Dr. Mikaila

I have some lands end ones that are good but not all cotton. I have also had very good luck with H&M pants & sometimes they do have pretty close to 100% cotton.

Seems to me that so many educators are secretly thrilled about turning the clock back decades on disabled folks' access to education.

But if the problem is too much testosterone, then given the medicalized logic we have around other social problems, wouldn't that also imply we ought to do something to lower men's testosterone levels? (Not suggesting that obviously, just trying to undress the logic.)

I think we could speed up a lot of things if we could decide what our priorities are. If there are 15 urgent priorities requiring committees and reports there are really no priorities. The first question asked of every new initiative should be what else can we not do atm so that we can do this?

Seems to me that if you're upset that there's not more of a student movement fighting fascism in 2026, the first place to direct your anger is the people who crushed the wave of student organizing that crested in the months immediately preceding the fascists' rise to power.

This I could get behind. Because unlike a device ban, it doesn't make education inaccessible to people who cannot write by hand.

I agree with this and it's something for which community groups should already be developing concrete plans. I think reparations are already due.

I recommend bone conduction behind the head from htps://shokz.com/

Also most people I talk to seem to think LLMs know things rather than making predictions. If you are going to use it you should probably know how it works.

Most people who are trying to do that don't appear to know how to check if the code they generated does what they want it to.

Also, while I'm here, we know that those with a bachelor's degree are supposed to earn somewhere about a million dollars or more in their working lives, which translates to over $300,000 more in taxes.

Why the fuck are we making them pay loans, when their tax money already more for their college.

Taking your point to its logical conclusion, everyone should always choose exit over voice. And that's not how we fix problems.

You might consider that you are repeatedly misconstruing examples as statements.

One good way of doing doors is to ask the person on the other side of the door what they care about. You can use their language. You do not have to start by imposing your framing. For some reason you seem to be suggesting that providing examples in a post is how you do doors, which is ridiculous.

So one additional wrinkle here is that sometimes as much as these people are part of the problem, the institutional rot they are railing against isn't only them. When they name real problems that go unaddressed for a decade or more, even if their behavior isn't great, blaming them isn't quite right.

But, yeah, there's a whole thing about how the utter abandonment of colleges of ed is a good signal of the abandonment of higher ed's commitment to the public good. One of our very best contributions is preparing good teachers, speech therapists, literacy experts, etc. But it doesn't generate $

If you organize right, you organize in terms the people you are organizing, and you bring them along with you. You don't start by imposing your framing on them.

We really traded away our most fundamental rights to “stop crime.” We got a surveillance state that is only escalating violence in our communities.

You persuade voters by organizing. Not messaging. Get on the doors and talk to people about energy costs, data centers, & extrene weather. Your framing isn't even going to break through the algorithm otherwise.

I don't want to do a whole long rant on this, so I'll just say: the reason fossil fuels & other aligned incumbents don't want to transition to clean energy is that it will *damage their material interests*. And folks, they understand their own material interests. Really well!

Screenshot of article which reads: Let’s talk about the value of solidarity. Recently, senior leaders at the University of California, Los Angeles, made overtures to work with the Trump administration after receiving a settlement proposal that required the university to restrict freedom of speech and expression on campus and to pay $1.2 billion to the federal government. The UCLA Faculty Association and the Council of University of California Faculty Associations, along with the American Association of University Professors and other unions, sued the administration. The judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration, writing that the administration used a “playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune.” (A ProPublica and Chronicle of Higher Education investigation detailed how the administration tasked lawyers to “rapidly ‘find’ evidence backing a preordained conclusion” at UCLA.)

Screenshot of article which reads: Last month, the Trump administration dropped its appeal of that ruling. While the case itself proceeds, this means that unions were the ones who protected academic freedom at UCLA, not the institution’s senior leadership. Faculty unions can provide some scaffolding to make it easier for faculty members to find ways to act together. But if you can’t join a union at your institution (seriously, join your union!), it can be just as important to join organizations like local chapters of the AAUP (which has already shown a willingness to fight government repression that directly contradicts their past actions during the Red Scares). United Academics of Maryland at the University of Maryland, College Park (affiliated with the AAUP), which is not an official bargaining organization, still worked collectively to win nearly $9 million for workers at risk of losing their jobs due to canceled federal contracts.

Unions are by no means perfect (anyone who's ever been in one can tell you). But I would rather be part of one and push for change than be trying to go it alone.

This is an insightful take on LLM's "co-authoring" papers, but I would take it even farther. The current output levels for *legitimate* scholarship is too high. We need to fundamentally rethink how much research we really need, how we should collaborate, and how results should be summarized.

Especially if you think not using it will put you at a competitive disadvantage.

We are at 12 load hours a semester, each load hours is 3 work hours, with mandatory minimum service requirements & some deans are trying to increase research requirements.

Did you want schools, health care, trash pickup? Taxes fund that.

A person I know is doing this type of fellowship this year. Spouse stayed put at home with child & in-person job; they just don't see much of each other. Not my idea of a good life but it works for them.

I can see how that helps address the issue at tge journal level. I don't see how it helps reduce the demands institutions are making for T&P, post-tenure review, etc. or convinces institutions to treat reviewing as a key part of our jobs.

I ran a simple model with new public data then used 1 prompt to make ChatGPT guess what the model would produce. With 10 seconds of "thinking," it was very close. The implications of this are catastrophic. The American Sociological Association should do something about this but it doesn't care to
/1

It can't be left to disciplinary associations when colleges & universities are demanding the output. We need to fix our own institutional pressures too.

We need to publish less and review better. This is a collective action problem.