Emma
LightNews LightNews
banner
dremmabrown.bsky.social
Emma
@dremmabrown.bsky.social
470 followers 360 following 360 posts
Recovering Academic, metalhead, service provider to a cat 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️

She/her

#actuallyautistic #AuDHD #disasterbi
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Emma
danielsugarman.bsky.social
The Musk/Ryanair battle seems unfair. In one corner you've got generational talent shitposters, while in the other corner you've got the guy who thought that literally turning up with a sink to Twitter HQ when he bought it (*let that sink in! Geddit?*) was cutting edge satire.
A statement from Ryanair saying that their CEO has called a press conference about Musk criticising them and saying he's thinking about purchasing their airline.
January 20, 2026 at 5:13 PM
dremmabrown.bsky.social
I did not have Ryanair beefing with Elon Musk on my 2026 bingo card
January 20, 2026 at 8:19 PM
Reposted by Emma
slurmsmackenzie.bsky.social
The UK government basically saying "if you're a disabled kid or a kid who is LGBTQ+ we're going to take away one of your main methods of community support while we strip whatever other options are available to you as well"

Utter cunts
January 19, 2026 at 10:51 PM
Reposted by Emma
divyampersaud.com
Please let me know, can you see this? Every day is a chance to help six families & a camp of fifteen more survive.

Not just amazing, but our duty. Food, shelter, healthcare. Click “weekly” on a coffee for reliable support every week.
Keep Hope Alive: a Gaza Giving Circle
We are a team of volunteers in the US and UK, led by two sisters passionate about helping our friends on the ground keep their families and neighbors alive with food, water, & shelter. We saw that their...
chuffed.org
January 20, 2026 at 6:00 AM
Reposted by Emma
mattbors.bsky.social
Trying to live my life so that when I die it’s a “pour one out for a real one” scenario over a “rest in piss” situation
January 13, 2026 at 3:56 PM
Reposted by Emma
shakespeare.lol
[Exit Bastard.]
January 13, 2026 at 4:03 PM
dremmabrown.bsky.social
No new pictures, where are you mentally?
A woman looking at a kitten. The caption reads “people talking to me in the morning” and “me processing the trauma of waking up”.
January 13, 2026 at 10:09 AM
Reposted by Emma
palaeostephan.bsky.social
“But I think it is naive, frankly, to say that we should get rid of him because he’s a bad person. I’m afraid there’s many bad people around, but they have made scientific advances.” - the carte blanche for every bully in academia…
January 9, 2026 at 6:24 PM
dremmabrown.bsky.social
We are living in the worst timeline
adambienkov.bsky.social Adam Bienkov @adambienkov.bsky.social · 12d
So his response to the criticism of his app generating sexual deep fakes of children is... to try to monetise it as a feature
January 9, 2026 at 4:36 PM
Reposted by Emma
eliothiggins.bsky.social
For those keeping score, Bellingcat, The New York Times Visual Investigation Team, & Washington Post's Visual Forensic team have all published analysis showing the ICE shooter wasn't in the path of Renee Nicole Good’s vehicle when he shot her, contradicting statements by the President & his cronies
January 8, 2026 at 3:35 PM
Reposted by Emma
acommonbird.bsky.social
This is a vetted fundraiser for the family of Renee Good, the woman who was killed by ICE in Minneapolis.

www.gofundme.com/f/support-fo...
Donate to Support for Renee Good’s wife and son, organized by Mattie Weiss
Please support the wife and son of Renee Good as they grapple with the devastating … Mattie Weiss needs your support for Support for Renee Good’s wife and son
www.gofundme.com
January 8, 2026 at 3:21 AM
Reposted by Emma
ucu.org.uk
On Tuesday, the Israeli military invaded Birzeit University, attacking students with live ammunition.

Israel's scholasticide is a core part of its attempt to obliterate the collective life of the Palestinian people.

We have written to Yvette Cooper urging the British government to take action.
Letter from the University and College Union (UCU), dated 8 January 2026, from general secretary Dr Jo Grady to the UK foreign secretary. The letter condemns Israeli military attacks on Palestinian education, including a raid on Birzeit University, calls these actions “scholasticide,” and urges the UK government to hold Israel to account through diplomatic, military and economic sanctions.
January 8, 2026 at 1:19 PM
Reposted by Emma
georgemonbiot.bsky.social
If the Palestine Action hunger strikers die - which they could do at any moment, as they are now very close to the end - it will be the government that killed them. Today’s column explains why. Please share, and write urgently to your MP.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
Let’s be clear: if the Palestine Action hunger strikers die, the government will bear moral responsibility | George Monbiot
The three remaining hunger strikers have been convicted of nothing. Yet with astonishing cruelty, ministers refuse to listen to their reasonable demands, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot
www.theguardian.com
January 7, 2026 at 8:07 AM
dremmabrown.bsky.social
No new pictures where you at mentally
A distressed looking female statue appearing to look at a smart phone being presented to her by a human hand.
January 7, 2026 at 4:09 PM
dremmabrown.bsky.social
Genuinely wondering what the red line is for folks still on the bird app.

Surely SURELY this should be it???
paperghost.bsky.social Chris Boyd @paperghost.bsky.social · 15d
"but we source most of our news from here and-" source it somewhere else then. must thou harvest thy news from ye olde nonce shoppe of horrors my good sir?
January 6, 2026 at 12:54 PM
dremmabrown.bsky.social
The most wonderful time pf the year, @edzitron.com's coverage of the Consumer Electronics Show
January 6, 2026 at 10:33 AM
Reposted by Emma
ninahatfield.bsky.social
"I'm honored to be your ancestor" - Alice Wong

Thank you, Alice.
November 15, 2025 at 6:09 AM
Reposted by Emma
tomshakespeare.bsky.social
Rest in power, Alice Wong.
November 15, 2025 at 6:10 AM
Reposted by Emma
mkozlowska.bsky.social
The scientific publishing is broken and open-access not only failed to fix it, it made it worse.
If we do not address the parasitic nature of the for-profit (>30% margins!) publishing, we will not solve the problem. And if the funders (universities) do not intervene, it won't change.

A must read:
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · Nov 11
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 10:27 AM
dremmabrown.bsky.social
This whole thread is 🔥 but this point is particularly salient
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · Nov 11
For-profit journals are supposed to improve research quality, yet they're perversely incentivized to churn out whatever they can monetize. This was happening before AI (see Strain: bit.ly/43gJPUM), and AI will make it worse.

It's insane that we volunteer our time to help them do so.

4/n
November 12, 2025 at 9:27 AM
Reposted by Emma
pengzell.bsky.social
Pushing for open access is not enough. We need a push to end profit.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · Nov 11
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 7:54 AM
Reposted by Emma
dancingmonk.bsky.social
The UK implements tough new age verification rules
July 26, 2025 at 9:07 AM
dremmabrown.bsky.social
It’s great and it is lovely to see bits of Bradford buzzing.
July 26, 2025 at 12:03 PM
Reposted by Emma
iommi.com
It’s just such heartbreaking news that I can’t really find the words, there won’t ever be another like him. Geezer, Bill and myself have lost our brother.

My thoughts go out to Sharon and all the Osbourne family. Rest in peace Oz. Tony
July 22, 2025 at 8:27 PM