Still overwhelmed by it. Any site interaction results in this.

I hope this is a good sign of the site being more heavily-used than it has been!

This is exactly the problem I've had in finding content on the site. I think it's healthy to have multiple views into the set of links and comments, but the default view is still a social dead-end, which might be confusing or difficult for someone who comes to the site without any background.

The founders should try to re-join as new users and see how long it takes them to build up a meaningful feed. It's taken me months of (weakly) trying and still I am very dissatisfied with what I have. global is much better.

Yes, a thousand times yes!

In Cambridge, Mass. — home to M.I.T. and Harvard — they include the $100 million Ragon Institute for immunology research, the $150 million Koch Institute for cancer studies, the $165 million Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, the $250 million Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, the $350 million McGovern Institute for brain research, the $450 million Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and the $700 million Broad Institute for genome research.

This to me is really the core problem with this arrangement. By empowering the wealthy to drive science, we risk consolidating power in a space that benefits tremendously from diversity and openness. Can these be supported even if science funding is progressively privatized and centralized? It might be hard. I say this from my own experiences and interactions with the Broad in particular, which frankly is doing a tremendous amount of damage to science through its heavy-handed pursuit of a truth its founders have believed for decades. What we need in science is not pursuit of glory, although it helps. We need some real openness, and this is supported as much by the mess of public funding as anything.