This.
How is he not immediately disbarred?

Because they didn't want to "avoid MS" they wanted to flex.

What a stupid, irrelevant post.

And I'd say you're deeply committed to your theology but whatever.

ANY long-lived species on this planet has - self evidently - survived multiple near extinction events.
What part of "repeatedly survived" is unclear for you?

10 people fall off a cliff, 9 die. 1 survives.
That one and 9 others fall off another cliff, 8 die. The original survivor and one other.
Those 2 and 8 others fall off another cliff, 4 die. The 6 survivors include the previous 2.
Those 6 and 4 more fall off a cliff, 9 die. The original survivor from the first cliff is still alive.

You "clearly this means he's going to die if he falls down a hill!"

"| Corals date from before the Cambrian explosion, about half a billion years ago.
No they don't. This is a flaw"

AFAIK Jung's study last year pushed coral/algae symbiosis back to the Devonian, no?
https://www.nature.com/article...
It's short of 500mya, but not meaningfully so to my point.

"98% of corals failed to survive the KT* extinction,"
At least from what I can see (summarized at) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ( but also from other sources ) it wasn't 98% of corals, it was 60% - the 98% is JUST warm water corals, which is basically already what I'm saying:
"Approximately 60% of late-Cretaceous scleractinian coral genera failed to cross the Kâ"Pg boundary into the Paleocene. Further analysis of the coral extinctions shows that approximately 98% of colonial species, ones that inhabit warm, shallow tropical waters, became extinct. The solitary corals, which generally do not form reefs and inhabit colder and deeper (below the photic zone) areas of the ocean were less impacted by the Kâ"Pg boundary. Colonial coral species rely upon symbiosis with photosynthetic algae, which collapsed due to the events surrounding the Kâ"Pg boundary,[71][72] but the use of data from coral fossils to support Kâ"Pg extinction and subsequent Paleocene recovery, must be weighed against the changes that occurred in coral ecosystems through the Kâ"Pg boundary.[35]"

One might argue that a 40% survival rate vs 24% (for all species collectively) in such a catastropphic event/span would strongly suggest that corals are particularly durable.

They WANT to know. I don't believe they NEED to know to do their job.

To be clear, I think a good employer WOULD make a good case to their staff that it's necessary, if it is.

But work isn't a democracy: they're saying "do x, I give you money" - that's it, that's the deal.

ESPECIALLY if that was the original deal when you were hired (ie anyone pre 2019, really). If you change the terms (well I want to work all the time from home now) they're free to ALSO change the terms (ok we're paying you 75%) and then you decide if you continue to be an employee.

I'd say *demanding* to stay home and work in your jammies sounds a lot like a 3 year old not wanting to go to school, too. So yeah, that's how it's treated.

Or, it could be that pretty nearly all government agencies were "fluffed" with nearly-worthless DEI hires, departments, and administrations over the past 4 years and nothing of value will be lost.
Let's check JPL levels historically, shall we?
| Year | Approximate Staff Level | Notes/Source Summary |
| 2010 | ~5,000 | Based on 2008 NASA budget planning for FY2009, committing to maintain 5,000 employees amid post-recession adjustments. |
| 2011 | ~5,000 | Stable from prior year; no major changes reported in mission-driven workforce. |
| 2012 | ~5,000 | Consistent with early 2010s growth in planetary missions (e.g., Curiosity rover). |
| 2013 | ~5,000 | Aligned with Near-Earth Object Program expansion; steady state. |
| 2014 | ~5,000 - 5,500 | Gradual increase tied to Earth science and outer planet missions. |
| 2015 | ~5,500 | Reflects ongoing investments in data science and workforce diversity initiatives. |
| 2016 | ~5,500 | Stable; focus on Spitzer Space Telescope management and Mars rovers. |
| 2017 | ~5,500 | HBCU/URM internship expansion signals sustained staffing. |
| 2018 | ~6,000 | Peak near-term level; $2.5B budget supports growth in robotic exploration. |
| 2019 | ~6,000 | Continued stability with Juno and Cassini mission support. |
| 2020 | ~6,000 | Pre-pandemic baseline; telework shifts but no net reduction. |
| 2021 | ~5,500 | FY2021 budget of $2.4B; includes on-site subcontractors, but core staff steady. |
| 2022 | ~6,000 | Slight rebound post-COVID; Zippia demographics report ~6,000 total. |
| 2023 | ~6,000 | End-of-year figure before 2024 cuts; shutdown impacts minimal. |
| 2024 | ~5,500 (end-of-year) | Major reductions: ~100 contractors (Jan), 530 employees + 40 contractors (Feb, ~8% cut), 325 employees (Nov, ~5% cut). Starts at ~6,000, ends at ~5,500. |
| 2025 | ~4,950 (as of Oct) | Additional 550 employees laid off (Oct, ~11% cut) as part of restructuring; figure post-layoff from ~5,500 baseline. |

So another less politically loaded but entirely accurate title might be "JPL staff returning to historically normal levels" mightn't it?

IMO

Didn't "brick" used to mean "kill without any chance of recovery"? The key difference of "bricking" was the irrecersability , no?

Trump printed and handed out cash during COVID, that is socialism. It's a stupid form of socialism, but that's what it is.

Bush Junior passed and introduced the following:

1. Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Benefit (2003)
Largest expansion of federal welfare since 1965.
Added a new entitlement program without funding.
Taxpayers cover pharmaceutical costs for seniors.
Price negotiation blocked which transferred public money to private drug companies.
Long-term cost estimated over 1 trillion USD.

2. No Child Left Behind Act (2002)
Centralized federal control over education.
Took power from states and local school boards.
Tied federal funding to test results.
Expanded the Department of Education budget by 60 percent.

3. TARP Bank Bailouts (2008)
Socialized Wall Street losses.
Government purchased troubled assets and equity in failing banks.
Public money used to save private firms.
Risk transferred from private investors to taxpayers.

4. Nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (2008)
Federal government seized control of two huge mortgage companies.
Socialized hundreds of billions in mortgage losses.
Largest nationalization in U.S. history.

5. Federal Takeover of AIG (2008)
Government took 80 percent ownership.
Public funds used to pay private insurance contracts.
Direct state ownership of a corporation.

6. Steel Tariffs (2002)
Protectionist economic intervention.
Used federal power to interfere with free markets.
Forced consumers to pay higher steel prices to protect an industry.

7. Expanded Farm Subsidies (2002 Farm Bill)
Increased federal agricultural payouts by 190 billion USD over 10 years.
Direct wealth transfers from taxpayers to farmers.
Expanded central planning in agriculture.

Those are all socialist policies, they are a big state, interventionist, entitlement growing policies.

Senior Bush

1. Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)
Large federal mandate on private businesses and local governments
Forced costly compliance without funding
Expanded federal regulation of the labor market

2. Clean Air Act Amendments (1990)
Massive expansion of federal control over industry
Centralized environmental rules and enforcement
Imposed new costs through regulation and fines

3. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (1990)
Raised federal taxes by 137 billion USD
Increased top income and corporate tax rates
Expanded federal spending rather than cutting programs

4. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (1991)
Increased federal power over banks
Allowed government intervention in failing institutions
Moved risk from private investors to taxpayers

5. Savings and Loan Bailout Continuation
Continued Resolution Trust Corporation actions started under Reagan
Used taxpayer money to rescue failed financial institutions
Socialized private banking losses

6. Immigration Act of 1990
Increased legal immigration by 40 percent
Expanded government-administered labor quotas and visa programs
Managed labor supply through federal policy

7. Transportation Equity Act (1991)
Large federal spending on infrastructure
Expanded federal role in transportation planning
Increased dependency of states on federal funding

Whatever you want to call him, this guy increased the size of the government, introduced socialist policies, expanded federal control over business and banking. He did more to give government power over private enterprise since Nixon.

Reagan

1. Savings and Loan Bailouts
Used taxpayer money to rescue failed financial institutions
Created the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation bailout framework
Socialized private banking losses
Set precedent for future bailouts

2. Military Keynesianism
Massive deficit-funded military buildup
Defense spending increased 40 percent
Government spending guided industrial output
Economic growth driven by public debt instead of private investment

3. Tax Reform Act of 1986
Flattened tax rates but also expanded government direction of the economy
Removed many private deductions
Strengthened IRS enforcement powers
Increased tax burden on working and middle class through payroll taxes

4. War on Drugs Centralization
Large expansion of federal police powers
Federal control over local law enforcement through funding and mandates
Increased federal spending and bureaucracy
Directed social behavior through state coercion

5. Export Controls and Trade Intervention
Limited high-tech exports
Imposed sanctions and trade barriers
Government interference in private trade decisions

6. Protectionist Trade Action
Restricted Japanese car imports
Imposed tariffs on motorcycles to assist Harley-Davidson
Protected domestic industries with federal action
Violated free market principles

7. Social Security Rescue Plan of 1983
Raised payroll taxes
Increased government control over retirement income
Forced workers to pay more for a mandatory public program

8. Farm Lending and Subsidy Support
Expanded federal loan guarantees to farmers
Federal aid to agriculture during the farm debt crisis
Transferred risk from private banks to taxpayers

He was a so called pro free market guy, who really expanded the role of the government, grew public debt, expanded federal police powers, abused tariffs, bailed the banks out, expanded SS.

AFAIC all of these are basically Marxists, never mind socialists. I would not allow any of these people to run a corner store, never mind a country.

The Telegraph - this one talks about China and its complete automation of production lines, speed to manufacture and deliver the final product. The West is done, it cannot compete, I wrote this here decades ago, once the West loses its manufacturing due to inflation, money manipulation, regulations and taxation, it will lose its engineering and then its education and science. In any case, what the West lost a long time ago is its ability to manufacture anything quickly and cheaply, its ability to manufacture anything domestically because of all of the combined costs, rules, laws, taxes, basically the cost of government and all of the socialism.

The West cannot manufacture because socialism cannot produce, it can only consume, that's how the USSR died as well, this is the path for the West if it doesn't reform and it won't.

The car manufacturers are correct, the so called 'laws' are garbage. Europe and the USA are going to lose all of their manufacturing, China will win in this manufacturing war and that's all there will be.

Yet somewhere in history, someone did just that.
90% of new businesses today fail.
So someone stepped up, risked his own future and probably family, to build that business. So they get to set the rules.

Nobody in the businesses we're talking about is enslaved. They're trading their time and effort for $ according to a set of rules that business (presumably) offered them IN LIEU of putting their own ass on the line against that 9/10 failure rate. I get it. But the idea that someone bitches "this is toxic, I should QUIT" and then not do so means I simply won't be taking them seriously.

Honestly, I see it like the work from home argument. I expect most employed people today were hired precovid, where working from home was barely a discussion. They were hired on the premise that they work at an office, every workday, usually 8-5 or whatever.
When a pandemic comes along and the business spends resources to make it possible for people to work remotely successfully (we all knew it was POSSIBLE, to be clear), and then people whinge about coming back afterword that's just sour grapes. A lot like this. If you don't like that pointy-haired boss telling you to come back...QUIT.

It does matter.

If the government forgives $1mil in student loans, that's ANOTHER $1m they're going to have tax the taxpayers (eg the productive members of society) in the future.

I get it, we'd ALL love a free ride.

OK, thanks for the reply. I agree, most people don't.

Now - do they understand that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, SOMEWHEN took exactly that risk to found the business that they're working for? That built a going concern to the point that they could reliably trust business was stable enough at a volume large enough that the marginal returns are such allowing them to promise people stable, ongoing employment and a paycheck every week for dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of employees?

And then contemplate that the global new business failure rate sits roughly around 90%.
Meaning out of the people that DID form such a business, 9 of them lost that gamble, only 1/10 limped along well enough to survive and (ostensibly) grow into those awful oligopolies that benefit from economies of scale. Are those founders (and, let's be clear, their descendants) entitled to some sort of reward for putting THEIR futures and scratched-together $ on the line?

Now with that context, "this workplace is toxic, I should just QUIT" sounds pretty childish, given that most individuals can't afford the alternative.

We can agree all day that IN ANY CASE it's unwise for a business to tolerate toxic or negative environments. It drives away good workers and probably raises their salary costs as informed employees demand more to stay.

But this discussion is ultimately just whinging. A microscopic percent of people "love" working. We trade our time and effort for a paycheck. We are not enslaved; we are in fact free agents. Either put up or shut up. If it's so toxic, leave & start your employee's utopia. I'm sure you'll have workers breaking down your door to work for you at your much-higher-than-market wages, with 'work when you want, vacation when you want' hours, work freely from home policies, and (somehow) the most expensive glorious health coverage available.*
If it's not enough to leave, stay and STFU. Complaining AND staying is just cowardice and carping.

*FWIW I had that for my company and all my employees (BCBS Aware Gold premium or plus or something - literally the best we could get). Obamacare FUCKED us by threatening a massive tax on 'cadillac' health plans that simply would have broken us and closed the business.