 In science there's no clear measure for success. Is it better to prove a theory wrong or right? I don't know Everybody it's Thursday. I didn't make a video last week, which is which is a failure So that's that's thumbs down thumbs up was I had a paper accepted to a journal and I submitted another paper to a journal so last week finally things move forward that I had been Struggling to get done for quite a while a lot of that struggle wasn't that there was any big bottleneck It was just my own focus and productivity And just load balancing of other things I feel like lately I've had a hard time really finding that balance and being able to produce at the level that I want to produce That the level that I know I can produce that as a scientist as a writer So it was good to just get some stuff out and just get a little momentum going I think so this week I'm trying to capitalize on that momentum and I am working on a proposal and now It's not due for it's due in about a month. This will be a big proposal for the NSF the National Science Foundation Their annual call for big astronomy projects is pretty competitive about one in nine one in ten Maybe ten percent chance of getting picked even having served on some of the committees that choose proposals for various things We try to do the best we can to pick the most compelling The best argued science the best crafted proposals the best broader impact best outreach potential the truth is Way too much good science proposed every single time once you're in the top. I don't know thirty percent of Proposals it's kind of a kind of a crapshoot. That's kind of the dark truth about how a lot of this funding works Failure and rejection is a very regular part of being a scientist unfortunately because we live in the real world where Money and resources and time are not infinite So to be honest, I struggle with myself when I'm not operating in a efficient manner Not that I think that I am a machine I am not mad at myself for not having put out enough papers to meet some quota or to Or to conform to somebody else's like rigid robotic standards of what I should be producing I know people in science who have an expectation that if you're not producing at a certain volume at a certain level You're not good enough. I think that's a terrible mindset people are not robots Especially when the work is thoughtful and creative and takes time in science. There is no clear measure for success Is it better to prove a theory wrong or right? I don't know there are projects I want to do I have a list on the board behind me and another Tucked away at my desk of things that I think are cool or ideas that I'd like to see and I'm constantly coming up with Ideas and projects by talking to people and making friends and having Conversations there just aren't the number of hours in the day that I would like so beyond this proposal I've got these papers that I've been wrapping up, which is great Which is exciting and that means by wrapping things up I get to start new projects and my next new project not the only thing I'm gonna be doing But the next thing that I'm gonna be spending some time in starting a SETI project So the search for extraterrestrial intelligence also now known as techno signatures. I'm gonna start a SETI project with ZTF data, so I'm really excited about that stay tuned for more. So there you go brief update I haven't forgot about YouTube. I'm just trying to dig deep and find the energy to Propose for more science that I can keep doing my job