| ▲ | bko 16 hours ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | GymInMeCricket 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Appologies, but I don't see how this supports your point. It actually seems to support the claim that the reduction in NSF awards is illegal because it states that the request was explicitly rejected by Congress |
| |
|
| ▲ | oh_my_goodness 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Your link confirms that the cuts are illegal. |
| |
| ▲ | bko 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wrong again. Read it, feed it to your LLM, but you're wrong. | | |
| ▲ | GymInMeCricket 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Your pasted quote explicitly says that Congress did not allow the cuts. I do not know what point you are trying to make. For good measure, I pasted it into Gemini as you requested, and this is what it said: > Me: Does this say that the president is allowed to prevent distribution of funds from NSF without congressional approval: https://www.aip.org/fyi/trump-proposes-deep-research-cuts-ne... > > Gemini: No, it does not. [etc.] | | |
| ▲ | bko 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Lets me help you since you seem confused, i put the parts you should pay close attention to > > The request PROPOSES $4 billion for NSF, a 54% cut from the fiscal year 2026 enacted level. The amount echoes last year’s proposal of $3.9 billion, which Congress soundly rejected, FUNDING THE AGENCY at $8.75 billion. The current FUNDING is $8.75b, not the $4b he PROPOSED. Here's the wikipedia. Hope this helps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation | | |
| ▲ | GymInMeCricket 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your statement is irrelevant to the fact that, on the executive branch's insistence, NSF has distributed far fewer funds this year (approximately 30%) than were required by Congress. We know and have repeatedly stated that the amount of money that Congress ALLOCATED TO the NSF has not changed. It is the amount of money DISTRIBUTED BY NSF that has been restricted. I don't know why you insist that allocations and disperment are the same thing. Repetition does not make it so. If you wish to present convincing evidence for your position, you must provide evidence that DISPERSEMENTS FROM the NSF have not changed. Otherwise, I see no point in continuing this circular conversation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bdangubic 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| file this under definition of self-own in Webster’s :) |
