Shahan

I think for me it is mostly the former. The syndrome kicks in on the first draft and it is grueling to edit or share for feedback.

Pointing out the prior report was not my concern. It was the juxtaposition of your two statements in the original post that led me to think that there was a repeat of what was posted in the report. Your point is well taken but the original post did not convey that to me.

Not arguing with you, especially since I do not disagree. Also, I never said that it wasn't a crisis or a problem. However the framing of the post is misleading to me. The comment was on the content framing, and presentation and had absolutely no take on whether it is a crisis or not.

The post premises on the recent $400m funding cut. As such, the remark on the threats appears to be a current issue.

So, to answer what, in particular, I find misleading?
Well, I thought there were threats and attacks that took place recently (again). Like a recent event leading to the funding cut.

The article is a year old (April, 2024).

That doesn't make the situation, any more acceptable than it was a year ago, which is not acceptable at all. Having said that, it was a little misleading given the current climate of academia hate.

That's wild! I played Dragon Age before I played Mass Effect. So, your take is super interesting.