owlice, also @owlice.bsky.social

This beautiful @NASAHubble image displays the galaxies NGC 4302 — seen edge-on — and NGC 4298--seen almost face-on, both located 55 million light-years away.

Another enterprise report will post here before sunrise tomorrow. And you can be alerted on my Substack…. Which also churns enterprise news nuggets through the day @macfarlanenews?r=69xcje&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile&shareImageVariant=light" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">substack.com/@macfarlanenew…

🚨BREAKING: Judiciary Ranking Members @RepRaskin and @SenatorDurbin refer Kristi Noem to Justice Department for perjury investigation. democrats-judiciary.house.gov/media-center/p…

Today is March 17. #OTD in 1956 chemist Irène Joliot-Curie passed away. She received the 1935 @NobelPrize in Chemistry for her discovery of induced radioactivity.

HiRISE 3D: Light-Toned Deposits Exposed in Noctis Labyrinthus Context Camera data shows light-toned, possibly sedimentary deposits in this area, so we are taking a closer, 3D look. uahirise.org/anaglyph/ESP_0… NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona #Mars #NASA #science

Against a stunning backdrop of thousands of galaxies, we see in this @NASAHubble image the galaxy UGC 10214 (also known as the "Tadpole Galaxy"), with its long tidal tail.

She kept finding women in laboratory photographs from the 1800s. Then she read the published papers—and every single woman had vanished. Someone had erased them from history. Yale University, 1969. Margaret Rossiter was a graduate student studying the history of science. She was one of very few women in her program. Every Friday afternoon, students and faculty gathered for beers and informal conversation. One week, Margaret asked a simple question: "Were there ever any women scientists?" The faculty answered firmly: No. Someone mentioned Marie Curie. The group dismissed it—her husband Pierre really deserved the credit. Margaret didn't argue. But she also didn't believe them. So she started looking. She found a reference book called "American Men of Science"—essentially a Who's Who of scientific achievement. Despite the title, she was shocked to discover it contained entries about women. Botanists trained at Wellesley. Geologists from Vermont. There were names. There were credentials. There were careers. The professors had been wrong. But Margaret's discovery was just the beginning. Because as she dug deeper into archives across the country, she found something far more disturbing. Photograph after photograph showed women standing at laboratory benches, working with equipment, listed on research teams. But when she read the published papers, the award citations, the official histories—those same women had disappeared. Their names were missing. Their contributions erased. It wasn't random. It was systematic. Women who designed experiments watched male colleagues publish results without giving them credit. Women whose discoveries were assigned to supervisors. Women listed in acknowledgments instead of as authors. Women passed over for awards that went to male collaborators who contributed far less. Margaret realized she was witnessing a pattern that stretched across centuries. Women had always been present in science. The record had simply pushed them aside. She needed a name for what she was documenting. In the early 1990s, she found it in the work of Matilda Joslyn Gage—a 19th-century suffragist who had written about this exact phenomenon in 1870. In 1993, Margaret published a paper formally naming it: The Matilda Effect. The term captured something that had been hidden in plain sight for generations. Once you knew the term, you saw it everywhere. Her dissertation became a lifelong mission. For more than 30 years, Margaret researched and wrote her landmark three-volume series: Women Scientists in America. She examined letters, institutional policies, individual careers. She gathered undeniable evidence that women in science had been consistently under-credited and structurally excluded. Her work faced resistance. Many dismissed women's history as political rather than academic. Others insisted she was exaggerating. Margaret didn't argue emotionally. She presented data. Documented cases. Patterns repeated across decades and institutions. Eventually, the evidence became undeniable. Her research helped restore recognition to scientists who had been erased: Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray work revealed DNA's structure—credit went to Watson and Crick. Lise Meitner, who explained nuclear fission—omitted from the Nobel Prize. Nettie Stevens, who discovered sex chromosomes—received little credit. Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who discovered stars are made of hydrogen—initially dismissed. And countless others whose names had nearly vanished. Margaret changed the narrative. Science was no longer just the story of solitary male geniuses. It became a story of collaboration that included women who had been written out. The Matilda Effect became standard terminology. Scholars used it to examine how credit is assigned, how authors are listed, who receives awards, who gets left out.

In her testimony before the House and Senate, @Sec_Noem told brazen lies about what’s taking place at DHS. That's why today, @SenatorDurbin and I are officially referring her to the DOJ to be investigated for perjury related to DHS chaos and dysfunction, an offense with a 5-year statute of limitation.

ALERT: Big loss for Trump Admin. Federal judge blocks RFK Jr’s vaccine policy, which was poised to reduce the number of shots recommended for kids

My daily editorial notes (which I used to circulate inside CBS News) are now posting here ===> @macfarlanenews" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">substack.com/@macfarlanenews

@zeynep @RogueWPA I think the answer here is "don't buy from Amazon." There are other booksellers.

@RogueWPA Don’t try buying a classic book though. Amazon swaps publishers regardless of who you think you ordered from.

If Amazon doesn't solve the AI slop problem, people are going to insist on books that were published before 2023 and/or are from publishers with good brand reputations for editing.

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Dept to receive referral today to probe Kristi Noem for perjury open.substack.com/pub/macfarlane…

This @ESO infrared image shows the spectacular star-forming region known as the Flame Nebula, or NGC 2024.

JUST FILED: Justice Dept will receive recommendation today to launch a probe of Kristi Noem

NEW: A banger of a meeting is coming later today At the Kennedy Center Judge has ordered that the board member who wants to halt Trump’s plan to shutter facility MUST be allowed to attend the meeting

@bansville @jackunheard Most of the jewelry worn at events like this are borrowed.

@jackunheard Actions speak louder than accessories. Showing empathy is one thing, but showing up in million-dollar jewelry sends a very different message.

Throwback to Selena Gomez crying over mass deportations and then showing up to the Oscars wearing a $1 million necklace. Hollywood is a joke.

Today March 16. #OTD in 1750 astronomer Caroline Herschel was born.Considered the 1st professional female astronomer.Made important contributions to the work of Sir William Herschel, executing many of the calculations connected with his studies. Detected by telescope 3 nebulae.

@GeorgiaL1158 @luvmyjaide And it's usually thousands *each year.* Will be this year, too, in part thanks to you.

@GeorgiaL1158 @luvmyjaide I didn't report you, and no, the donations were not getting to be too much. I've donate thousands to WRRAP because of people like you. In case you hadn't realized it, I engage with you in order to donate more *in your honor." So no, it wasn't me.

The blatant misogyny of pro-aborts would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. Can you imagine pretending the outcome of a woman's actions and the natural healthy functions of her organs is somehow oppression?

@stkirsch @JoeSixPackShow @DrNeilStone @grok Because he's smart. You should listen to him, Stev.

@JoeSixPackShow @DrNeilStone @grok yes!!!!!!!! Neil should wager BIG. He's got this in the bag!!! but he will wager $0.

I challenge @DrNeilStone to a live 30-minute debate on the COVID vaccine. Claude will judge the debate. I claim it is more likely that the COVID vaccines had <20% reduction in population COVID mortality in the US, not anywhere close to the >80% claimed by experts. Loser pays the winner a mutually agreeable amount. So this is an easy way for Dr. Stone to prove me wrong and make a lot of money in 30 minutes. Will he do it? Nah! He isn't willing to risk HIS money on HIS beliefs. But he's willing to risk YOUR life on his beliefs.