[HN Gopher] NSF director to resign amid grant terminations, job ...
___________________________________________________________________
NSF director to resign amid grant terminations, job cuts, and
controversy
Author : detaro
Score : 200 points
Date : 2025-04-24 19:07 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| jmclnx wrote:
| Another knowledgeable person leaving due to DOGE, what a
| surprise. The US is loosing its smartest people due to Trump.
| Soon we will be a backwater country with lots of weapons, nothing
| else.
| jfengel wrote:
| Yes, but we'll have stuck it to the woke, and that's what
| counts.
| danudey wrote:
| Isolating the US from the rest of the world economically and
| politically and plunging the country into an unforced
| recession while giving trillions of dollars to billionaires
| and texting state secrets to journalists and relatives to own
| the libs.
| ttoinou wrote:
| "stick it to all the too-tolerent people who let the woke
| movement gain power" would be a good steel manning of your
| argument
| stouset wrote:
| Which people in the woke movement had power, and what were
| some of the woke policies that they enacted?
|
| Every time I go down this line, it's all vague boogeymen or
| claims of events that don't hold up to scrutiny.
| StefanBatory wrote:
| It is a dog whistle for "We let gays/trans/atheist people
| exist."
| ttoinou wrote:
| I dont know Im only removing the strawmen of the comment
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| > Soon we will be a backwater country with lots of weapons,
| nothing else.
|
| Making advanced, _superior_ weapons systems requires a
| workforce with strong science, engineering, and manufacturing
| skills.
|
| I struggle to understand how the current administration's
| policies help.
| dullcrisp wrote:
| You can always hope your old stockpile of weapons works while
| bullying smaller countries with it.
| stouset wrote:
| Hmm... where have I seen this strategy play out in recent
| memory?
| staunton wrote:
| Seems to be going reasonably well, isn't it?
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| Authoritarians often allow for strong science and engineering
| skills within an approved range. The Nazis had excellent
| engineering and so did the Soviet Union in some areas.
| danudey wrote:
| We're going to bring manufacturing back! But we're not bringing
| back the crappy manufacturing jobs that pay absolute peanuts.
| No, we're going to automate those! With robots that we don't
| make here in the US, of course. Those robots don't exist,
| because if they did then China would be using them, but we'll
| buy some robots from China at 150% tariffs so that we can set
| up some degree of manufacturing here in the US!
|
| We'll create jobs! But good-paying jobs, for well-educated
| people! The kind that we won't be making anymore once we gut
| the department of education and saddle everyone with crushing
| student loan debt that we've just announced we're going to be
| chasing after again! Because the government isn't willing to
| let people get away without paying their debts! Unless it's a
| big bank, or a billionaire. Or the US government itself, for
| that matter! But the US government is in massive debt, and we
| can't let student loan payments go unpaid! But we can give a
| $4.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires who don't need it, that's
| important.
|
| The administration is in this weird limbo of "doesn't know what
| they're doing" and "is desperately trying to accomplish goals
| that will clearly and irreparably tank the entire country".
| hengheng wrote:
| If the benefits don't outweigh those minor inconveniences,
| you're just not rich enough.
| sathackr wrote:
| One thing I don't understand is people resigning on principles.
|
| If something bad is happening to an organization that I hold a
| significant amount of clout and power in, I'm not just going to
| leave and hand the reigns to someone on 'their side' -- I'm going
| to stay and fight and try to make whatever impact I can.
|
| So many people are just leaving...instead of fighting. Which
| seems like it's going to have the effect of just accelerating the
| demise of the organization they claim to love so much.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| It's resign or follow my orders. There's not much wiggle room
| in-between, and the lawsuits will probably cost you everything
| anyway.
| beeforpork wrote:
| OK, but isn't getting fired better than resigning? Why
| resign?
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I can't speak for the NSF director, but the silver lining
| in a resignation is you leave on your own terms. Being
| fired is not "better" for everyone.
| sathackr wrote:
| There's tons of people that don't follow the boss's orders to
| a T and don't resign and don't get fired. And they would be
| much less effective at enacting their boss's agenda than
| someone who "just followed orders"
| voidfunc wrote:
| Fighting a meat grinder or a lawnmower is usually a bad
| strategy especially with an openly corrupt and abusive
| government with no checks on any of its power.
|
| People have families and livelihoods to protect, nobody in
| these positions signed up for this shit.
| sathackr wrote:
| Protecting your family is why you should fight.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| Say you have a family and that you have this NSF director
| position. You get some orders that you do not agree with,
| and at the same time you know that your partner could be
| disappeared tomorrow to El Salvador, by mistake of course.
| What is your plan to fight _and_ protect your family?
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| There are some hills not worth die on. There are moments when a
| retreat is better than a worthless fight, saving people in the
| process.
|
| I did the same mistake working for a company that went from
| morally sound to "almost-Enron". I thought it is a fight worth
| taking. The company went its way, I made no difference in the
| end, I just stressed myself for years for nothing. Life is too
| short for that.
| sathackr wrote:
| If more people at the company had followed your
| example...would it have turned out differently? Seems like
| you had the right idea just nobody else cared enough to join
| you
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| In a company with 100,000 employees even a few hundred will
| not make a difference, even if they all work in the same
| department and make it critical for the company. This is my
| experience, it may be better in other situations and other
| companies, but when the bad things come from the very top,
| there is no solution.
| patrickdavey wrote:
| Mental health perhaps? If the administration is making the
| organisations job impossible it could be an incredibly awful
| time to stay. I don't believe I owe anyone my sanity.
| sathackr wrote:
| yea that seems to be a common theme with people. Nothing is
| bigger than them or more important than their own personal
| mental health.
|
| I can't take it myself so I'm just going to roll over and not
| stand for any principle or fight for any cause because that's
| just too much for me to handle.
|
| And besides you're just one person so what difference is it
| going to make anyways.
|
| Same thing why people don't vote. It's not like their one
| vote will make a difference.
|
| Multiply that times 10 million people and you get what we
| have.
| tartoran wrote:
| You can do nothing of value if your mental health is
| declining. Best thing to do is seek shelter somewhere, for
| some time, to heal. You may do something of value at a
| later time. If you allow mental health to deteriorate there
| may be no comeback, ever.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| You obviously haven't been through a bad employment
| situation.
|
| Consider yourself lucky.
|
| And, to be honest, there is almost literally nothing more
| important than ones own personal mental health. Almost
| everything someone is able to achieve is built upon a
| foundation of their mental health. If the foundation is
| shaky, so will be the building.
| danudey wrote:
| It looks a lot better on the resume to say "I quit in protest"
| than to say "I was fired because I refused to do my job".
|
| Quitting in protest also makes better headlines than getting
| fired and it lets the person quitting set the narrative. "I
| quit because the administration was asking me to do something
| unethical or against the best interests of the American public"
| makes for good headlines, compared to "Trump admin fires head
| of the NSF" and then having to go on damage control justifying
| why you were fired and why it's a good thing actually.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _I 'm going to stay and fight and try to make whatever impact
| I can._
|
| Can you give me some examples of how you would fight?
|
| Boss comes in (or whoever more powerful than me, e.g. someone
| acting on the president's orders), says something with the gist
| of "Do this, or get fired". What are the next steps that I can
| take that won't get me fired, but also count as fighting back?
| saulpw wrote:
| https://specificsuggestions.com/
| ziddoap wrote:
| _" Hide perishable foods (fruit) in discreet locations of
| common areas"_
|
| That's helpful for the conversation!
|
| Should I just keep clicking through this entire site until
| an answer related to my question appears?
|
| (It's a neat site, but... I'm not going to sit here playing
| go fish until an applicable one-liner appears)
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| This is what I got: Send people the http:// version of
| links instead of https://
|
| I actually have no idea how this would disrupt anything.
| linkregister wrote:
| It would slow down the operation of the organization. In
| this case, it's counterproductive to the director's aims.
| The director's goal is to maximize grant funding; a
| functional bureaucracy is essential for that goal. There
| is nothing the director can do to increase the funding,
| which is being cut by an external source. The legality of
| the funding cut is unclear, but the director has no
| agency in the outcome of a legal challenge.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| But how would sending the http link slow things down?
|
| Most link parsers, browsers, and sites will happily
| redirect you to available encrypted sites these days.
|
| And even when they don't this is extremely dangerous
| advice to give for people who aren't technical.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| You total chaos machine!
|
| Give a wrong time. Stop a traffic line!
|
| I've mentioned it too often and sound like a stuck
| record, but Jaroslav Hasek's Svejk has it perfected [0]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Soldier_%C5%A0vejk
| 11;rgb:0000/0000/0000
| sathackr wrote:
| Comply but leak the truth to the media.
|
| Comply in a maximally obstructive way.
|
| Comply just enough to not get fired but not as much as
| someone who may be more inclined to please their boss.
|
| Enlist other opposition and find ways to multiply your
| obstructive compliance into other departments.
|
| There's tons of "how-to" guides on how to maliciously comply
| with work demands without getting fired.
| ziddoap wrote:
| It's hard to "maliciously comply" or be obstructive to
| someone giving you 55% less budget. They just... give you
| less money. That's it.
|
| I guess you could slow down the firing process for a bit?
| That would be a minor obstruction for a short period of
| time. Then what?
|
| Anyways, "how-to" guides on malicious compliance probably
| don't tackle situations where an external team, acting _on
| behalf of the president_ , come into your workplace with
| unparalleled authority to do whatever they please.
| rchaud wrote:
| > There's tons of "how-to" guides on how to maliciously
| comply with work demands without getting fired.
|
| These only apply to countries where the judicial system
| doesn't bend to whoever's in power.
| esseph wrote:
| This comment doesn't make sense if you're aware of the
| content of the guides under discussion.
|
| Subversion is the goal of them. To be successful requires
| time and not getting found out. It requires plausible
| deniability.
| DrillShopper wrote:
| Cool, how does the NSF director subvert with plausible
| deniability?
| justin66 wrote:
| > Comply but leak the truth to the media.
|
| Doesn't apply, everybody knows what's going on already.
|
| > Comply in a maximally obstructive way.
|
| Doesn't apply, the whole point is that the executive
| _wants_ to obstruct things, and that 's what we're talking
| about fighting against.
|
| > Comply just enough to not get fired but not as much as
| someone who may be more inclined to please their boss.
|
| Doesn't apply, you can't half-fire the specified people, or
| give just a little bit of money to the people you've been
| instructed not to fund. You can comply, or not, and it's
| not going to be any kind of secret which way you chose.
|
| If you want to go out in a blaze of glory and leave the
| building a day later than you otherwise would, with less
| dignity, go for it.
|
| > Enlist other opposition and find ways to multiply your
| obstructive compliance into other departments.
|
| It's just not that kind of role.
| ScoobleDoodle wrote:
| >> Comply in a maximally obstructive way.
|
| > Doesn't apply, the whole point is that the executive
| wants to obstruct things, and that's what we're talking
| about fighting against.
|
| "Obstructive" in this scenario results in the
| organization keeping functioning effectively. Obstructive
| of something destructive allows it to keep existing.
| justin66 wrote:
| > Obstructive of something destructive allows it to keep
| existing.
|
| Right, but with whose money?
| ScoobleDoodle wrote:
| I'm pointing out a definitional misunderstanding. It's
| was a double negative misinterpreted as a single
| negative.
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| If you're in a hierarchical structure and someone higher up
| gives you an ultimatum, your choices are: comply, resist and
| face consequences, or find subversive, incremental ways to
| undermine it. None of those are cost-free.
|
| "Fighting" isn't about magic moves that keep everything safe.
| It's about choosing when and how to accept the risks.
| Expecting a fight with no threat to your position is
| cowardice disguised as pragmatism.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _or find subversive, incremental ways to undermine it._
|
| I'm asking for concrete examples of what "subversive,
| incremental ways to undermine it" would be.
|
| You basically just reworded the vague suggestion of "fight
| back". What are some specific examples of what the NSF
| director could have done that are subversive, incremental
| ways to undermine the orders which ultimately came from the
| president?
| groby_b wrote:
| In labor circles, the "subversive, incremental ways" are
| known as "work to rule".
|
| You simply do as you're told. Orders are never completely
| without ambiguity, and the person giving the order has
| less direct experience with the subject than the person
| receiving the order. There's wiggle room.
|
| Concrete example: The order is "Do X". The person charged
| with executing it actually understands that the
| consequences will be that Y and Z (which the person
| giving the order cares about) will actually be on fire if
| you do X.
|
| In a functioning relationship, you speak up and say
| "Happy to do X, but here's what'll happen, maybe we
| should consider a different way to achieve your goals".
| If you're going the subversive route, you say "Sure
| thing. I'll get _right_ on X. I 'll overdeliver on it".
| Then you do X, and nudge it towards maximally bad impact
| on Y/Z.
|
| Followed by "Oh, who could've foreseen! Y and Z are in
| ruins! What would you like me to do, boss?"
| tobias3 wrote:
| Don't do it. Perhaps obfuscate and delay as much as possible
| that you are not actually doing it. Perhaps get fired. Then
| go to court for wrongful termination (this would depend on
| the order being unlawful)?
| ziddoap wrote:
| You can't "not do" getting a budget cut. They just give you
| less money.
|
| I'm also not sure how to just... not fire people. Sure, you
| can delay it a week or two. Okay. Then what? Get fired for
| non-compliance? That seems about as effective of a tactic
| as quitting is.
| conductr wrote:
| It's certainly going to test your moral fortitude but at some
| point I think this is a bit like telling a victim of domestic
| violence to stick it out.
| sathackr wrote:
| the victim of domestic violence sticking it out doesn't help
| anyone else.
|
| Except maybe the children -- which I could see there are some
| situations where not sticking it out could be worse for
| everyone.
|
| People look at domestic violence victims and always say "well
| why didn't they just leave?" as if leaving is the perfect
| solution -- but it rarely is. There are other factors.
| Income. Children.
|
| If there were a perfect societal safety net for these people,
| then maybe "just leave" is always the best solution. But
| there is not, and "just leave" often doesn't quite work out.
| empath75 wrote:
| You will only be able to remain on the job by compromising and
| compromising and compromising until there are none of your
| principles left. You might as well leave immediately and fight
| from outside.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| yeah the "use my power to effect positive change" (or "bring
| them down from the inside") ideal is just a way to convince
| yourself that complicity is in service to a higher good.
| Funny enough that's the same argument the other side uses...
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| I think there are two problems:
|
| - How can you fight from the inside against people who can get
| you fired at will? I think it's more effective to fight from
| the outside.
|
| - Science requires a lot of honesty, trust and assumes people
| generally act in good faith. So Scientists are not well
| equipped for political fights against hardcore ideologues. Just
| look at climate or vaccine denial.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| The options you have:
|
| A) disagree and commit
|
| B) disagree and wait to be fired
|
| C) appear to commit, but secretly subvert your (elected) boss's
| plans/intentions
|
| I use the word 'boss' here because the president has the right
| to hire and fire for this role: SEC. 5. 42
| U.S.C. 1864 (a) The Director of the Foundation (referred to in
| this Act as the ''Director'') shall be appointed by the
| President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
| Before any person is appointed as Director, the President shall
| afford the Board an opportunity to make recommendations to him
| with respect to such appointment. The Director shall receive
| basic pay at the rate provided for level II of the Executive
| Schedule under section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, and
| shall serve for a term of six years unless sooner removed by
| the President.
| etskinner wrote:
| Secret other option: Disagree and convince your boss to
| change their mind
|
| That, of course, probably doesn't apply in this situation
| since Trump rarely changes his mind. But it does apply in
| other situations.
| deeThrow94 wrote:
| > since Trump rarely changes his mind
|
| That's not true; he changes his mind _all the time_ ,
| particularly as media coverage changes. It's just not
| necessarily something you can persuade him to do without
| catering to his ego.
| inerte wrote:
| https://www.axios.com/2025/04/19/inside-trump-mindset-
| tariff...
|
| "We saw it in business with Trump," one adviser said. "He
| would have these meetings and everyone would agree, and
| then we would just pray that when he left the office and
| got on the elevator that the doorman wouldn't share his
| opinion, because there would be a 50/50 chance [Trump]
| would suddenly side with the doorman."
| dylan604 wrote:
| Trump is known to be that type where if you want him to
| go with your suggestion, you must be the last person in
| the room.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| There's also malicious compliance... doing EXACTLY what is
| asked no matter how damaging or stupid. It's the 'let it
| all burn down' option but I have found it drives change
| very quickly... CYA, though.
| IcyWindows wrote:
| Isn't this what is happening now?
|
| Given that the management is choosing who is let go, I
| believe many are threatening to let crucial people and
| programs end if funding is cut.
|
| It's extremely effective.
| ricksunny wrote:
| Fun fact: Exactly the stipulation behind this excerpt,
| whether the President can hire/fire the head of the NSF, is
| exactly why Truman had vetoed an earlier version of the NSF
| bill written under the close influence of Vannevar Bush that
| actively avoided providing for this extent of executive
| 'weighing of the scales' of science. Source: Bush, V. "Pieces
| of the Action", 1970
| lesuorac wrote:
| Is it disagree and commit?
|
| NSF is an "independent agency" [1] so if the job you were
| appointed to an confirmed by congress (senate) is at odds
| with the presidents desires I'm pretty sure it's supposed to
| be a problem for the president not you.
|
| Similar to all those inspector generals who just gave up when
| they were illegally fired. Literally your job is to prevent
| the president from corruption, how are you going to do that
| now?
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_th
| e_Un...
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Seems unconstitutional for congress to be able to create a
| regulatory agency fully outside of the executive's control,
| as who will check the congress's power? Appointment and
| confirmation exists so both branches must assent to all
| officers of then government
| lelandfe wrote:
| > who will check the congress's power
|
| The judiciary. E.g Bowsher v. Synar
| wavefunction wrote:
| The Judicial Branch is supposed to provide oversight over
| the Executive and Legislative Branch.
| LiquidSky wrote:
| In addition to what others have said, in theory it's also a way
| to call public attention to the problem. These are coveted
| positions that people don't just walk away from lightly, so
| someone in this position stepping down and explaining why can
| serve as an alarm bell.
|
| That said, I don't know how effective that really is anymore
| since driving people out is one of the administration's stated
| goals.
| BoxFour wrote:
| The perception shift is key. Getting fired for cause and
| trying to claim the moral high ground afterward often reads
| as sour grapes; Bitterness and/or incompetence being
| rationalized. Quitting, on the other hand, suggests principle
| and lends credibility.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| I get your reaction but it discounts that all of these people
| are both human (with limited amounts resolve) and have many
| alternatives. Look at Trump's first cabinet. I believe it had
| several people who didn't need or want to be there, but felt
| they needed to supervise: Tillerson, Kelly, Haley - none of
| them lasted very long.
| barkingcat wrote:
| I completely understand resigning on principles. It's a
| reflection of an internal state where you cannot fight (due to
| reporting chain of command) and the idea that leaving to fight
| is a stronger position than staying and fighting within a
| corrupted/damaged organisation.
|
| There is also the idea: you can order other people to do it,
| but I'm not going to do it - I resign.
|
| In business/corporate world, it's more like: I can't fight the
| idiotic director level decisions, so I'm going to quit and
| either
|
| 1) start another company to directly compete
|
| 2) quit, join another company to compete or
|
| 3) quit, get more experience, and then come back years later at
| a much higher pay / position to fire the director who was
| braindead in the first place.
|
| 3) in particular plays out way more often than you'd think in
| silicon valley/tech industry, where by quitting and changing
| jobs, you can easily get a bunch of promotions and experience
| outside, so you can come back in to the company at a much
| higher level.
|
| Think Intel and Pat Gelsinger. As an engineer, Pat couldn't get
| anywhere so left in 2009 to go lead VMWare. Then he returned to
| Intel as CEO in 2021. He still didn't get anywhere and got
| fired, but at least it was for executing his vision. If he
| stayed at Intel, he would have just been a peon engineer for
| the rest of his life. At least by quitting he got the CEO job
| later.
|
| Same story re the current Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, by leaving the
| board, he was signally his unhappiness with the conditions, and
| by rejoining as CEO, he gets to make the decisions.
|
| Resisting and fighting from within is usually your weakest play
| in organisational change.
| hammock wrote:
| NSF director is a political appointee, as such serves the will
| of the President. We don't need those people "fighting," we
| need to elect the people we want to make the right
| appointments.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Well, I've come to learn the best leaders hire people who do
| fight them. The key is that they're transparently open to
| being fought, take all sides under consideration, give
| deference when they don't have to, but expect compliance when
| they make a decision.
|
| I think we are in a situation where none of the above is
| happening, so you end up with a globally pessimal decisioning
| system where you push out the thought leaders and consensus
| builders and replace them with either people too stupid to
| have an opinion or just devious enough to appease their
| master while imposing their will. It's the most toxic of all
| work places.
|
| I feel genuine sorrow for all federal employees, contractors,
| and people who do business with or receive money from this
| government. I've worked in both environments, and what's
| happening is going to crush a lot of human souls in what was
| already a pretty soul crushing environment to begin with.
| hammock wrote:
| >I think we are in a situation where none of the above is
| happening
|
| What leads you to believe the guy hasn't fought? He
| literally said "I have done all I can." Do you want him to
| create so much conflict that he is forced to leave in
| disgrace, burning every bridge he comes across? Or is it OK
| that a good guy fights behind the scenes, and resigns with
| grace when he has lost that fight?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Does getting fired by Trump for publicly resisting his
| changes qualify as disgrace?
| fundad wrote:
| this director was appointed by the 45th president in 2017.
| Tireings wrote:
| It's possible true but look at the current situation: there are
| people taking trump as face value.
|
| They believe in him.
|
| They might struggle between 'whats going on here' 'wtf' 'why is
| no one doing something ' to 'am I wrong? People voted for that
| clown'.
|
| It's impressive to see how fast society, values and character
| just degress or becomes mainstream. It has to mean something
| throwanem wrote:
| > I'm going to stay and fight and try to make whatever impact I
| can.
|
| There have been times in my life when I said the same. Now ask
| me if those experiences incline me to try saying so ever again.
|
| I understand perfectly the motivation, and the theoretical
| appeal of the method. It is only that while in theory there's
| no difference between theory and practice, in practice this
| method pursued assiduously enough will see you working actively
| in support of atrocity before you realize that - past a
| surprisingly early point which large parts of the US government
| passed several moons ago - the method simply cannot work.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Resigning sends a signal to the people under you and outside
| the organization that fighting back is ok. Staying sends the
| message that things are ok enough.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Resigning sends a message fighting back is futile. A praising
| and grateful resignation letter sends a message things are
| OK. Staying sends different messages depending on words and
| actions.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Don't praise them in the resignation letter. Say something
| sharp and critical.
| mikestew wrote:
| _If something bad is happening to an organization that I hold a
| significant amount of clout and power in..._
|
| Seems to me if one held _that_ much "clout and power", they
| wouldn't need to resign on principle. Instead one learns who
| really holds the clout and power.
| MSM wrote:
| I think the likely reason is they have signed a non
| disparagement agreement and have no avenue to publicly
| criticize. Additionally, quietly criticizing just means quietly
| getting fired, then likely still being unable to publicly
| criticize.
|
| The only way to say "hey, I don't think this is right and I
| don't agree with what's happening here" is to publicly resign
| and hope that alarm bells start going off in people's heads as
| to why many of these folks are resigning simultaneously.
| mandevil wrote:
| US Government employees basically can't sign non-
| disparagement agreements, the Federal Government doesn't
| enter into agreements without a fixed time commitment to
| judge compliance, and there are incredibly strong
| whistleblower protection laws for Federal employees which
| would make any non-disparagement agreement very difficult if
| not impossible to enforce. A Federal judge held that the
| Trump 2016 campaign's non-disparagement agreements were
| unenforceable, and there have been no hints of Federal
| employees being offered anything even like that.
|
| That bit of pedantry aside, I agree with you that the purpose
| is to draw attention to something bad happening, it is a
| grander version of leaking to a reporter.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The fact that it is not an anonymous source lends much more
| weight than leaking to a reporter.
|
| Based on your first graph though, how much longer before
| federal whistle blower laws get DOGE'd?
| thinkcontext wrote:
| > I think the likely reason is they have signed a non
| disparagement agreement and have no avenue to publicly
| criticize
|
| That was litigated during Trump's first term and held to be
| not enforceable. That was the case brought by one of his
| reality show contestants that he appointed to something (the
| exact details are too trivial to care about).
| hodgesrm wrote:
| > I'm going to stay and fight and try to make whatever impact I
| can.
|
| Have you actually done this? It's harder than it sounds.
| csours wrote:
| > Which seems like it's going to have the effect of just
| accelerating the demise of the organization they claim to love
| so much.
|
| Sometimes there is not a direct path to 'good'. Sometimes the
| path to things getting better goes through a rough patch.
|
| It is very dissatisfying that a lot of people are doing very
| stupid things very publicly right now.
|
| ---
|
| Politics is an information game, and you can't play an
| information game without changing the game; all information
| games are metagames.
|
| The way the game is being played right now is drastically
| changing the game.
|
| I won't claim that the game will be better after this
| (especially in the short term), but it certainly will be
| different.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > I'm going to stay and fight and try to make whatever impact I
| can.
|
| Those people are being fired as fast as possible.
|
| That's because what's happening is not just changes in policies
| within these agencies, but essentially a loyalty test / purge.
|
| You can either be loyal and do what the new boss wants without
| disagreement, you can resign in protest, or you can be fired.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| You're assuming the battle hasn't been lost. These people
| didn't resign at first fight. They resigned when they realised
| there isn't a way to fight a President who wants to dismantle
| an agency underneath him like this.
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| You're getting a lot of pushback, but this resonates with me. I
| guess I have a hard time understanding the value in a "noble
| departure" rather than just going down swinging.
|
| If a shark was eating me, I wouldn't say "welp I'm boned,
| better just resign from life". I'd punch the shark, until that
| shark had to fire me from life.
|
| Maybe from a PR perspective its somehow better? Idk, I don't
| see it.
| crummy wrote:
| Historically, 'this decision is so outrageous that three
| important people have resigned' has been a powerful brake on
| outrageous decisions.
|
| That has stopped being the case recently, for whatever
| reason.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| 1. The resignation is an important signal to other people
| that bad things are happening. Not everyone is paying
| attention; dramatic resignations are events that might help
| pierce the media veil.
|
| 2. At some point, if you can't stop it and they won't fire
| you, you're a collaborator. There's a point where your noble
| stance becomes "even though I desperately want not to put
| people into gas chambers it's better if I'm the concentration
| camp director because I can reduce the number of people we
| put into the gas chambers by manipulating spreadsheets behind
| the scenes." You can justify that to yourself, maybe. I would
| strongly advise reading some history before going down that
| road. You and your descendants have to live with that
| forever.
| flkfsjklfdslkj wrote:
| If a shark was eating me, _and I have the choice at almost
| any time to immediately vacate the vicinity of the shark_ ,
| I'm probably going to just leave. I've had jobs, early in my
| career, where I figuratively punched the shark instead. The
| shark won.
| ugh123 wrote:
| I can think of cases where new employers clearly act without
| integrity and that may make certain employees uneasy about
| being asked to do things that may be unethical.
| flkfsjklfdslkj wrote:
| Honest question - have you ever worked somewhere where people
| above you in the food chain have made decisions you consider
| bad or unacceptable?
|
| If not, it may not be clear that those above you are ultimately
| going to win any disagreement. If you can't change their mind,
| there really isn't anything you can do, except limit any damage
| to your repuation for your next role (ie, leave before the s*it
| hits the fan).
|
| The other effect, explained so well in the short book "The
| Power of the Powerless", is that the idea of using your
| increasing clout and power as you rise through an organisation
| to make changes for the better is largely a fallacy.
| Paradoxically, the higher up you go, the less freedom you have
| to use that clout and power.
| cozzyd wrote:
| He was already obeying in advance before DOGE got there, but I
| guess that wasn't enough. I fear very bad news is coming.
| strangeloops85 wrote:
| I have to wonder what DOGE (including the alleged wunderkind
| Farritor that all the SV VCs were hailing) is planning for NSF.
| It's amazing the arrogance of these people, to walk in and just
| do "hulk smash" on decades of hard work, infrastructure and
| institutional capacity.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| It's fairly straightforward really. Academics will work on
| whatever grant topics are available, most will do anything
| for money, so expect lots of grants on topics directly
| benefiting X.ai, Tesla, Neuralink, or SpaceX.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| There's multiple reasons why what you said is just wrong.
|
| First, if academics wanted to work on topics mandated by
| somebody else, they would go work in industry for that
| somebody, and earn much more money than they earn right
| now.
|
| Second, most academic scientists do not do anything
| relevant to Musk's companies. Do you expect a chemist to
| pivot to self-driving cars? Or a pure mathematician to
| whatever X.ai is doing?
|
| The only thing this will lead to is a destruction of
| American capacity to carry out independent scientific
| research.
| timschmidt wrote:
| > First, if academics wanted to work on topics mandated
| by somebody else, they would go work in industry for that
| somebody, and earn much more money than they earn right
| now.
|
| Very few academics become principle investigators. Most
| every academic who's not a PI is working on something for
| that PI.
| jltsiren wrote:
| The vast majority of those working for a PI are students
| and postdocs, which are inherently trainee positions.
| Though, depending on the field and the PI, trainees may
| also have plenty of freedom to work on their own topics.
| If you want an actual career in the academia, the main
| options are becoming a PI or choosing a teaching-focused
| position. There are some staff scientists and similar,
| but such positions are rarer than tenured professors.
| timschmidt wrote:
| > postdocs
|
| > inherently trainee positions
|
| Do we live on the same planet? I understand that the
| point of being an academic is to always be learning, but
| there's no place on earth I know of that thinks of
| someone with a PhD as a trainee.
|
| > the main options are becoming a PI or choosing a
| teaching-focused position. There are some staff
| scientists and similar, but such positions are rarer than
| tenured professors.
|
| Implying that one gets a choice is bold. My understanding
| is that there's a job for about 1 in 10 postdocs in
| academia these days.
| jltsiren wrote:
| A postdoc is a training position, where the individual
| further develops their skills and tries to build an
| independent profile while being mentored by a more senior
| academic. PhDs who work in someone else's projects
| without focusing as much on personal development
| typically have other job titles, such as project
| scientist or staff scientist.
|
| Receiving a doctorate does not mean that you have
| finished your training. Some countries have habilitations
| or higher doctorates, which can be understood as more
| formal versions of postdoctoral training. Medical doctors
| are expected to specialize and receive more training as
| residents. Other fields have similar arrangements, some
| more and others less formal. If a full career is 50 years
| and the job requires a high degree of specialization, it
| can make sense to use the first ~15 years for training.
| eli_gottlieb wrote:
| If you cut the grant-funding available by half, we will
| not, in fact, work on topics benefiting your company.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Half won't at least.
| bananapub wrote:
| Pretty distressing at how there's basically zero pushback from
| the American elites at the destruction of all strategic American
| advantages and only ineffective pushback from the public.
|
| There will be entire genres of books written about how America
| just said "eh" to being gutted by a bunch of rich psychopaths.
| jajko wrote:
| With Brexit Brits got exactly what was promised, they just
| didn't realize what that promise actually meant and very few
| are happy about it these days.
|
| This is next level of "I'll deliver anyway, I know what you
| wanted" while fucking it up spectacularly. If only all of our
| pensions wouldn't be now siphoned to those few with advanced
| government access I would be laughing a bit more.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| They did not get what was promised. They were promised large
| reductions in immigration, instead the Johnson government
| raised immigration levels to never before seen heights.
| Brexit enabled them to have lowered it to whatever level they
| wanted, but the Conservatives preferred to self destruct than
| compromise with the voters on mass immigration.
| eli_gottlieb wrote:
| Someone's gotta wipe Grandpa's ass.
| hedora wrote:
| The market's down what, 10-20%? The dollar's down 10%. 20-30%
| of average 401k's have already been siphoned, and we haven't
| even seen the impact of the tariffs or elimination of social
| security yet.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Could be even worse even quicker. The big box CEOs just
| told Trump that we're two weeks from empty store shelves
| for at least some things. Welcome to the USSR, don't forget
| to tithe to the Republican party on your way to the toilet
| paper line.
| tonetegeatinst wrote:
| Let's be clear, most Americans like paycheck to paycheck and
| can't afford losing a job or being arrested for saying
| antigoverment stuff
| staunton wrote:
| The starving peasants in <insert any grassroots regime
| change, peaceful and/or violent> could afford it, right?
| warkdarrior wrote:
| The trick is to keep the poor people poor, but not _too_
| poor. Nothing left to lose and all that...
| nickff wrote:
| Or else they might rebel like the North Koreans, Cubans,
| and Eritreans do?
| jmclnx wrote:
| Lets hope we get to the place were these books will be written.
| Books are already being banned in the US and some retailers are
| pulling these books from their selves.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| Books will be written but not by the Americans much like the
| fall of Rome wasn't covered by the Romans.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| If you mean the fall of the Roman Republic, that and the
| succeeding decadence of the Empire was covered in detail by
| Roman sources. The Annals of Tacitus are just one of many
| examples. [0] It's how we know what happened.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| Well, this is want American Elites want - so they can buy up
| the pieces at a discount.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I keep hearing this. But for that to work, the elites have to
| have a bunch of money available, that didn't lose value when
| everything fell apart. Well, where are they parking that
| money right now, that won't lose value when everything else
| does?
| timschmidt wrote:
| Switzerland, Malta, the Cayman Islands, all the traditional
| tax havens I'd assume.
| rchaud wrote:
| American elites push back when their tax shelters and uninsured
| deposits (see Silicon Valley Bank collapse) are at risk. That's
| their line in the sand.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| The US government has been systematically destroying all the
| tax shelters.
|
| Switzerland, Cayman Islands, etc now report to the IRS.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Two failed impeachment attempts, countless lawsuits, and now
| the Supreme Court has more or less inoculated Trump from any
| further prosecution attempts.
|
| The checks and balances have all been exhausted. There are no
| bullets left in the gun.
| square_usual wrote:
| And the one remaining possible check - a literal Supreme
| Court order - has also been ignored.
| soared wrote:
| I mean, there is one more check, one more not so proverbial
| bullet in a gun.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Ah, here we are! The Left doesn't like the current regime
| and rapidly descends to openly suggesting they should be
| put to death.
|
| Rather than, you know, actually coming up with an
| alternative good enough for people to want to vote for.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| If this isn't the tyrannical government (disappearing
| people, destroying public services even the Dept of
| Education, deliberately dismantling checks and balances,
| ...) the 2A was specifically created for, then what would
| be? And if the 2A isn't about countering tyrannical
| government, what IS it for?
| mlsu wrote:
| Lots of everyday people have a tremendous amount of power.
| C-suite executives for example.
|
| The concrete example of this is Harvard and some of the big
| law firms (Jenner & Block and WilmerHale). That is what
| resistance looks like now.
|
| Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison is an example of an
| entity that should have resisted, but folded instead.
|
| Unfortunately, I think a lot of the C-suite at big US
| corporations do not quite realize this about their position.
| They think that it's not their job; either that they keep
| their head down and the lawyers and politicians will take
| care of it, or something far worse, that the system has
| already fallen so may as well try to make concessions and go
| along to get along.
| ajross wrote:
| > I think a lot of the C-suite at big US corporations do
| not quite realize this about their position
|
| It's true, that they risk the erosion of their status and
| the assumption of their power by the state over the medium
| to long term. But it is _also_ true that in the short term
| they can beat their competitors by a carefully targetted
| bribe. There are significant upsides to getting behind the
| administration, and you can 't ignore that.
|
| This kind of corruption is literally how feudal oligarchies
| form.
| sega_sai wrote:
| So he had a chance to say what he thinks of these plans to
| butcher NSF, but he chose to wash his hands and say "I am deeply
| grateful to the Presidents for the opportunity to serve our
| nation. " and so on.
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| Request to mods: s/NSF/National Science Foundation/ in the title.
| wglb wrote:
| Requests are more effective if you send email to
| hn@ycombinator.com as noted in the footer.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| > And NSF said pending proposals that appeared to violate any of
| Trump's executive orders--in particular those banning efforts to
| increase diversity in the scientific workforce, foster
| environmental justice, and study the spread of misinformation on
| social media sites--would be returned for "mitigation."
|
| Basically don't study how Elon's websites are destroying the
| fabric of society or how Trump's policies will destroy the
| environment.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| The site formally known as Twitter is destroying the fabric of
| society, really? Do you hear yourself?
| 9283409232 wrote:
| I think social media as a whole is destroying the fabric of
| society, yes.
| bdangubic wrote:
| I would question sanity of anyone who questions this... :)
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Elon's one of our most successful and accomplished
| entrepreneurs and that hellsite broke his brain to the point
| where he's posting on there _hundreds of times per day_ and
| spending hours interacting and vouching for some of the most
| deprived degenerates online rather than running his world-
| changing companies. That's really a bad outcome.
| Larrikin wrote:
| This is probably a bad faith sarcastic comment, but for
| others
|
| Pretending social media holds no influence on society was an
| argument you could have made when it was just kids getting
| into fights or shooting each other over Internet beef fifteen
| years ago.
|
| Now it's an essential target in governments all over the
| world when it comes to spreading propaganda/disinformation.
| It has a direct link to effecting change in voters and entire
| governments innumerable times now.
| eli_gottlieb wrote:
| Oh, it's a good deal worse than that. The NSF actually has a
| statutory mandate to ask for those Broader Impact sections;
| Congress would have to pass a law to stop it. So now the people
| applying for grants need to include, by law, a section that, by
| policy, will get the grant application returned for editing and
| "mitigation", while the Administration is also ordering, again
| without Congressional authority, that one out of every two
| dollars spent at the NSF be cut.
|
| The NSF doesn't even cost that much money to run. They're doing
| this counterproductively and, as far as I can tell, for no good
| reason at all.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| > while the Administration is also ordering, again without
| Congressional authority
|
| Trump is doing a lot of illegal things. Like, A LOT of
| illegal things, but if you read the article they specifically
| said that Trump officials said they were only going to ask
| for Congress for 55% of the current budget in the next years
| budget cycle so they are actually doing this one correctly.
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| I like to save my resignations for the whole "you can't fire me,
| I quit" part - when the fall is all thats left, it matters a
| great deal.
| pizzafeelsright wrote:
| Anonymous. May have. That appear. Knowledgeable source.
|
| Guessing or mind reading passes as journalism and that's
| frustrating.
|
| What do we know? Budget cut and resignation.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-24 23:00 UTC)