[dclowd9901]

https://archive.is/fZ9CN

> Michael England, a spokesman for the National Science Foundation, said the decision to dismantle the network, known as the Ocean Observatories Initiative, “aligns with N.S.F.’s wider strategy to have a nimbler approach to prioritizing support for evolving scientific priorities and emerging technologies as well as a deliberate approach to smart life cycle management within its portfolio of research infrastructure.”

1) it's not hard to do your own research. If you're here, I assume you know how.

2) does that answer satisfy you? The bullshitty word salad doesn't surprise me. With this administration I expect incompetence and double speak and am rarely disappointed. I wonder why at this point in time you choose to give them so much leeway.

[Domenic_S]

> 1) it's not hard to do your own research. If you're here, I assume you know how.

What an awful take. The point of news shouldn't be "assume I'm right and the readership takes my word for it". It should help the reader come to a conclusion, because it's news and not opinion. If you have to go do your own research not to dig deeper but because the article failed to even cover the basic arguments, it has utterly and completely failed.

[dclowd9901]

There is no such thing as a complete piece of information and it is unreasonable to expect every published piece of every bit of information to contain all required context to understand it. I'm not defending the Yale article's basic miss on the information, but rather your laziness on looking for more information when something came across your purview.

If someone said to you "hey, I heard they're pulling back on measuring ocean currents, isn't that shitty?" Would you get defensive and start yelling at them about not providing the "other side"? No, you'd say "whoa, I better figure out what's going on here" and make it a point to dig more, not sit there and bitch and moan about incomplete information. Yale.edu isn't a news service, it has no obligation to "both sides" a story for you.

Furthermore, what even would be the point of anyone regurgitating that hopeless pile of words the NSF's chief barfed out (apart from illustrating that's all they have as an explanation)? You mistakenly gave the administration the benefit of the doubt here when you really had no business doing so.

[Domenic_S]

You're full of awful takes, aren't you.

Yale's E360 Digest is not a buddy mentioning a topic in passing.

Have some standards.

[x-complexity]

> 1) it's not hard to do your own research. If you're here, I assume you know how.

Assume the opposite direction. If you don't bring the data, then you're not doing your part to convince others on your position. Assumption of "default data" is a significant contributor in the breakdown of communications.

> 2) does that answer satisfy you?

No, in fact it leaves open more questions than before. From the article provided (https://archive.is/fZ9CN):

>> The $48 million annual budget for the observation network was small compared with the value of the data it collected for understanding the oceans and the climate, Dr. McLean said.

- Why didn't aligned charities step in to plug the gap? Billions flow through charities each year, and yet none have stepped in? One or 2 stepping in and still not being able to plug the gap, I can accept. None at all?

- If the data is that important, then there should be multiple efforts in collecting it, not just one. Why did everything get lumped into a single basket?