lifetime searching for them. If you have (or are, or find yourself in an occasion to love) a girl, I can't recommend it highly enough.
I'm atheist-agnostic, but I've read the Bible several times and the Qu'ran twice. I think it is important to have at least a passing knowledge of these books, and TBH, as long as you cherry-pick, there is a lot of good life advice in there.
I'm fascinated by both books for their history and authorship, though. Who wrote them? Why did they write them? How did they write them? What parts of their content is backed by historical record? etc.
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy
I know, right? These works are deeply mysterious and not to be dismissed lightly. I remember coming away from the Bhagavad Gita with the same sense of Who? What?? How??? What on earth?
An experience not to be missed, to be sure. The world is full of the bizarre and inexplicable, and would surely be diminished by a need to explain everything.
Stick with QCT, I’ve been coming back to that essay for 20 years. Given your other recs, you might want to go back to a few of the Dialogues: the Apology, the Laches, maybe the Phaedrus. And if you’re serious about the divine origin stuff, after reading the Apology, read the third chapter of Walden.
Numbers and Leviticus are the worst slog of a book I've come across. Don't think people are very honest with themselves when they read through it and think, yes God made this so beautiful.
You know, the names of a couple of the oldest books of the Bible in English are not very good. "Numbers" does have a census for the first few chapters, and I'll grant that a census isn't gripping reading. It impresses upon the reader the intended historicity of the account - Illiad has a long description of how many troops and boats came from where for a similar reason. After that, though, the book continues the narrative that left off in Exodus, and is similar in tone and content. The original name of the book, "Ba midvar" or "In the wilderness" is a better title, as it recounts the story of Israel's time in the wilderness.
Leviticus was my favorite book for a long time, and I still regard it with great affection. But I've also heard people deride it as nonsensical, and I get where that is coming from. Throwing the One Ring into Mount Doom has been similarly derided as "the destruction of some jewelry", which is how it must seem if you aren't familiar with the backstory and the symbolism. We live in an age that really likes to downplay context and symbolism and historical connections, and would tend to regard "the destruction of some jewelry" as a reasonable take - maybe even an enlightened take. Such a perspective sees the blood of bulls and rams in Leviticus as nothing else, and it's no wonder it seems gross and uncompelling. To me, that take is missing almost the entire story: if you can talk about the One Ring without saying anything about power, you have basically missed everything of significance about it. And in Leviticus, blood is life, God gives it and God claims it, and we learn from the rituals surrounding it that holiness and life requires sacrifice and death, something both immediately true and a deep truth at many levels. The invisible things, the symbols and connections and significances and virtues, have retreated from the modern mind, first becoming unimportant, then not real, then not even perceptible. I regard this as a tragic turn of events, and I think it is not unrelated to our current civilizational struggles. But any rate, ancient works in general, and the Bible in particular, put a lot of emphasis on the poetic, the symbolic, the deeper meanings of things. If you're going to enjoy such works, you're going to need to see beyond the literal.
For me, Leviticus has this breathtaking mix of the intensely symbolic and the intensely practical. I am often taken aback at the imagery being so on point, and yet so accessible to a poor bronze age people. And I think often on its lessons in leadership as I navigate related challenges. Above and beyond that, it does a lot to illustrate what God is like in terms of day to day relationship with him - an education about how this whole affair works, in contrast to the idols and magicians and cults. This is how things are, this is the sort of God you serve. Plenty of what it has to say about the life of the man of God is profound, perhaps even shocking.
And one more thing - it is unsurprising that an ancient handbook on ritual would seem incoherent to a people who have abandoned all practice of ritual and are energetically at work burning down any stray ones the last generation might have missed. Our individualism has metastasized to the point that it seems all common experiences must be destroyed on principle. I not only hail from that culture, but am doubly poor: as an evangelical protestant, my Christianity is shorn of tradition and liturgy, with sacrament reduced to the bare minimum required by the text. There are certainly historical reasons for that, up sides or at least intended up sides, and I'm not looking to convert. At the same time, I have been thinking recently about the role of ritual in teaching and binding together, in turning individuals into a people, and I can't deny that the body of the Catholic and the Orthodox seems to have a sort of spine to it that the Protestant lacks, and I'm starting to think this is why. Leviticus is ... God's solution to that need, at one place and time. I am a student, likely not even knowing what the poverty of my historical circumstance has left me ignorant of. But it may be not just an example to the religious - it may be that our society could learn a thing or two from this ancient social technology. This religion did survive for millenia, whereas our attempt at an anti-ritualistic, rationalistic, individualistic civilization seems to be fraying after a few short centuries. Maybe we could do with some civilizational mortar.
Anyway - that's some of what I see. I think it would take a lot of education and spiritual experience to get similar things on your own. Leviticus is a hard book. It may or may not help, but you can always look at a commentary to get some of the flavor of what an experienced reader sees. Here's one online example - https://ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc1/mhc1.Lev.ii.html
What is "the Bible"? As many threads in this post have pointed out, the translator and translation have a huge impact on the final product.† Are you referring to ancient Hebrew? A version approved by the Catholic Church or is it something concocted by that German heretic? Something else?
† Sometimes with death sentences handed out for challenges to R̶o̶m̶a̶n̶ papal supremacy!
This is one of my favorite books as well. While I read it several years ago, I still ponder and apply its advice on a near daily basis. The section on Lincoln and criticism should be required reading before getting married.
I have been surprised that it has a reputation for being manipulative, and I suspect people are reacting to what they imagine the book says rather than what it actually says. A recurring theme is that manipulative people may use these techniques, but to inferior results - the secret sauce is to actually care about people and want what is best for them. I have found that the ideas it promotes make me more civilized, empathetic, and considerate.
... I naturally play faster than 2 moves per second sometimes.