Online talk, unfortunately, so no chance to catch up properly. 😢
Was sent a survey about the new UKRI funding service grants application system. The last question is "Do you have any additional thoughts you wish to share?" Yes, yes I do...🔭
ALT: a red cartoon character with a white shirt and tie is making an angry face .
Andy Bunker from Oxford is giving our seminar this afternoon. Hard not to laugh at his introduction, explaining how he joined the JWST high-z galaxies team in 2004, "3-4 years before the planned launch date". 😂 🔭
Or just have half an hour more to try and stem the tide of the teaching tsunami...😂
Not completely down, but no new listings today.
No new arXiv listings this morning. Feels like there has been a great disturbance in the force... 🔭
In principle I agree, but in practice some people are very hostile even to helpful suggestions. Without anonymity many early-career people won't "risk" any comments that could be seen as critical, even if it's constructive. But the most likely outcome is that they'll simply decline to review at all.
Signing reviews without fear of consequences is a privilege only afforded to senior figures (mostly men) in secure positions. Putting your name to anything other than a glowing review is potentially career-ending for postdocs. Anonymity can be abused, but the benefits still outweigh the costs.
On a good day I’d like to think I’m “not altogether unpleasant”, but at the moment I’m leaning “flat to bitter”.
That field has *always* been like that. Even 20 years ago, there were papers on the high-z population in the Hubble UDF posted to arXiv within 1-2 days of the data release. It does seem to have got progressively crazier over time though - some of the stories really aren't good. 🔭