...so I guess there is now another reason to do it!

I meant to say some of the data is discarded. The paper I read discussed reconstructing a galaxy images to take into account the information Gaia throws away before downloading it to the ground station.

It will find galaxies, sort of. Gaia doesn't really care what it is looking at, it simply tags every point of light in its field that is bright enough. Things that aren't stars are then to be discarded when the data is processed. There was a recent paper published suggesting that some of these discarded galaxies could be surveyed in order to get even more science value out of Gaia.

Given how long it will take to chew through Gaia data (Essentially, as someone starting out in astrophysics, this mission could define much of my working life) there won't be another powerful astrometry mission for a while.

Why are you fixated on having NASA try to one-up ESA though? NASA has its own top end science missions planned, doing other things. If you are lucky and take care of your space agency, so of them might actually fly in space.

The Bush years were very trying on European patience, but there really isn't widespread animosity to Americans here. Please, don't let it stop you visiting. No, really, we are totally fucked here, bring your precious dollars ASAP. Help us!.

Nobody is demonizing you. You are not the victim of discrimination. You are the victim of mockery, for expressing ridiculous beliefs. Drop the persecution complex and grow up.

Not long ago I was slamming leftie feminists for comparing criticism of their precious ideology to racism. Now it looks like I'm going to have to turn the guns 180. Ahem...

Are you fucking serious? Are you actually comparing criticism your ideas receive to centuries of antisemitism that culminated (but didn't end) with the Holocaust? Are you that self absorbed? Hang on, you are a libertarian, of course you are.

The fact is, libertarianism is a bad idea. That is why its adherents are over-sensitive and paranoid. Such an idea that cannot be contested on a level playing field probably isn't worth hanging on to.

WRT "Schroedinger's rapist", which asserts that women must for their own safety assume men are a threat until they know otherwise, you say:

As for substituting black people, the piece would still work

so basically, you judge people walking towards you on the street by their skin colour? Bloody hell, I've never got that confession so easily out of a social justice warrior before!

This is the narrative that goes around; however the truth is far more complicated. You have (I would guess intentionally) left out the real causes for the ire against Watson - not the video about how she doesn't like to be hit on in lifts, but the use of her platform to call other women gender traitors for not agreeing with her, her use of what initially was a minor controversy as a lever to start a politically motivated purge of the skeptic and atheist communities (one that has largely failed thankfully.) Dishonesty such as yours is to be expected from Watson and her followers.

Linking to "Schroedinger's Rapist" is very telling about where your politics lie. Its a truly awful piece of work (just imagine it wasn't about men, it was about black people...) that treats men as guilty until proven innocent and implies they lack any real agency and are just superpositions waiting to collapse into a state of rapist/non-rapist.

I've shared my observations, been modded up, and had many people in this thread agree with me. Now I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but certainly a mass swell of personal observations is more evidence than nothing at all - which is what you offer.

So why don't YOU produce some evidence, to show this supposed hostile environment against women. Remember, this is the original claim; that the programming community has a specific problem. The sum of evidence for this assertion basically boils down to "Of course it does, stop mansplaining brogrammer!" - do you have anything else to offer? Or are you going to continue to evade and display faux skepticism to cover the fact that you have absolutely NOTHING.

I have no problem with treating people with respect and dignity, but hard experience has taught me that isn't what "safe space" means. The fact that you categorize any dissent as advocating mistreatment of people (rather than ideas) is quite telling. And no, I don't think women are oppressed in this culture. "Oppression" is a word with serious connotations. People in China are oppressed. People in Iran are oppressed. Middle class, educated women in well paid comfortable jobs don't get to use that word, and still be taken seriously.

Nobody here is mocking women. They are mocking feminists. That kind of argument is exactly why.

More irrationality.

I said privilege "in that manner". Its clear that people are born with money, natural talent etc. that others lack - but in the feminist context privileges are derived from group statistics (e.g. men are paid more than women) and then applied as personal characteristics to group members. In other words, people like you don't know their prior probabilities from their posteriors.

Then you go on and equate feminism with anti-racism. Another fail on your part. Feminism is not simply opposition to sexism. Once more for the hard-of-thinking: IT IS AN IDEOLOGY - and a bad one at that.

No it isn't. The vast majority of people agree with it. The problem is that feminists make a number of ideological propositions that they (rather poorly) infer from this concept, and then decide that anybody who doesn't make the same dodgy inferences doesn't agree with the concept. This, amongst other reasons, is why feminism has a credibility problem.

So, let me get this straight...

I report my observations about the community, you demand "evidence" - and presumably won't accept the legions of people here and elsewhere saying similar things. You then simply deny everything as "crap" and offer no evidence at your own. You believe that you can assert your views and have them accepted but mine require, what, peer reviewed references?

Demanding evidence doesn't make you a skeptic unless you do so in an appropriate manner (i.e. not after just gainsaying everything someone said as 'crap') and in an appropriate circumstances (i.e. not when someone is simply reporting their personal observations.) You are simply using the idea of asking for evidence as window dressing for the true content of your post: "Nuh uh!"

Quite pathetic, really.