I assume if you read this the fact that the contribution of women to science has been systematically ‘overlooked‘ will not be news for you.

Some takeaways: 1) she would have deserved the Nobel prize 2) in science, we build so much on the knowledge of others - and our love for crediting one or two with the discovery/invention leads to a dramatically erroneous perception of the process

Plus when Germany was dependent on Russian gas, noone had any sympathy. Now suddenly it is "listen to Hungary"? bsky.app/profile/nina...

To boldLe go ...

And the transcript is here: www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argumen...

I do not want to rub it in too much, but could not help but notice "The UK Supreme Court’s commitment to diversity and inclusion is deeply rooted in its values. We recognise that diversity brings richness to the judiciary and we welcome applicants from all backgrounds."

I am quite annoyed by one of the opening arguments about how the Trump deals are all built on his IEEPA interpretation - so court, uphold the administration's interpretation. Because the clear argument against this is that maybe you shouldn't base your whole trade policy on powers you don't have.

Sorry, I could not resist: he was originaly charged with a felony, but the jury would not buy it, so it's now misdemeanour (assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with a federal officer)

BLT.

Unbelievably, she is the target of vicious antisemitic tropes by Katz (blood libel). The video is real, though. www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_ent...