Fernando Pérez
LightNews LightNews
banner
fernandoperez.org
Fernando Pérez
@fernandoperez.org
1.6K followers 630 following 120 posts
Open source, open science, AI in science for earth/ice and healthcare. IPython creator, @projectjupyter.bsky.social and 2i2c.org co-founder.

Prof @ UC Berkeley Stats, director of @ucbids.bsky.social, co-director @schmidtdse.bsky.social; LBL scientist.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
fernandoperez.org
Fernando Pérez @fernandoperez.org · Nov 7
Well, time to start setting up shop for real away from Twitter - used to be fperez_org there, used it a lot as a science feed and community building tool, til the Musk purchase.

Went quiet since but hadn't fully moved on; the election seems like a good time to shut the curtains and move.
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
giswqs.bsky.social
After releasing the GeoAI QGIS Plugin, many users were excited to try it, but some ran into challenges installing PyTorch and SAM 3 on Windows.

To make the setup process smooth and frustration-free, I’ve put together:
December 13, 2025 at 5:57 PM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
mattblaze.federate.social.ap.brid.gy
Utterly wild story about a nuclear generator lost atop a Himalayan mountain by the CIA 60 years ago. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/12/13/world/asia/cia-nuclear-device-himalayas-nanda-devi.html?unlocked_article_code=1.8k8.jOUn.daSfdUlyfo3e [Gift Link]
How Did the C.I.A. Lose a Nuclear Device in the Himalayas?
A plutonium-packed generator disappeared on one of the world’s highest mountains in a covert mission that the U.S. will not talk about.
www.nytimes.com
December 14, 2025 at 3:42 AM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
meadekrosby.bsky.social
My teen, who had dreamt of being an astrophysicist, just told me he wants to go to law school because, “Science isn’t going to be a priority in the US in the future…I don’t want a job where I’ll be constantly worried my funding will be taken away.”

Gutting. How many future scientists have we lost?
December 7, 2025 at 1:23 AM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
bifold.berlin
Looking Back at “AI-based Methods for the Humanities”

The workshop in Berlin brought together researchers from AI and the humanities.

More: www.bifold.berlin/news-events/...

#DH #DigiHum #MLSky #DigitalHumanities #AI @mpiwg.bsky.social @ecdigitalfuture.bsky.social @tuberlin.bsky.social
December 4, 2025 at 9:53 AM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
ucberkeleyofficial.bsky.social
In her new book, UC Berkeley researcher Nina Beguš explores how art, history and literature provide a window into AI development, revealing a hopeful — and cautionary — path forward for humanity. news.berkeley.edu/2025/12/01/h...
How Greek myths and Hollywood hits can help us understand AI today - Berkeley News
In her new book, UC Berkeley researcher Nina Beguš explores how art, history and literature provide a window into AI development, revealing a hopeful — and cautionary — path forward for humanity.
news.berkeley.edu
December 1, 2025 at 9:15 PM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
openrxiv.bsky.social
Building trust, building together: In San Diego @continuous.foundation & openRxiv hosted a workshop bringing together developers of scientific communications tools. Implementation focused, and most importantly we got to work together.
Learn more: articles.continuousfoundation.org/articles/sci...
Photo of a group of 20 people in an open space with windows and desks. People are in a standard group photo pose facing the camera and smiling.
November 27, 2025 at 12:43 AM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
schmidtdse.bsky.social
Missed #JupyterCon25? You can catch up on YouTube! Check out @mfisher87.bsky.social and @fernandoperez.org's live demo of #GeoJupyter tools to help open and democratize geospatial data analysis: www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5h7...

📹More from JupyterCon: www.youtube.com/@JupyterCon
GeoJupyter: An Open Community for Accessible, Collaborative, and Interactive... M. Fisher & F. Pérez
YouTube video by JupyterCon
www.youtube.com
November 25, 2025 at 9:47 PM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
raschwartz.bsky.social
My colleague, Dr. Vahid Abedini, was illegally detained by ICE on Saturday. He is currently being held without a court date in sight, despite being in the country legally. Please spread the word! We must ensure his due process rights are upheld. www.oudaily.com/news/ou-prof...
OU College of International Studies professor reportedly arrested by ICE
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reportedly arrested an OU professor at Will Rogers International Airport Saturday.
www.oudaily.com
November 24, 2025 at 11:05 PM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
2i2c.org
"Who is using the most resources?" is a common question for cloud admins. With our new user group cost dashboards, you can answer that question with more granularity!

2i2c.org/blog/2025/cl...
Adding User Group Insights to Cloud Cost Dashboards with Grafana | 2i2c
We are excited to announce that we have extended our cloud cost dashboards to support display costs filtered by user groups using Grafana! This new feature allows administrators to monitor and manage…
2i2c.org
November 24, 2025 at 6:54 PM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
ucanrpam.bsky.social
Editors! @ucanr.edu is hiring an editor for peer-reviewed materials produced by @uofcalifornia.bsky.social scientists. First application review date is Dec. 5
@sciencewriters.org See careerspub.universityofcalifornia.edu/psc/ucanr/EM... 📚https://ucanr.edu/careers
Careers | UC Agriculture and Natural Resources
Working at UC Agriculture and Natural Resources Collaborating to solve problems.  Connecting to serve communities.UC Agriculture and Natural Resources brings UC information and practices to all 58 Cal...
ucanr.edu
November 23, 2025 at 1:55 AM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
brianckeegan.com
Training data rules everything around me
November 22, 2025 at 4:41 AM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
caroleeena.bsky.social
If you use Gmail, know that Gmail just opted you in to allowing them to train their AI on your emails. Follow these instructions to turn that off on every device you have asap! www.huffpost.com/entry/opt-ou...
If You Use Gmail, You're Going To Want To Turn Off This 1 Automatic Setting ASAP
Plus: a quick guide to the two-step process for opting out.
www.huffpost.com
November 21, 2025 at 9:06 PM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
nedbat.com
How much is your company spending to support the Python Software Foundation?
For comparison, how much do they spend for tips on expensed meals?
The PSF runs PyPI, where pip installs from. You depend on PyPI.

Fund the PSF. Tip your server!
www.python.org/psf/sponsors...
Sponsor the PSF
The official home of the Python Programming Language
www.python.org
November 18, 2025 at 11:59 PM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
platialanalysis.bsky.social
Registration is now open for the 6th Spatial Data Science Symposium (#SDSS2025)! Registration is free but space is limited, so register soon. Check out the list of thematic sessions, accepted papers, keynotes, and interview. sdss2025.spatial-data-science.net#register
Spatial Data Science Symposium 2025
December 4-5 | Distributed & Online. The symposium aims to bring together researchers from both academia and industry to discuss experiences, insights, methodologies, and applications, taking…
sdss2025.spatial-data-science.net
November 21, 2025 at 8:02 AM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
wearelyrasis.bsky.social
Lyrasis, the Big Ten Academic Alliance Center for Library Programs and the California Digital Library have been awarded a grant to advance community-governed, open access scholarly publishing in the United States. Read more about the #DiamondOA mapping project here, https://ow.ly/QCKC50Xu6vU.
"Diamond Open Access on the rise" above multicolored diamond.
November 19, 2025 at 3:15 PM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
sararah.bsky.social
My uni and many others have tried to centralize and automate many administrative functions. What happens is that the expertise is moved out of the department and then the rest of us suckers are left to learn to become admins and deal with all the edge cases. Such has been the last 6 yrs of my life
November 20, 2025 at 1:52 AM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
mattmakel.bsky.social
Job posting alert! Open Science Specialist at the University of Calgary (in Canada!) #job #OpenScience careers.ucalgary.ca/jobs/1704502...
Specialist, Open Science, Research Services in Calgary, AB, ...
Specialist, Open Science, Research Services in Calgary, AB, ...
careers.ucalgary.ca
November 19, 2025 at 10:47 PM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
ucbids.bsky.social
📣 OSPO Meetup on Thurs, Nov 20 @ 3:30pm PT -> An open approach to data science at the State of California

Meet Monica Bobra (CA Office of Data & Innovation) - Help shape the future of open source at UC Berkeley at a fireside chat, a Q&A session, and community gathering time! 🍿🥤
November 13, 2025 at 3:41 PM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
ucbids.bsky.social
Register to attend in person or online at the AI Futures Lab:
bit.ly/3JvD8II

#UCOSPO #OpenSource #OpenScience
Berkeley OSPO logo with shapes that spell out "OSPO", a headshot of Monica Bobra in a circle, and event date and time details "November meetup, November 20, 3:30pm"
November 13, 2025 at 3:41 PM
fernandoperez.org
"it reminded me why open-source communities like Jupyter thrive: curiosity, generosity, and the drive to make knowledge accessible for everyone." ✨

Amazing post by Debsiree Ray on her (first-time) experiences at JupyterCon - Thanks to the team who made it possible!!

medium.com/womenintechn...
Reflections from JupyterCon 2025
A Week of Ideas, Code, and Community
medium.com
November 17, 2025 at 9:58 PM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
iansociologo.bsky.social
If you haven't joined your local AAUP, now is a great time to do so.
veenadubal.bsky.social Veena Dubal @veenadubal.bsky.social · Nov 14
BREAKING: In AAUP et al v. Trump (wall-to-wall union lawsuit challenging the administration’s unlawful use of TItle VI to reshape the University of California system), the faculty and staff of the UC system WON!!!

We were granted our preliminary injunction! @aaup.org
November 15, 2025 at 12:51 AM
fernandoperez.org
Using this excellent thread and the related papers tomorrow in my class on open science, stat159.berkeley.edu.

I will also include some choice examples from my inbox full of "invitations to publish" where my "expertise" (in fields I know exactly nothing about) is welcome by these "editors".
November 12, 2025 at 8:48 AM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
benbraun.bsky.social
The central argument in this excellent paper & thread is that the open-access turn has neglected profit; indeed, it turbo-charged publishers’ margins. As political economists who know a thing or two about profit and power we should speak up a lot more. As it says below: What we’re doing is crazy.
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 8:30 AM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
matti.vuorre.com
Everyone involved in scientific publishing should take a look at these papers.

>"The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science; we need [...] to re-communalise publishing to serve science not the market."
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 8:15 AM
Reposted by Fernando Pérez
dsi-uchicago.bsky.social
🎉 Congratulations to kylecranmer.bsky.social, inaugural recipient of the Margot and Tom Pritzker Prize for AI in Science Research Excellence!

Read more: bit.ly/47Sku5N

#AIinScience #ParticlePhysics
November 11, 2025 at 8:10 PM