jwiggler

joined 2 years ago
[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Here's my suggestion! https://www.filmsfatale.com/blog/2021/6/7/the-best-100-documentaries-of-all-time

Some amazing, amazing films in there. Look through the Criterion collection too

Pirate em! And release your movies for free (maybe not on youtube) and reject the commodification of art.

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Sure they're bemoaning the failing state, but in doing so they're glorifying State power -- maybe that's a better way to put it. But again, inspiration from community and anger at the State aren't mutually exclusive -- and the author making it out like they are is simping for the State imo.

I think we probably also have a disconnect because I tend to think of the State as an unjust centralization of power that is extremely vulnerable to this exact sorta thing happening, rather than a mechanism to execute the will of the people. Even if you've wrangled it enough to provide some material good to normal folk -- look how fast it can be taken away at a whim. Communal acts tell me first that free relations between individuals are possible (plausible, or maybe inevitable?) outside of the context of Government and Market, that the Government and the Market are not as inevitable as we're taught to believe -- so I think that there is hope there. Hopefully that kinda illustrates what I'm saying better.

But I do see how a liberal or a socialist may say, "anger first" in this context, so I hear you. Just not that way for me.

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

But I never said it was more reasonable for people to bypass the state, especially, as you say, a state as large and rich as the US. Im specifically saying that the denial of even granting these communities the terms "inspirational" or "resilient" is Statist, particularly because the fact that wood banks are resilient and the fact that it's bad thing that State institutions are failing are not mutually exclusive, while the author asserts that, since these acts are indicative of a failing State, they are neither inspirational nor resilient. It's just a fallacy.

You can avoid the glorification of private solutions to public problems while also granting that a community that engages in communal acts is a good thing.

And that’s great that it’s happening, but it’s shifty that the government, ostensibly the representative of the community, can’t institutionalize what is clearly the will of the community

Yes ^^ but, to me, expected -- when your politicians rely on boats of money to get elected, they are beholden to the money and not the community. Especially now it seems, the clear will of the community in the US is of less value than the will of the large donor.

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

NewRepublic simping for the State, fails to see how anything other than the State could be considered inspiring or resilient.

Apparently, acts of solidarity aren't inspiring and people taking their material wellbeing into their own hands aren't being resilient because it means the State is non-functional...just...what?

Such a weird article.

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

So I agree that you can kinda twist around the definition of product, and things get complicated when a product includes other services. But (and maybe this is what you meant by reduction to absurdity) I'm not sure how its possible to think the product of a game is actually not just a game, but also everything else that the game requires in order to achieve some level of use-value. I mean, I feel like most people recognize that the computer is a separate product than the game. Or that when you buy a car -- you're not also buying the gas to run the car.

I think one of the nice things about LTV is that it allows for subjective valuation of some thing or service, use-value, that is completely separate from a more objective (though, not completely) valuation of that thing or service that is based on a concrete number of raw materials + a somewhat concrete number of labor price.

So, you're saying you can't accept a theory of value that holds that a multiplayer game that cannot be played. I think that is reasonable, in this instance, but the issue is that isn't scalable to other instances. The use-value of a particular product or service to you may be different from the use-value for another. For example, a non-working vintage camera or street-illegal car -- you may say "well, it's a camera that doesn't take pictures, therefore it has no value. It's a car that doesn't drive, it's got no value." but it's apparent that people will pay for these things, so they must have some value, right? At least if we take the inverse of your later implication that

[It] would have no value because there are no consumers.

Though, maybe I shouldn't assume that you also imply that if there are consumers, there is value. I think, though, that is the neoclassical assumption -- that if there is someone paying, then the product or service has some value that is equal to the price paid.

In my view, LTV allows for these cases, and even those where there is no consumer, like a game that can only be run on the Mars rover, because there is some value that was created based on the labor and raw materials independent from the infrastructure required to realize that value and turn it into cash.

And yes, I wont deny that part of Valve's business is selling products of their own to gamers (btw, such a timely announcement! i am so hyped) but I'd argue the majority of their money comes from commission on games sold on Steam -- to me, this establishes game devs as Valve's primary customer (though, more in the way that Walmart or Amazon's primary customers are the companies and craftspeople who sell their products there) rather than gamers.

To take another example, train engines are valuable because train tracks exist and vice-versa. There is no service to sell with just one of the two.

But this isn't exactly true, is it? Train engines may be bought by a company or state that owns the lines, or vice versa. They can be independently sold as products. A train ticket is just purchasing access to infrastructure, so I'm not sure its worthwhile using a ticket as an example, since its value is all wrapped up in other factors such as the distance the traveler is going, the date and time they're embarking, etc.

But I have not seen a strong argument that valve has been anti-competitive with this privilege, and I think it is just wrong to assert that valve does not contribute to many of the games cited in this thread

I agree with this, I'm not sure I can call out anti-competitive practices. I think its fair to say Valve makes experiences with some games better -- assuming a multiplayer game uses Valve's servers, for example -- but I'd still say that is more akin to saying "the road makes the car better" where I'd also recognize that the road doesn't add value to the car (in my view).

Or maybe this is a better scenario: imagine there are no (or very few) sporting goods stores in a whole country. But! there are basketball courts -- open to the public, but owned by a private company. It's one of the best places to play basketball. They maintain the court so well, and its always open. But, it's one of the only places that sells basketballs, which are manufactured by another private companies. I wouldn't personally say the company that owns the court contributes value to the basketballs, despite much of their (the basketball's) use-value being tied up with the existence of the court. I'd say they have an access to a resource (players) that basketball manufacturers require to realize their value, and they charge a rent or a tax on them to access that resource. And that they retain access to that resource by maintaining the best court, and, sometimes, selling a basketball of their own (which also happens to be one of the better quality basketballs out there, because they just can afford to)

Edit: (in this scenario, I'm not saying the company that owns the basketball courts did so by being anticompetitive, btw. they did it by maintaining the best court, after all. another private company could open up their own court and compete, right? everything is just as it should be! Well, I'd say not quite, considering the dominance of the already-established company. While this may be well and good and just from a neoclassical perspective, the power consolidation is too significant, to me, to justify as, erhm...how things ought to be, i guess?)

Pretty sure at this point we are just debating (well, lightly. maybe, more accurately, discussing?) the neoclassical concept of "value" that is simply intertwined with "price" vs the marxist concept of "value" which is separated from "price." It's worth noting, if you haven't already guessed, I'm not an economist and hardly equipped to debate the merits of these two, erm, ideologies(?) so I'm trying to frame all this as my conception of LT which -- well yknow I'm prone to mistakes and misconceptions.

But yeah anyways those are my thoughts on the whole thing -- mostly I'd maintain Valve's main business model is closer to a digital fiefdom than it is to the classical model of capitalism that is produce and sell a product. (and I guess one more side-point. I think that their cash from this side of the business allows them to take a really long time creating more traditional products marketed toward gamers. This is just a feeling, but they have the resources for their products to fail, and to aggressively price them in a fashion where they don't even make a profit from them. Similar to how Meta isn't making a profit from Quest headsets -- the idea is to just get people into the Meta ecosystem.)

Anyways x2 sorry for the long-ass reply. I was chewing on what you said for a couple days, thinking, "this dude is crazy -- how could they believe that a product includes all this other stuff?" but i think i might see your point? lemme know if i missed it. thanks

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I'll have to read this a little later but just want to say now thank you for your genuine response

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Sorry to be like this, but I don't think you're getting it still. Like I said, colloquially Steam has value. And especially in relation to you, the gamer. How much you personally value your games more because of Steam, though, is irrelevant, and Valve creating a new product is similarly irrelevant to what I'm saying. Steamdeck does not increase the economic value of any other product (though, I love my Steamdeck)

Again, you are not the consumer of Valve's (main) product. Valve's business model is to sell shelf space to the dev. It's to allow the peasant into the walls of the city to sell their grain in the market square.

The value I'm referring to is the value inherent in a production of a commodity that originates from the raw materials and labor that workers put into it. I'm talking labor value. It's the value of the grain that originates in the workers toil and the raw stuff.

Valve might help realize gains from the game, but it is not involved in the production and does not create nor add labor value to the game. Their business model is predicated on extracting rents from developers, the people doing productive labor.

You could maybe argue Valve creates value in the production and maintenance of the commodity that is Steam's infrastructure and sell it at a fair price. But in this context, the whole point of that infrastructure is to realize the value created from the labor of developers, making it extractive in nature. Do you see what I mean? You're right back at the point where they're charging developers a rent to access the marketplace. And the whole thing falls apart without devs (workers) creating a commodity (games) from which to extract value. This is what I mean when I say Steam is not value-adding -- not that Steam doesn't have (colloquial) value.

Does that make sense?

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying valves infrastructure isn't valuable, or what they offer to gamers isn't good. Again, Steam is not a product to gamers. It's a marketplace that charges rents to game devs. I'm saying it's not value added to the product that is produced. The product that's produced by the game dev is the same regardless of whether they put it on steam or not.

Most of your points are about how much value Steam offers to gamers in a colloquial sense. Of course, its a lot. But it's not in an economic sense value added to the good produced. Valve taking a 1/3rd cut is more akin to an extractive feudal lord than a collaborator in the making of the good (the game) and sharing in the profits.

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

I think you may be focusing a little too hard on the monopoly thing. Tbh I only said that in the initial reply to mirror the OPs comment in my response. Sorry, I shouldve been clearer in my other comment where I said they're the only big player. I'll grant you there are others in the market of distributors, and that Valve is one of the few big players, rather than the one big player. My bigger point is more that their business practice is extractive and more like feudalism than traditional capitalism.

And I hear what you're saying. I think you probably make total sense particularly in the eyes of neoclassical economics, maintaining Valve is totally justified and completely in the bounds of acceptable business practices-- particularly according to our current economic system and notions of private property. But I, personally, just don't buy them (pun, erhm, intended?)

For one thing, I think there are several good examples of infrastructure going public. And the other, larger thing, is that this passage from Pyotr Kroptokin kinda illustrates my attitudes toward private property.

The house was not built by its owner. It was erected, decorated, and furnished by innumerable workers--in the timber yard, the brick field, and the workshop, toiling for dear life at a minimum wage.

The money spent by the owner was not the product of his own toil. It was amassed, like all other riches, by paying the workers two-thirds or only a half of what was their due.

Moreover--and it is here that the enormity of the whole proceeding becomes most glaring--the house owes its actual value to the profit which the owner can make out of it. Now, this profit results from the fact that his house is built in a town possessing bridges, quays, and fine public buildings, and affording to its inhabitants a thousand comforts and conveniences unknown in villages; a town well paved, lighted with gas, in regular communication with other towns, and itself a centre of industry, commerce, science, and art; a town which the work of twenty or thirty generations has gone to render habitable, healthy, and beautiful.

A house in certain parts of Paris may be valued at thousands of pounds sterling, not because thousands of pounds' worth of labour have been expended on that particular house, but because it is in Paris; because for centuries workmen, artists, thinkers, and men of learning and letters have contributed to make Paris what it is to-day--a centre of industry, commerce, politics, art, and science; because Paris has a past; because, thanks to literature, the names of its streets are household words in foreign countries as well as at home; because it is the fruit of eighteen centuries of toil, the work of fifty generations of the whole French nation.

Who, then, can appropriate to himself the tiniest plot of ground, or the meanest building, without committing a flagrant injustice? Who, then, has the right to sell to any bidder the smallest portion of the common heritage?

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

the offices that negotiated with local governments to arrange on-sight shooting, or production studios that fronted funding, or people who provided QA and support for the animation software the CGI studio is using

But these are value-adding things too, wouldn't you say? They end up being integral to the making of the thing itself. Different from distribution which is just, as I see it, granting access to a market that you control so the good can be sold.

I'm definitely not being disingenuous -- I'm not a Valve-hater out here trying to convince people they're evil. I use Steam and would rather use it than any other platform. It's simply better. But that's not really relevant to what I'm saying, besides it's implication that it makes Steam more attractive to potential buyers of games. In relation to me, these platforms aren't a product at all. They're marketplaces devs have to pay a tax to access. As you note, it's possible to bypass them -- but I'd wager that makes things much much harder for the dev. I'd guess Factorio and Minecraft are exceptions to the rule.

But yeah, you do have a point that are others out there. I'd consider them extractive, too. As I see it, theyre less so a service and moreso based on ownership and control of infrastructure that probably should be common property.

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Listen, I'd be happy to talk about my perspective more, but why would I when you begin your response with

You’re drinking all the tech bro Kool-Aid that the lawyers and paid bots/shills have thrown out there on the internet.

Just totally rude.

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

But it’s like seeing a long list of credits at the end of a movie when you were only aware of the signature voice of the lead actor.

It's not like this, because most (not all) of those credits actually worked on the movie, itself. Their labor went into the thing that was produced in the end. I'm not arguing there's no cost to distribution. It's just not value-adding and so it ends up being extractive imo.

So, host a game on your own website, with its own patching process, payment systems, and forum. See how long it takes you, and how many sales you get out of it.

I'm also not trying to claim there's no productive work involved with maintaining a distribution platform, or that they aren't necessary. That's one of the issues, they are necessary, and there is one big player, and anyone who wants to sell their good is beholden to them. Valve still has a feudal-lord-like position in relation to the people who actually make the games, themselves.

Edit: also, im sensing some indignation. hope i didn't push your buttons or anything, just saying things as i see them and if you don't see it that way, that's fine.

 

 

São Miguel, Azores, Portugal

 

Água de Pau, São Miguel Island, Portugal

Edit: I have swapped in the picture with a different edit. this one has less noise and is a bit darker. I definitely under exposed this image, somehow. there is a lot of noise. im not sure how, since it was so sunny i usually am using one stop more light than sunny 16, so this was likely around f11 250....

 

Hey all, I'm interested in playing some emulated games on my steamdeck, but I'm not sure where to start.

I've been having fun with Super Mario World, but a good chunk of that is because I played it a lot as a kid, so much of my enjoyment is from nostalgia.

Problem is, I didn't play many too many games when I was a kid...

What older games out there would you say hold up in 2025? So that regardless of the nostalgia factor, they can be enjoyed by someone like me

 

I primarily use Gnome desktop (x11) with Ubuntu because I'm pretty comfortable with it, I like the minimalist, modern style, I enjoy the smoothness, and I don't feel like I need to customize everything. Plus, having familiarity with the desktop, out-of-box experience helps me when installing and reinstalling, which I do often because of work.

The issue with it, however, is I can't really play games smoothly on it, specifically Rocket League. On Plasma, I was able to achieve smoothness (not just high framerate, but also input -- erm, latency? lag? not sure the term here) by installing the liquorix kernel, using the proprietary nvidia drivers, and -- here is the key -- hitting Shift+Alt+F12 to disable with the compositor. After that, I get a nice smooth experience in Rocket League, which is essential since it's a game that is dependent on quick reactions and physics.

But with Gnome, there is no disabling the compositor this way. Supposedly Gnome handles this by allowing apps to bypass the compositor if they're in fullscreen mode, but it does not seem that Rocket League does this. I did set it to full screen, turned off the second monitor, but it still felt like there was a delay between when I pressed a button on the controller and when the car reacted. The framerate is still at 144, but its not playable with this amount of input lag. Honestly, feels kinda like if vsync were on. I did read that mutter forces vsync on, but not sure how reliable that is.

I don't mind logging out and switching my desktop to Plasma, but it would be nice if I could just stick with Gnome. I very much like how it handles workspaces, and yeah, I know I could probably configure Plasma to do somewhat of the same thing, but it just doesn't feel the same to me.

Anyone have RL running smoothly on Gnome?

Edit: whoops, yes, running through proton. I forget what version at the moment...

 

FULL TEXT:

In an unprecedented move, the National Institutes of Health is abruptly terminating millions of dollars in research awards to scientists in Massachusetts and around the country, citing the Trump administration’s new restrictions on funding anything related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, transgender issues, or research that could potentially benefit universities in China.

The sweeping actions would appear to violate court rulings from federal judges in Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., that block the Trump administration from freezing or ending billions of dollars in government spending, said David Super, a constitutional law expert at Georgetown Law, who reviewed some of the termination letters at the Globe’s request.

In a related case brought by an association of higher education officials that specifically challenged Trump’s various DEI executive orders, a federal judge in Maryland twice over the past month blocked the administration from terminating funding, saying in his most recent decision the restrictions “punish, or threaten to punish, individuals and institutions based on the content of their speech, and in doing so they specifically target viewpoints the government seems to disfavor.”

Super added that the termination letters are also “unlawful” because the NIH is imposing conditions on funding that did not exist at the time the grants were awarded.

The NIH did not respond to a request for comment.

Scientists say the letters began arriving last Friday and earlier this week, notifying them their funding was being canceled because it involved subjects that are “unscientific,” do “nothing to enhance the health of many Americans,” or do “not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.”

Exactly how many NIH grants have been terminated is unclear.

With an annual budget of more than $45 billion, the NIH is the largest single public funder of biomedical research in the world, and Massachusetts is the nation’s top recipient on a per capita basis. Massachusetts researchers in the past fiscal year received more than $3.3 billion from the NIH.

Among those whose research funding was terminated is Nancy Krieger, a professor of social epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Her letter said she would not be receiving the last installment, roughly $650,000, of a five-year, $4 million award for honing time-efficient ways of asking patients about the discrimination they experience, including racism, sexism, sexual orientation, and age or weight discrimination.

“These are really important groups of people to study to understand how their life experiences are affecting their health,” Krieger said.

The letter she received said her work ran afoul of the administration’s anti-DEI rules, although Krieger said the research itself was not related to DEI.

“This is an assault not on just one little group of researchers. This is saying certain knowledge is not to be supported by the government,” Krieger said. “It’s the proverbial, ‘If there’s no data, there’s no problem.’ It means one can’t document the harms.”

The letters sent to scientists said they had 30 days to appeal to the agency for reconsideration, which Krieger said she intends to do.

Krieger’s research enrolled roughly 700 patients at three Boston community health centers including Fenway Health.

Dr. Kenneth Mayer, who heads the study arm at Fenway Health and is a professor at Harvard Medical School, said the cancellation of the grant would not immediately harm patients participating in the study. But, “it could have an impact on patient health in the future,” he said. “The whole point is to learn about biases. Some people avoid health care because they think they are going to be judged.”

He said it’s possible the four years’ worth of data already collected may be used, such as to develop training programs for doctors or educational materials for patients. “This is just such an important kind of work,” he said.

An NIH official told the Globe that administrators who oversee grants were given barely an hour’s notice of the terminations late last Friday before the notifications were sent out.

The official, who declined to be identified because they are not authorized to speak publicly, said they were aware of 24 such notices from four NIH institutes and centers, but said there are likely to be hundreds more.

This official shared a spreadsheet that showed 76 notices of funding opportunities over the past two years that the agency “unpublished,” meaning they were effectively scrubbed from public databases, potentially eliminating the funding for them.

Brittany Charlton, associate professor and founding director of the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, has not had any research funding terminated but has heard directly from several scientists who did lose their funding. She said many will appeal.

Charlton said researchers are also working to partner with civil rights organizations as they challenge the legality of these executive orders.

“This goes beyond research on LGBTQ health and includes studies seeking to understand and address health issues affecting a wide range of other vulnerable communities,” Charlton said in a statement. “Scientific inquiry is under siege and the public’s health hangs in the balance as crucial studies vanish.”

Sean Arayasirikul, a medical sociologist and an associate professor in-residence in the department of Health, Society, and Behavior at University of California Irvine, received a termination letter last Friday that stopped funding halfway through a five-year study involving roughly 900 participants.

Arayasirikul’s research studies how racism and discrimination affect people of color who are gay or transgender and need help with HIV prevention, substance use disorder, or mental health.

“That is one of the biggest priorities for HIV prevention today and not having these data and not having this knowledge hearkens back to a time when denialism around HIV was prevalent,” Arayasirikul said.

“I am starting to think now that I may lose my job and not exist in this field anymore and that’s one thing,” said Arayasirikul. “But to erase an entire generation of scholars who come from these communities, doing this work, the impact of that is immense.”

 

FULL TEXT:

In an unprecedented move, the National Institutes of Health is abruptly terminating millions of dollars in research awards to scientists in Massachusetts and around the country, citing the Trump administration’s new restrictions on funding anything related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, transgender issues, or research that could potentially benefit universities in China.

The sweeping actions would appear to violate court rulings from federal judges in Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., that block the Trump administration from freezing or ending billions of dollars in government spending, said David Super, a constitutional law expert at Georgetown Law, who reviewed some of the termination letters at the Globe’s request.

In a related case brought by an association of higher education officials that specifically challenged Trump’s various DEI executive orders, a federal judge in Maryland twice over the past month blocked the administration from terminating funding, saying in his most recent decision the restrictions “punish, or threaten to punish, individuals and institutions based on the content of their speech, and in doing so they specifically target viewpoints the government seems to disfavor.”

Super added that the termination letters are also “unlawful” because the NIH is imposing conditions on funding that did not exist at the time the grants were awarded.

The NIH did not respond to a request for comment.

Scientists say the letters began arriving last Friday and earlier this week, notifying them their funding was being canceled because it involved subjects that are “unscientific,” do “nothing to enhance the health of many Americans,” or do “not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.”

Exactly how many NIH grants have been terminated is unclear.

With an annual budget of more than $45 billion, the NIH is the largest single public funder of biomedical research in the world, and Massachusetts is the nation’s top recipient on a per capita basis. Massachusetts researchers in the past fiscal year received more than $3.3 billion from the NIH.

Among those whose research funding was terminated is Nancy Krieger, a professor of social epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Her letter said she would not be receiving the last installment, roughly $650,000, of a five-year, $4 million award for honing time-efficient ways of asking patients about the discrimination they experience, including racism, sexism, sexual orientation, and age or weight discrimination.

“These are really important groups of people to study to understand how their life experiences are affecting their health,” Krieger said.

The letter she received said her work ran afoul of the administration’s anti-DEI rules, although Krieger said the research itself was not related to DEI.

“This is an assault not on just one little group of researchers. This is saying certain knowledge is not to be supported by the government,” Krieger said. “It’s the proverbial, ‘If there’s no data, there’s no problem.’ It means one can’t document the harms.”

The letters sent to scientists said they had 30 days to appeal to the agency for reconsideration, which Krieger said she intends to do.

Krieger’s research enrolled roughly 700 patients at three Boston community health centers including Fenway Health.

Dr. Kenneth Mayer, who heads the study arm at Fenway Health and is a professor at Harvard Medical School, said the cancellation of the grant would not immediately harm patients participating in the study. But, “it could have an impact on patient health in the future,” he said. “The whole point is to learn about biases. Some people avoid health care because they think they are going to be judged.”

He said it’s possible the four years’ worth of data already collected may be used, such as to develop training programs for doctors or educational materials for patients. “This is just such an important kind of work,” he said.

An NIH official told the Globe that administrators who oversee grants were given barely an hour’s notice of the terminations late last Friday before the notifications were sent out.

The official, who declined to be identified because they are not authorized to speak publicly, said they were aware of 24 such notices from four NIH institutes and centers, but said there are likely to be hundreds more.

This official shared a spreadsheet that showed 76 notices of funding opportunities over the past two years that the agency “unpublished,” meaning they were effectively scrubbed from public databases, potentially eliminating the funding for them.

Brittany Charlton, associate professor and founding director of the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, has not had any research funding terminated but has heard directly from several scientists who did lose their funding. She said many will appeal.

Charlton said researchers are also working to partner with civil rights organizations as they challenge the legality of these executive orders.

“This goes beyond research on LGBTQ health and includes studies seeking to understand and address health issues affecting a wide range of other vulnerable communities,” Charlton said in a statement. “Scientific inquiry is under siege and the public’s health hangs in the balance as crucial studies vanish.”

Sean Arayasirikul, a medical sociologist and an associate professor in-residence in the department of Health, Society, and Behavior at University of California Irvine, received a termination letter last Friday that stopped funding halfway through a five-year study involving roughly 900 participants.

Arayasirikul’s research studies how racism and discrimination affect people of color who are gay or transgender and need help with HIV prevention, substance use disorder, or mental health.

“That is one of the biggest priorities for HIV prevention today and not having these data and not having this knowledge hearkens back to a time when denialism around HIV was prevalent,” Arayasirikul said.

“I am starting to think now that I may lose my job and not exist in this field anymore and that’s one thing,” said Arayasirikul. “But to erase an entire generation of scholars who come from these communities, doing this work, the impact of that is immense.”

 

Honestly the original title is appropriately boring but the real headline should be

A new memo from the U.S. Department of Transportation indicates that it will direct more funding to states with higher birth and marriage rates

Here's the article

CONCORD, N.H. —

A New Hampshire executive councilor is raising concerns about new language tied to federal highway funding.

Executive Councilor Karen Liot Hill said a new memo from the U.S. Department of Transportation indicates that it will direct more funding to states with higher birth and marriage rates.

"New Hampshire is one of the oldest states in the nation, and we have one of the lowest birth rates in the country," she said. "And so, I'm very concerned if all of a sudden, there's going to be new strings attached to federal funds."

State Department of Transportation officials said the prior administration also had its own initiatives, and New Hampshire still got its highway money.

We don't anticipate that this will cause any problems," said DOT deputy commissioner Andre Briere. "In the last Justice40 (Initiative), we're also a state that doesn't have a lot of communities that meet those criteria, but we were nonetheless granted discretionary grants."

Briere was referring to a program under President Joe Biden that prioritized programs related to climate change, clean energy, pollution reduction and other categories.

As the Trump administration's freeze on federal grants gets litigated in the courts, nonprofit organizations and other initiatives that receive federal funding are watching and waiting.

Executive Councilor John Stephen said he's all for cutting government spending, but he said that allocated funds New Hampshire organizations are counting on should be delivered.

"It's important that the nonprofits and the organizations that have been pretty much guaranteed current funding for their operations, that we continue, and we're fiscally responsible in everything we do at the state level," Stephen said. "What I'd like to see going forward, though, is that we're looking, working closely, collaboratively with the federal government to make sure that New Hampshire is not adversely impacted."

Gov. Kelly Ayotte said she hopes the Trump administration takes a closer look at where the resources being targeted by the freeze are actually going.

"Because they could be going to public safety issues," she said. "They could be going to drug prevention, interdiction – all those things are critical."

 

CONCORD, N.H. —

A New Hampshire executive councilor is raising concerns about new language tied to federal highway funding.

Executive Councilor Karen Liot Hill said a new memo from the U.S. Department of Transportation indicates that it will direct more funding to states with higher birth and marriage rates.

"New Hampshire is one of the oldest states in the nation, and we have one of the lowest birth rates in the country," she said. "And so, I'm very concerned if all of a sudden, there's going to be new strings attached to federal funds."

State Department of Transportation officials said the prior administration also had its own initiatives, and New Hampshire still got its highway money.

We don't anticipate that this will cause any problems," said DOT deputy commissioner Andre Briere. "In the last Justice40 (Initiative), we're also a state that doesn't have a lot of communities that meet those criteria, but we were nonetheless granted discretionary grants."

Briere was referring to a program under President Joe Biden that prioritized programs related to climate change, clean energy, pollution reduction and other categories.

As the Trump administration's freeze on federal grants gets litigated in the courts, nonprofit organizations and other initiatives that receive federal funding are watching and waiting.

Executive Councilor John Stephen said he's all for cutting government spending, but he said that allocated funds New Hampshire organizations are counting on should be delivered.

"It's important that the nonprofits and the organizations that have been pretty much guaranteed current funding for their operations, that we continue, and we're fiscally responsible in everything we do at the state level," Stephen said. "What I'd like to see going forward, though, is that we're looking, working closely, collaboratively with the federal government to make sure that New Hampshire is not adversely impacted."

Gov. Kelly Ayotte said she hopes the Trump administration takes a closer look at where the resources being targeted by the freeze are actually going.

"Because they could be going to public safety issues," she said. "They could be going to drug prevention, interdiction – all those things are critical."

view more: next ›