As a grant panel member, I frequently get reviews of grant proposals that praise the work but still give lots of advice for improvement. This can very quickly sink the proposal. Let me tell you why.

Panels _rank_ grant proposals. Which ones are the best that deserve funding? This is a _political_ process. Panel members will do their best to champion their favorite proposals and often oppose others.

Yes!

Corner sidewalk extensions cut the time and space pedestrians are in the street crossing, sharper turns force motorists to slow down. An SFMTA planner framed it as narrowing the intersection so motorists don't have room to do something dangerous and illegal.

It's easy to miss, but the signals were replaced with brighter lights, better positioning, additions, and technical stuff about better management, controls, and generally being in a state of good repair.

The timing still needs work.

Seriously that @ketan article I just boosted is great, and highly quotable. Check it out.

"CCS does not do a good job of capturing and storage carbon. It struggles to exist, and when it does, it struggles to function. When it manages both, all it does is capture a tiny fraction of high-emitting process, [...] and the carbon it captures gets sent straight back to work worsening the climate crisis by jimmying the last dregs of oil from depleted reservoirs."

https://ketanjoshi.co/2022/11/15/ccs-causes-the-problem-it-fails-to-solve/

#OpenScience thoughts on an icy morning walk 🌄.

For me, one of the biggest benefits of #OpenScience has been the recognition of #BigTeamScience. I used to think we had to have every skill in the skill book, and this fed massively into my Impostor Syndrome.

Big Team Science allowed me to truly understand that acquiring every skill is impossible. Instead, working collaboratively alongside each other with our unique expertise creates stronger research.

We are human. We can't do it all. 💡