32 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2022
  2. Jul 2022
    1. So what can we make of politicians who continue to argue that ‘1.5°C is still alive’? Are they misinformed or are they simply lying?I believe many are in denial about the types of solutions the climate crisis demands. Rather than do the – admittedly – very difficult political work of eking out our supplies of fossil fuels while accelerating a just transition to post-carbon societies, politicians are going all out on technological salvation. This is a new form of climate denial, which involves imagining large-scale carbon dioxide removal that will clean up the carbon pollution that we continue to pump into the atmosphere. While it may seem much safer to stick to the script and say that it is still physically possible to limit warming to no more than 1.5°C, while pointing out that the scale of change demands much more political will, I believe that this can no longer be a credible response to the climate crisis.We have warmed the climate by 1.2°C since pre-industrial periods. If emissions stay flat at current levels, then in around nine years the carbon budget for 1.5°C will be exhausted. And, of course, emissions are not flat – they are surging. 2021 saw the second-largest annual increase ever recorded, driven by the rebound in economic activity after Coronavirus lockdowns. We did not ‘build back better’.The clock has been stuck at five minutes to midnight for decades. Alarms have been continuing to sound. There are only so many times you can hit the snooze button.

      Going all out on technological salvation is a form of climate denialism.

      We are at 1.2 Deg C and emissions have climbed after rebounding after Covid. If they flatline for the next nine years, we will hit 1.5 Deg C.

  3. May 2022
  4. Feb 2022
    1. Also, we shouldn’t underestimate the advantages of writing. In oralpresentations, we easily get away with unfounded claims. We candistract from argumentative gaps with confident gestures or drop acasual “you know what I mean” irrespective of whether we knowwhat we meant. In writing, these manoeuvres are a little too obvious.It is easy to check a statement like: “But that is what I said!” Themost important advantage of writing is that it helps us to confrontourselves when we do not understand something as well as wewould like to believe.

      In modern literate contexts, it is easier to establish doubletalk in oral contexts than it is in written contexts as the written is more easily reviewed for clarity and concreteness. Verbal ticks like "you know what I mean", "it's easy to see/show", and other versions of similar hand-waving arguments that indicate gaps in thinking and arguments are far easier to identify in writing than they are in speech where social pressure may cause the audience to agree without actually following the thread of the argument. Writing certainly allows for timeshiting, but it explicitly also expands time frames for grasping and understanding a full argument in a way not commonly seen in oral settings.

      Note that this may not be the case in primarily oral cultures which may take specific steps to mitigate these patterns.

      Link this to the anthropology example from Scott M. Lacy of the (Malian?) tribe that made group decisions by repeating a statement from the lowest to the highest and back again to ensure understanding and agreement.


      This difference in communication between oral and literate is one which leaders can take advantage of in leading their followers astray. An example is Donald Trump who actively eschewed written communication or even reading in general in favor of oral and highly emotional speech. This generally freed him from the need to make coherent and useful arguments.

  5. Jan 2022
  6. Dec 2021
    1. have always prioritized the most prominent publishers.

      inevitable prioritization.

    2. Small publishers with fewer publications and capital flow struggle to get the time with libraries and consortia to negotiate the terms of the agreements.

      exactly!

    3. It offers institutions a framework and concrete structure to take immediate action. Then it addresses the concerns of hybrid publishing and subscription paywall systems.

      see above calculation

    4. At first, TA's enable the authors to publish their articles rapidly in open access journals. Thus, it considerably lessens authors' and researchers' need for using their grant and institutional research funds to manage the open access publishing costs. As researchers and authors give prominence to scholarly publishing services and journals, the transformative agreements significantly preserve them.

      Shall we make a calculation. A = max research funding from funders B = sum of researchers C = A/B = research fund accepted by researchers (with competition)<br> D = subscriptions to publishers

      The old way: Within every C, there's E (OA publishing fund = X% x C).

      The new TA way:

      A = max research funding from funders consist of C = research fund without E (OA publishing fund)

      D+E is paid to the publishers, which in turn give an allocation to publish as OA articles and to read non OA articles.

      I don't think it changes much. It limits the choices of researchers to publish OA to certain publishers that have TA.

    5. Types of Transformative Agreements"Read and Publish" and "Publish and Read" are the two different types of transformative agreements. Let us explore them in detail.

      this is important.

      1. read and publish agreement
      • from subscription fund to allocations to read and publish.
      1. publish and read agreement
      • from subscription fund to allocation to publish. so members of the institution dan read all materials.
    6. The institutions such as libraries and national & regional consortia are striking a deal with publishing houses where the subscription costs are being repurposed through a proper and fair remuneration for the publishers to make publications open access.

      The repurpose should not be used since the agreement does not change the role of funders to fund and publishers to publish (with profit).

    7. The large-sized publishers and the small-scale ones have already grabbed the opportunity with open hands.

      only happens to rich countries or funders with enough money to pay.

    8. Initially, the transition might not be easy for institutions, universities, libraries, or publishers. However, it could prove beneficial in accelerating the progress of the open-access movement and scaling capacity in the long run.

      But the transition was only about how we publish and read. It does not change the fact the sum of money that has to be paid by funders (eg: government).

      Then looking at the situation of publishers right now, there are big 4 or big 5 of giant publishers. The funders (eg the government) would not be able to pay agreements with all potential (big) publishers. What about agreement small- legit publishers, especially those that publish full OA from the beginning and local journals. They would be easily oversight.

    9. The best aspect is that TA's are mutually agreeable to all the parties.
      1. In every deal comes with percentage of profits.

      2. Although in a way it's natural (to gain profit from a service), but how much profit is a good profit?

      3. I don't think we have set up the limit. there's a price cap, but it would easily be converted to final expected profits by inputing the component of large publishing portofolio. Calculation: fixed price cap per article x (sum of allocated articles to publish + sum of allocated articles to read) = expected profit X%

      4. What we (researchers) would get from it? Is it rights to publish and rights to read? So let's consider the following situations: a. in this digital internet era, anyone can publish something anywhere anytime, why would we limit our choices to certain journals from certain publishers? b. if we insert to component of peer review as one of the key feature in publishing in a journal, well then all journal would "naturally" do that (by excluding questionable journals). with more choices of OA journals that we have, why would we limit our choices to certain journal articles from certain publishers?<br> c. in a scenario where preprinting is a norm to retain copyrights, then readers would always have an OA version of any articles they wish to read.

      5. So again, why would we limit our choices to only journals from certain publishers?

    10. It plays a significant role in preserving authors' academic freedom and accelerating the transition to open access.

      Which freedom we are talking about? We can practice our freedom to publish and publish OA by preprinting even by uploading our manuscript to blogs.

      The missing component with that freedom is peer reviewing. Then what is stopping us from creating a freedom to peer review? (eg: PCI, Pre-review).

  7. Oct 2021
  8. clas3209.files.wordpress.com clas3209.files.wordpress.com
    1. Above all, I do notthink it is necessary to say the décor means a specific battle, and insteadbelieve that these décors evade specificity in order to vaunt Numidianperennial achievement and characterise a Numidian collective.

      I agree, seeing as it is difficult to pick and choose a battle to display. Not to mention people are not fighting battles constantly. There could be a 10 years difference, but no one needs to know that.

  9. Sep 2021
    1. tea

      I love this picture because although it is simple it highlights what Orwell is missing in that tea is meant to be enjoyed, and the method by which it is enjoyed is irrelevant. Well done!

  10. Apr 2021
  11. Feb 2021
    1. Cambridge University Press

      Many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund CUP's publishing activities for four years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

  12. Nov 2020
    1. Sometimes it can be beneficial to frame arguments or scenarios simply for students, so on-the-spot debates become possible.

      Yes, I agree with this. An either/or proposition encourages students to consider their opinions and respond by taking a side. Such an activity can also ensure that students know that others in the classroom have similar and different opinions.

  13. Oct 2020
  14. Jun 2020
  15. May 2020
    1. If you refer to someone's tacit agreement or approval, you mean they are agreeing to something or approving it without actually saying so, often because they are unwilling to admit to doing so.
  16. Dec 2019
    1. appropriately drafted material transfer agreement (MTA), as there is currently no legal requirement to that effect

      Are there templates available for "appropriately drafted MTAs"?

  17. Aug 2019
  18. Jul 2018
    1. material transfer agreement (MTA)

      Mengenai MTA ini sempat lolos dari perhatian saya saat menyusun RDMP (research data management plan) untuk universitas saya. Saat saya cari info dengan kata kunci "regulasi material transfer agreement", saya hanya mendapatkan satu regulasi dari Kementerian Pertanian. Ini mestinya ada dalam Permen tentang Penelitian.

    2. MTA

      Ok tentang MTA ini, saya perlu meralat pernyataan sebelumnya yang hanya menemukan regulasi MTA dari Kementan. Hasil pencarian di sini memunculkan sumber informasi tentang MTA yang lebih lengkap dari LIPI. Kemudian, bagian mana dari regulasi formal (yang ada dalam taksonomi regulasi Indonesia) yang mengarah ke dokumen MTA LIPI ini?

    3. material transfer agreement

      Mengenai MTA ini sempat lolos dari perhatian saya saat menyusun RDMP (research data management plan) untuk universitas saya. Saat saya cari info dengan kata kunci "regulasi material transfer agreement", saya hanya mendapatkan satu regulasi dari Kementerian Pertanian. Ini mestinya ada dalam Permen tentang Penelitian.

  19. Jan 2018
  20. Apr 2017
    1. James Bay Agreement

      The James Bay Agreement was signed in 1975 and was the first agreement on modern land claims under the new Canadian federal policy (Peters 1992). James Bay is located at the southern tip of the Hudson Bay. This large body of water is the ending point for many rivers and provides an abundant ecosystem for wildlife. The James Bay area is also inhabited by the Cree and Inuit Indian tribes, who use the ecosystem and the surrounding resources to survive and flourish. This territory was primarily left alone by the public and few were actually interested in this region (Ma et al., 2005). However, this all change when the territory’s hydroelectric potential was recognized in the 1960s, which brought in a flood of people. By 1971, the Quebec government began construction of the James Bay Hydroelectric Project on lands that were still controlled by aboriginal people. This project would result in the altering the course of 19 waterways and would create 25,900 km as reservoir. The Cree and Inuit tribes were so heavily opposed to the idea of this project because it would result in 11,500 km of their land being submerged. This 11,500 of land was still traditional used for aboriginal hunting and was a primary source of livelihood of the Cree and Inuit Indian tribes. The Quebec government toiled over the decision to build the project and finally decided to go ahead with it on the basis that the project would create tens of thousands of jobs and provide a new trade base for Quebec to export surplus energy.

      In the fall of 1972, native peoples applied for a halting of the construction in the James Bay region and by 1975 all construction had been halted. This eventually led to the James Bay Agreement that was signed in 1975. The James Bay Agreement included arrangements of compensation for those indigenous people displaced by the controlled flooding of their land and provided a list of federal and provincial commitments for the future of the north. The agreement ultimately gave Quebec jurisdiction over the land where they wished to build the James Bay Hydroelectric Project and opened the territory for economic development (Peters 1992). In the agreement, the Cree and Inuit were able to solidify their way of life by retaining access to the wildlife on most of the lands in that territory. Also, the settlement called for the encouragement of the Cree to continue harvesting wildlife through cash incentives in the form of an income-security program provided by the Quebec government (Asch, 1993). The Cree were also able to add a provision to the agreement that introduced the idea of creating economic development of “renewable, resource-based industries” (Peters 1992). Through the James Bay Agreement, aboriginal people’s flexibility to avoid or accommodate frontier activity and intrusion is clearly on display.

      Caption: A detailed map displaying boundaries and designated categorized lands of Native tribes after the James Bay Agreement and Northern Quebec Agreement.

      Source: Government of Canada

      Asch, Michael. 1993. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Vancouver: UBC Press.

      Ma, Jing, Keith W. Hipel, and Mitali De. 2005. "Strategic Analysis of the James Bay Hydro-Electric Dispute in Canada." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 32 (5): 868-880. doi:10.1139/l05-028.

      Peters, Evelyn J. 1992. "Protecting the Land Under Modern Land Claims Agreements: The Effectiveness of the Environmental Regime Negotiated by the James Bay Cree in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement." Applied Geography 12 (2): 133-145. doi:10.1016/0143-6228(92)90003-6. 

  21. Jan 2014
    1. In addition, the results imply that there is a lack of awareness about the importance of metadata among the scientific community –at least in practice– which is a serious problem as their involvement is quite crucial in dealing with problems regarding data management.

      Is there any reasonable agreement about what the term metadata means or includes? For example, how important is the unit of measure to scientists (feet vs meters) and is that information considered metadata or simply an implied part inherent in the data itself?

  22. Nov 2013
    1. That is to say, a uniformly valid and binding designation is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth.

      The rhetoric of society