Tagging the co-authors that are on here: @sabarra.bsky.social @dieleviegaslm.bsky.social @michelohmer.bsky.social

Great article and great point about rural areas.

I've been working extensively with @jfstep.bsky.social 's group on identifying contact-relevant transmission just in an experimental set-up with guppies and it's surprisingly intricate!

Every year or two when new wildlife camerasa go up: Here is a new species catching bats!

Plot twist: It's Schrodinger's predation and may or may not be happening before we put up the cameras.

So useful! Thanks for sharing.

@danahawley.bsky.social @richardlovesbirds.bsky.social Arietta Fleming-Davies

So exciting to see this breakthrough on this fascinating story!

We scientists, like experts in other fields, have to do this all the time. We make arguments and decisions based on data COMBINED WITH our ability to decide which data are most important, how to interpret them, etc..

(4/4)

Experts are crucial: Data never speaks entirely for itself. You commonly hear things like “her offense is so much more impressive when you consider that she guards the other team’s best player every night” where experts have to interpret the data.

(3/4)

Data is crucial: Teams absolutely look at stats like points per game, shooting efficiency, turnovers per game, more advanced analytics, etc. when deciding whom to sign, start, etc.. You can’t make a solid argument without data.

(2/4)

I totally agree. When I peer review, I try to chip away at the problem by insisting on authors defining their terms and not using terms in unusual or heedless ways. But we need more and better solutions too! idk what they are yet...

We're all in this together! The midterms can't come soon enough... among other events...

We just got the same email. So destructive.

Thank you for these updates! So the hearing is over and Judge Young is deliberating/writing a decision?

Yikes. I haven't run into this issue yet from reviewers. Wow...