Evil Jim O’Donnell

@eatyourgreens
215 Followers
311 Following
4.6K Posts
Research software engineer with Oxford RSE. Comics lover. Accessibility enthusiast.

Previously: Zooniverse, UXB London, National Maritime Museum, Royal Observatory Greenwich.
GitHubhttps://github.com/eatyourgreens
OrcIDhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4610-2526
OxRSEhttps://www.rse.ox.ac.uk/
Professional biohttps://www.rse.ox.ac.uk/dr-jim-odonnell

If you're a UK resident, please consider signing this petition to ban NHS services from purchasing accessibility overlays, plugins or toolbars for their websites.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/765480

They don't work, cause harm and are a waste of NHS money.

#accessibility

Petition: Ban NHS services from purchasing accessibility overlays, plugins or toolbars

Prohibit all NHS bodies from purchasing or using accessibility overlays, toolbars, plugins or widgets. The Government should instead mandate that all NHS digital infrastructure meets WCAG 2.2 AA standards natively, ensuring full compatibility with users' own assistive technologies.

Petitions - UK Government and Parliament

Google's autonymous taxi company says it won't obey traffic safety laws because its customers want convenience, so screw those bicyclists who don't want to be injured or killed.

https://road.cc/news/driverless-taxis-veering-into-cycle-lanes-normal-practice-says-waymo

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” – because customers want to be dropped off in them, autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists

Waymo, the autonomous driving tech firm whose so-called ‘robo-taxis’ are now roaming the streets of London, has told cycling campaigners that expecting their driverless cars to respect cycle lanes is “too high a bar” – because their customers want to be dropped off in them.According to the Highway Code, motorists “must not drive or park ... Read more

road.cc
I can't remember where I first saw this, but it's a good, short read. The importance of stupidity in scientific research: https://journals.biologists.com/jcs/article/121/11/1771/30038/The-importance-of-stupidity-in-scientific-research
The importance of stupidity in scientific research

I recently saw an old friend for the first time in many years. We had been Ph.D. students at the same time, both studying science, although in different areas. She later dropped out of graduate school, went to Harvard Law School and is now a senior lawyer for a major environmental organization. At some point, the conversation turned to why she had left graduate school. To my utter astonishment, she said it was because it made her feel stupid. After a couple of years of feeling stupid every day, she was ready to do something else.I had thought of her as one of the brightest people I knew and her subsequent career supports that view. What she said bothered me. I kept thinking about it; sometime the next day, it hit me. Science makes me feel stupid too. It's just that I've gotten used to it. So used to it, in fact, that I actively seek out new opportunities to feel stupid. I wouldn't know what to do without that feeling. I even think it's supposed to be this way. Let me explain.For almost all of us, one of the reasons that we liked science in high school and college is that we were good at it. That can't be the only reason – fascination with understanding the physical world and an emotional need to discover new things has to enter into it too. But high-school and college science means taking courses, and doing well in courses means getting the right answers on tests. If you know those answers, you do well and get to feel smart.A Ph.D., in which you have to do a research project, is a whole different thing. For me, it was a daunting task. How could I possibly frame the questions that would lead to significant discoveries; design and interpret an experiment so that the conclusions were absolutely convincing; foresee difficulties and see ways around them, or, failing that, solve them when they occurred? My Ph.D. project was somewhat interdisciplinary and, for a while, whenever I ran into a problem, I pestered the faculty in my department who were experts in the various disciplines that I needed. I remember the day when Henry Taube (who won the Nobel Prize two years later) told me he didn't know how to solve the problem I was having in his area. I was a third-year graduate student and I figured that Taube knew about 1000 times more than I did (conservative estimate). If he didn't have the answer, nobody did.That's when it hit me: nobody did. That's why it was a research problem. And being my research problem, it was up to me to solve. Once I faced that fact, I solved the problem in a couple of days. (It wasn't really very hard; I just had to try a few things.) The crucial lesson was that the scope of things I didn't know wasn't merely vast; it was, for all practical purposes, infinite. That realization, instead of being discouraging, was liberating. If our ignorance is infinite, the only possible course of action is to muddle through as best we can.I'd like to suggest that our Ph.D. programs often do students a disservice in two ways. First, I don't think students are made to understand how hard it is to do research. And how very, very hard it is to do important research. It's a lot harder than taking even very demanding courses. What makes it difficult is that research is immersion in the unknown. We just don't know what we're doing. We can't be sure whether we're asking the right question or doing the right experiment until we get the answer or the result. Admittedly, science is made harder by competition for grants and space in top journals. But apart from all of that, doing significant research is intrinsically hard and changing departmental, institutional or national policies will not succeed in lessening its intrinsic difficulty.Second, we don't do a good enough job of teaching our students how to be productively stupid – that is, if we don't feel stupid it means we're not really trying. I'm not talking about `relative stupidity', in which the other students in the class actually read the material, think about it and ace the exam, whereas you don't. I'm also not talking about bright people who might be working in areas that don't match their talents. Science involves confronting our `absolute stupidity'. That kind of stupidity is an existential fact, inherent in our efforts to push our way into the unknown. Preliminary and thesis exams have the right idea when the faculty committee pushes until the student starts getting the answers wrong or gives up and says, `I don't know'. The point of the exam isn't to see if the student gets all the answers right. If they do, it's the faculty who failed the exam. The point is to identify the student's weaknesses, partly to see where they need to invest some effort and partly to see whether the student's knowledge fails at a sufficiently high level that they are ready to take on a research project.Productive stupidity means being ignorant by choice. Focusing on important questions puts us in the awkward position of being ignorant. One of the beautiful things about science is that it allows us to bumble along, getting it wrong time after time, and feel perfectly fine as long as we learn something each time. No doubt, this can be difficult for students who are accustomed to getting the answers right. No doubt, reasonable levels of confidence and emotional resilience help, but I think scientific education might do more to ease what is a very big transition: from learning what other people once discovered to making your own discoveries. The more comfortable we become with being stupid, the deeper we will wade into the unknown and the more likely we are to make big discoveries.

The Company of Biologists
I can't remember where I first saw this, but it's a good, short read. The importance of stupidity in scientific research: https://journals.biologists.com/jcs/article/121/11/1771/30038/The-importance-of-stupidity-in-scientific-research
The importance of stupidity in scientific research

I recently saw an old friend for the first time in many years. We had been Ph.D. students at the same time, both studying science, although in different areas. She later dropped out of graduate school, went to Harvard Law School and is now a senior lawyer for a major environmental organization. At some point, the conversation turned to why she had left graduate school. To my utter astonishment, she said it was because it made her feel stupid. After a couple of years of feeling stupid every day, she was ready to do something else.I had thought of her as one of the brightest people I knew and her subsequent career supports that view. What she said bothered me. I kept thinking about it; sometime the next day, it hit me. Science makes me feel stupid too. It's just that I've gotten used to it. So used to it, in fact, that I actively seek out new opportunities to feel stupid. I wouldn't know what to do without that feeling. I even think it's supposed to be this way. Let me explain.For almost all of us, one of the reasons that we liked science in high school and college is that we were good at it. That can't be the only reason – fascination with understanding the physical world and an emotional need to discover new things has to enter into it too. But high-school and college science means taking courses, and doing well in courses means getting the right answers on tests. If you know those answers, you do well and get to feel smart.A Ph.D., in which you have to do a research project, is a whole different thing. For me, it was a daunting task. How could I possibly frame the questions that would lead to significant discoveries; design and interpret an experiment so that the conclusions were absolutely convincing; foresee difficulties and see ways around them, or, failing that, solve them when they occurred? My Ph.D. project was somewhat interdisciplinary and, for a while, whenever I ran into a problem, I pestered the faculty in my department who were experts in the various disciplines that I needed. I remember the day when Henry Taube (who won the Nobel Prize two years later) told me he didn't know how to solve the problem I was having in his area. I was a third-year graduate student and I figured that Taube knew about 1000 times more than I did (conservative estimate). If he didn't have the answer, nobody did.That's when it hit me: nobody did. That's why it was a research problem. And being my research problem, it was up to me to solve. Once I faced that fact, I solved the problem in a couple of days. (It wasn't really very hard; I just had to try a few things.) The crucial lesson was that the scope of things I didn't know wasn't merely vast; it was, for all practical purposes, infinite. That realization, instead of being discouraging, was liberating. If our ignorance is infinite, the only possible course of action is to muddle through as best we can.I'd like to suggest that our Ph.D. programs often do students a disservice in two ways. First, I don't think students are made to understand how hard it is to do research. And how very, very hard it is to do important research. It's a lot harder than taking even very demanding courses. What makes it difficult is that research is immersion in the unknown. We just don't know what we're doing. We can't be sure whether we're asking the right question or doing the right experiment until we get the answer or the result. Admittedly, science is made harder by competition for grants and space in top journals. But apart from all of that, doing significant research is intrinsically hard and changing departmental, institutional or national policies will not succeed in lessening its intrinsic difficulty.Second, we don't do a good enough job of teaching our students how to be productively stupid – that is, if we don't feel stupid it means we're not really trying. I'm not talking about `relative stupidity', in which the other students in the class actually read the material, think about it and ace the exam, whereas you don't. I'm also not talking about bright people who might be working in areas that don't match their talents. Science involves confronting our `absolute stupidity'. That kind of stupidity is an existential fact, inherent in our efforts to push our way into the unknown. Preliminary and thesis exams have the right idea when the faculty committee pushes until the student starts getting the answers wrong or gives up and says, `I don't know'. The point of the exam isn't to see if the student gets all the answers right. If they do, it's the faculty who failed the exam. The point is to identify the student's weaknesses, partly to see where they need to invest some effort and partly to see whether the student's knowledge fails at a sufficiently high level that they are ready to take on a research project.Productive stupidity means being ignorant by choice. Focusing on important questions puts us in the awkward position of being ignorant. One of the beautiful things about science is that it allows us to bumble along, getting it wrong time after time, and feel perfectly fine as long as we learn something each time. No doubt, this can be difficult for students who are accustomed to getting the answers right. No doubt, reasonable levels of confidence and emotional resilience help, but I think scientific education might do more to ease what is a very big transition: from learning what other people once discovered to making your own discoveries. The more comfortable we become with being stupid, the deeper we will wade into the unknown and the more likely we are to make big discoveries.

The Company of Biologists

Euclid Space Warps – help the hunt for galaxy-galaxy lenses!

A collage of fourteen by eight squares containing examples of gravitational lenses. Credit: ESA/Euclid/Euclid Consortium/NASA, image processing by M. Walmsley, M. Huertas-Company, J.-C. Cuillandre. I'm sharing the text of a press release from Euclid here to encourage readers to join in this enw Zooniverse project. --o-- In brief With the launch of Space Warps, a new citizen science project on the Zooniverse…

http://telescoper.blog/2026/04/21/euclid-space-warps-help-the-hunt-for-galaxy-galaxy-lenses/

Euclid Space Warps – help the hunt for galaxy-galaxy lenses!

A collage of fourteen by eight squares containing examples of gravitational lenses. Credit: ESA/Euclid/Euclid Consortium/NASA, image processing by M. Walmsley, M. Huertas-Company, J.-C. Cuillandre.…

In the Dark
Listen, I have a Framework. It's a great laptop—maybe the best I've ever had. But I can't support a company that funds, in any form, an actual real-life Nazi like DHH. I also need them to, y'know, take ownership of the massive misstep doing so is/was.

I believe this is even more true for accessibility, especially given accessibility is explicitly about humans (no matter how much shitty LLM-first browsers misrepresent it):

“The importance of people who care”
https://rachelandrew.co.uk/archives/2026/04/21/the-importance-of-people-who-care/

The importance of people who care – Rachel Andrew

my scientific hero is “et al.”, nobody gets as much done

Substack promoted Andrew Tate as their #1 "bestseller" last week. Cool company. Great leadership.

So I went ahead and made a browser extension.

Kill Yr Substack intercepts every Substack link (even on custom domains) and redirects it to `archive.is`.

Substack's numbers go down. You still get to read the thing tho.

https://jasoncosper.com/kill-yr-substack/

Kill Yr Substack

Jason Cosper
Browsers crash. Tabs close. Life happens. Here’s a web component that saves form progress so your users don’t have to start over from scratch.

Never Lose Form Progress Again...
Never Lose Form Progress Again :: Aaron Gustafson

Few things are more annoying than losing your progress halfway through a form. Maybe the browser crashes. Maybe the tab gets closed. Maybe your kid yells from the other room and you come back three hours later wondering why you ever thought now was a good time to fill out a mortgage application. Whatever the cause, form-saver makes those interruptions a lot less obnoxious. Which is nice, because forms are usually annoying enough on their own.