Apollo 8 actually entered lunar orbit. A lunar flyby had been considered by the Soviets but they couldn't do it. As a shakedown of the spacecraft's systems this achieves nothing, they already had an unmanned flight. If they had a working lunar module they could at least to a proper full rehearsal like Apollo 10, but NASA lacks courage now.

Apollo 8 was the mission where the lander wasn't ready. Apollo 10's LM was functional, just they didn't have enough fuel to land and lacked the approach/landing software in the PGNS. They were to test the LM's behaviour and its abort capabilities. That was a lot, it was important, it achieved results. A flyby at this point in spaceflight history does nothing engineering-wise. They just have to do something and it is not much. As an astronaut, I would feel insulted.

The failed pseudo-science of psychology is still failed even when it affirms the commie inside of you.

As opposed to what, the massive magnets and magnetic field in the turbines that these ships use to generate power, and have done for more than 50 years?

What better time, then, to making importing H1Bs extremely expensive.

No there wasnt a serious effort to survey every square mile of a bombed city in order to uncover unexploded ordnance, because it would have been a huge huge task at a time when the resource available was focused on feeding the bombed out city dwellers.

They didnt have the tech that we have today, so there are many situations where a bomb didn't go off and buried itself several metres underground with minimal impact damage, or fell inside the crater of another bomb which did explode earlier and thus hide all evidence of there being a second bomb. Millions of bombs were dropped, and cities were bombed again and again.

These things arent sitting on the surface being blatantly obvious, they would have been buried by their own momentum. You would need extremely accurate magnetometers, or ground penetrating radar

No, it won't. The numbers ultimately published are massaged by agencies run by political appointees. Formulae are tailored to fit narratives and ultimately what we get is propaganda.

Your scheme, for instance: Who will be participating, and who will be eligible for a reward? These calls will be made by political forces.

That number is not credible. The prompts I write for "personal" purposes are literally indistinguishable from what a worker might make: for all ChatGPT knows I'm an auto mechanic. Location isn't a valid metric either, given WFH, mobile devices, etc. They can't possibly distinguish between work and personal to a one digit of precision. Obviously they can see whether prompts are coming from commercial accounts, paid personal accounts or free tier, but even that gets fuzzy at the low end.

There are few wells of propaganda deeper than those of "inflation numbers."

That, right there.

Just as one minute example of many: did you notice or care that BLS disappeared ~1.7 million US jobs in less than 12 months? "Corrections."

You have no "evidence." What you have is your preferred propaganda. Failure to dutifully inculcate propaganda as "evidence" is the exact opposite of servile.

If you could get a commie (or whatever you'd prefer) elected with the temerity to "just do stuff," you'd follow he/she/it off any number of cliffs as well. Pretend otherwise and show me your perfidity.

The framers put a lot of power in the Executive. The fact that whatever your side might be is incapable of producing actual leaders that can set aside the establishment group-think and leverage this is both a symptom of your sclerotic nature and also a shame. I'm not the simple minded knuckle dragger you presume.

If they did or didn't wouldn't matter to Trump in any meaningful way. Trump doesn't listen to technocrats until they make the mistake of opposing him. Trump also doesn't given a damn what other nations do or don't.

That's leadership. You may hate him for it, but you can't deny it.

I can't recall any business moguls jumping up and down about this. On the other hand, I haven't heard anyone screaming from the hills about the high costs of such a change either, and business never, ever fail to bitch about regulatory costs. So I have to discount your supposed concern.

That I can recall. Yes he did. He mentioned it on occasion in speeches, so this no surprise to me. Obviously it's not a big vote-getter of an issue, so he didn't walk around in a big red "MAKE CORPORATE REPORTING GREAT AGAIN" hat, but it was a point in the campaign.

We've all seen the "WTF Happened in 1970/1/2?" meme. Now, no one can credibly claim that whatever that stuff means had anything at all to do with the inception of quarterly reporting around the same time. I can claim, however, that somehow, some way, the US economy did, in fact, function pretty well before Nixon's SEC mandated quarterly reporting. So, perhaps Trump's change isn't actually the end of the world and the dawn of the Forth Reich.

If it helps overcome your knee-jerk Airbus vs. Boeing hang-ups, 737 MAX has a known failure mode that will rapidly gas the cockpit with vaporized oil. Equipped with this necessary whataboutery affordance, you should feel safe in at least allowing for the possibility that Airbus is also not flawless in all things.

Cockpits and cabins have been getting filled with various gasses since the inception of pressurization ~80 years ago. To Boeing's credit, the 787 has set a legitimate engineering precedent in aircraft design and eliminated at least some of the major sources of air contamination. Eventually, when Airbus copies it, you'll be able to safely ignore this. So no worries.

When you write this drivel and furiously masturbate in a fetid pile of your own feces, do you think of your mother or of children? Just curious.