I think your best bet with sharing hi-res videos is to just share a link to YouTube, Vimeo, or even your own website where people can open it directly.

Thanks to all who helped making this possible, namely @janstevens.bsky.social, Volodymyr Masalitin, @ma3ke.bsky.social , @alex-bronstein.bsky.social , @cg-martini.bsky.social , and @aliciakmichael.bsky.social.

This looks like a cowference.

You can export One Tab links to txt.

You might want to know about www.one-tab.com.

Possible, let's get in touch @jni.codes. @alisterburt.bsky.social thx for the connect.

Hello, is there still space for @aliciakmichael.bsky.social & @paloha.bsky.social ? Thanks

IMO the best invention is two-stage proposals: first short, then long, after it is selected as a good candidate. Ideally the reviewers should have an opportunity to specify what they would like to see in the longer version. So the writers can focus on answering what matters to the reviewers.

Most often the grant agency is forcing the structure onto the writers (I believe with good intentions) rather then giving them the freedom. So as a reviewer, I'd just try to focus on fishing out the important from the suboptimal form.

In the past years I have read many posts like this -earlier on twitter, now here, where reviewers of grants write "how they would like it". The ideas differ so much that it is impossible for anybody writing the grant to anticipate what is the best "scaffold" to follow so the reviewers are happy.

This must have been a tomogram. Pre and post missing wedge correction. The elongation is uncanny.