Bernard Sheppard
@sheppo.au
Reposted by Bernard Sheppard
None of them go into research. Too much work.
February 8, 2025 at 12:59 AM
None of them go into research. Too much work.
Reposted by Bernard Sheppard
7. This order did not come out of nowhere. It was a core component of Lindsey Burke's Dept. of Education chapter in the Project 2025 report.
(Private foundations typically pay 10-15% overhead rates, and the logic of this comparison is made explicit in today's Supplemental Guidance from NIH.)
(Private foundations typically pay 10-15% overhead rates, and the logic of this comparison is made explicit in today's Supplemental Guidance from NIH.)
February 8, 2025 at 12:41 AM
7. This order did not come out of nowhere. It was a core component of Lindsey Burke's Dept. of Education chapter in the Project 2025 report.
(Private foundations typically pay 10-15% overhead rates, and the logic of this comparison is made explicit in today's Supplemental Guidance from NIH.)
(Private foundations typically pay 10-15% overhead rates, and the logic of this comparison is made explicit in today's Supplemental Guidance from NIH.)
Reposted by Bernard Sheppard
Reversing entropy is energy intensive.
That tells you everything you need to know about direct capture.
It is technically feasible.
It is economically costly.
At scale, it is environmentally risky.
That tells you everything you need to know about direct capture.
It is technically feasible.
It is economically costly.
At scale, it is environmentally risky.
January 16, 2025 at 10:27 AM
Reversing entropy is energy intensive.
That tells you everything you need to know about direct capture.
It is technically feasible.
It is economically costly.
At scale, it is environmentally risky.
That tells you everything you need to know about direct capture.
It is technically feasible.
It is economically costly.
At scale, it is environmentally risky.