Halelua, this is an eye-opening deep dive into the corruption so prevalent in this "administration". More verifiable objective evidence must be applied to provide "corrective action". In this case, "Why " must be the motivation, and "Who" must be the culpable parties. Thanks again for your judicious investigative talents. Keep on Keeping on, please
Thank you for your consistently thoughtful observation and analysis.
I wonder, if the chatbot direction was not the deciding factor but rather a jumping-off place, if the deposition explored Fox’s background and qualifications for making termination decisions, how it happened that he was in the position of having that authority, and his own personal decision-making process when the bot’s answer was that a program was DEI? Because it’s one or the other. Either the chatbot made the decisions and he “just” executed them, or it gave him information to make his own decision.
Thank you for this critical analysis. Interestingly the same Fox is in another clip struggling to define DEI, and justifying the defunding of a project documenting the experiences of women during the Holocaust. And in the sciences, similar processes were used to tag for defunding research into things like climate change and anything studying mRNA (biomedical scientists were told to remove references to this molecule from their proposals), and of course anything studying processes to improve inclusion and equity in education were canceled.
Halelua, this is an eye-opening deep dive into the corruption so prevalent in this "administration". More verifiable objective evidence must be applied to provide "corrective action". In this case, "Why " must be the motivation, and "Who" must be the culpable parties. Thanks again for your judicious investigative talents. Keep on Keeping on, please
Excellent work!
Great reporting, thx!!!
Yw!🙏
Thank you for your consistently thoughtful observation and analysis.
I wonder, if the chatbot direction was not the deciding factor but rather a jumping-off place, if the deposition explored Fox’s background and qualifications for making termination decisions, how it happened that he was in the position of having that authority, and his own personal decision-making process when the bot’s answer was that a program was DEI? Because it’s one or the other. Either the chatbot made the decisions and he “just” executed them, or it gave him information to make his own decision.
Thank you for this critical analysis. Interestingly the same Fox is in another clip struggling to define DEI, and justifying the defunding of a project documenting the experiences of women during the Holocaust. And in the sciences, similar processes were used to tag for defunding research into things like climate change and anything studying mRNA (biomedical scientists were told to remove references to this molecule from their proposals), and of course anything studying processes to improve inclusion and equity in education were canceled.
Great work, as always.