Still didn't answer the question
Question is "If the climate change report is $2M in the USDA you oppose that but if they swapped that $2M to the EPA for the study you then support it?"
That's not the question. The question is, why is USDA spending $2m on climate change studies at all when this is the responsibility of a different department which probably has spent the same money doing similar studies already.
Maybe, you can make that argument and you'd have to prove it but you didn't answer the question.
Yes I did. If this was the private sector and one department started treading on the responsibilities of another they would get smacked down hard. Obviously they have too many employees because they have enough free time to branch out. That's what's going on here. This combination of layoffs and realignment is way overdue.
Are you opposed to these studies or just who is doing them?
If the climate change report is $2M in the USDA you oppose that but if they swapped that $2M to the EPA for the study you then support it?
The scope creep leads to duplicate efforts and costs. Great for the departments, bad for the taxpayers
From your article: "During the Trump administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers published and funded objective analyses of issues such as climate change, the efficiency of food assistance programs, and tax cuts that mostly benefit the richest farmers. "
Scope creep is why these agencies all need to be pared back
Climate change reports should be handled by the EPA.
Food assistance programs should be handled by HHS.
Tax policy falls under Treasury
Ya, I remember that. All booster recovery kabooms, except for one.
There are others. Here's another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1 that I know of.
Lots of booster landing failures, of course. But I don't think anyone counts that as a launch failure, as the boosters were disposable anyway, with recovery being a long term goal.
I'm pretty sure the Starship upper stage either holds the current record for the most exploded rocket in history, or is working on catching it.
Elon Musk's favorite SpaceX explosions, posted 7 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think the problem that your VP sees is that we can all do that too, including those of us outside the US and that means we can all compete with your innovation by coming up with innovations of our own.
There is no issue with that. The concern is we have created conditions where it is cheaper to offshore entire industries that to maintain them here. For example, we may enact environmental and worker protection regulations that increase costs, and in response the industries offshore the manufacturing to countries that don't have similar regulations. The administration isn't advocating eliminating environmental and worker protection regulations, they are advocating for equalizing the costs through tariffs to incentivize manufacturers to move back onshore.
>>How is profit measured when there is no box office nor DVD/on-demand sales?
Same as on TV; viewing numbers (which Netflix keeps to themselves).
TV is a fully ad-supported model. Netflix is subscription but offers a lower tier with ads. So just viewing numbers alone don't generate revenue. Can they associate new subscribers resulting from specific new content?
Its a flop if it fails to turn a profit and a success if it does. The article reads more like just another legacy media outlet lamenting its growing irrelevance.
How is profit measured when there is no box office nor DVD/on-demand sales?
Critics hate it but the audience scores are good.
Indeed, and if colour of skin became a box tick that was countable rather than present as a minimum your company would have both affirmative action as well as a potentially fucking huge legal liability on their hands.
You didn't disagree with the parent, you just didn't understand what he said.
I understood what he said just fine, and what you said is retarded nonsense as usual
Despite what Fox News, Trump, and his Swallowers are telling you, DEI is not affirmative action. Your personal experience may be different, but very few companies are using box-ticking when making hiring decisions.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. In the last few companies I've been at people were rated on how many boxes got ticked in the hiring process, and we could not hire at all without interviewing box-ticking candidates for the role. This stuff would get reported to shareholders too. Look we increased box-ticking hires by 10% this year! And besides hiring, there was endless mind-numbing training and incentives to demonstrate what a good ally you were via flags, badges, placards, whatever. All of this feeds into performance ratings, compensation, and promotions.
Nope. What in that article do you think demonstrates that?
If you read the article you would know.
Even the single line "development cost" in the comparison table has $25B for SLS vs $5B for Starship
Falcon 9's can't launch an Artemis. Neither can Starship (without multiple refuelings)
Per-launch cost is a near-meaningless metric when comparing government launches.
The full cost of SLS so far is only about twice what has been spent on Starship, and unlike Starship, SLS can 1) actually do the job, 2) has actually done the job.
Your numbers are way, way off. Have a look at: https://orbitaltoday.com/2023/...
These days, not very often.
November, 2022, I believe.
It notably did not explode, and successfully launched a payload around the moon.
It notably put Artemis 1 into TLI- basically an Apollo mission, which is in fact not a nothing- it's something that only NASA has ever accomplished.
That's a good thing. It's unfortunate that NASA has gotten so bogged down. Artemis 1 was launched on SLS, and SLS may get cancelled due to mismanagement, cost overruns, and a projected per-launch cost in the billions. And while SpaceX falcon-9 is a reusable workhorse that launches a couple of times per week SpaceX says Starship will drive the cost down a lot further and replace falcon-9. This is only the 8th launch of Starship and already they have the booster catch working. It was disappointing to see the Starship fail again but it's a really ambitious program.
The sooner you make your first 5000 mistakes, the sooner you will be able to correct them. -- Nicolaides
