23
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
23 points (100.0% liked)
New York Times gift articles
1298 readers
55 users here now
Share your New York Times gift articles links here.
Rules:
- Only post New York Times gift article links.
Info:
- The NYT Open Team. (2021-06-23). “A New Way to Share New York Times Stories”. open.nytimes.com.
- “Gift Articles for New York Times Subscribers”. (n.d.). help.nytimes.com.
Tip:
- Google "unlocked_article_code" and limit search results to the past week.
- Mastodon: Use control-F or ⌘-F to search this page. (ref)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Mostly not; they were awarded through competitive process. It's remarkably hard to get something frivolous through that.
What does happen a lot is that basic science isn't immediately impactful but has a modest chance of producing something really useful. For example the GLP-1 drugs were developed as a result of a study into gila monster venom. Nobody is going to say "gila monster venom is useful" but the basic research into how gila monsters regulate appetite turned out to be very meaningful.
Ok fair enough but how does something like that get through the competitive process then? On the surface it sounds frivolous which would mean it wouldn't be competitive?
Because the competitive process is about credibly promising to produce new knowledge, not about direct immediate application. And when you do that, something really useful is created every so often. You cant do the kind of directed study that produces immediate application without the basic knowledge of how things work. So we have had a system where the federal government funds basic knowledge creation and private enterprise does the directed work for profit when it becomes clear that it's plausible.