So the faster we help them develop, the slower the world population climbs.

Let's face it, many evangelical Christians have voted for an administration that would instantly deport Jesus to El Salvador if he appeared today.

But I do agree we still pay too much for health care and the outcomes we receive are sub optimal. Obamacare was insurance reform, but I would like to see the U.S. pursue a universal single-payer system like pretty much every other high-income country in the world. Oh no, wait, "socialism!!!"

Oh God no...please never let the US govt be in charge of my health care.

It's not even the socialism thing.....it's just the massive clusterfuck that government is running things.

Some are a necessary evil....military....etc.

But no....I've been to Social Security offices....ugh.

I've been to other federal offices and it almost agony getting anything done.....and often it takes way more than one trip.

I imagine it would be akin to the DMV with govt medical care.....and I just do now trust MY health to the bloated mechanisms of the govt bureaucracy .....

That's not even getting into the politics that would inevitably get involved.

And the US....we could not afford it for everyone, hell we can't afford the US health care we DO have....Medicare and Medicaid....too bloated, too $$$ and just horrible to have to deal with....

Sure we need to fix the private industry....lots to be done there, but the govt is NOT the answer I want.

Hell.....who'd want to have govt run medical centers right now with a govt shutdown going on....?

No thanks.

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://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticle...
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://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F... ( 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

we have seen more de-regulation, more tax cuts, more gutting of labor

Ah....isn't it GREAT???

Thank God we've gotten them in office periodically to roll back the government some....

We need more of this IMHO.....

I would say Obamacare is very pro national interest, in that it promotes the health and welfare of the nation and slowed the explosion of health care costs.

Except, it didn't.....it raised medical prices across the board, and they are still rising due to Obamacare.

Why do you think the Dems keep having to try to pile more and more money into it....the program is not sustainable, never was.

Unless we get these cretins under control, they will be the end of us.

Yeah...companies "prioritizing customer convenience and trying to sell cars"....

I mean, WTF were they thinking??!?!

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

They are initially streamed on twitter, but they will still post them to YouTube afterward.

They haven’t completed an orbit because they want to be definitely certain they can deorbit it reliably as it is not demisable. They have absolutely demonstrated that it has the ability to reach orbit and survive reentry consistently.

All those goals are reasonable when you consider the assembly lines they are building and their success with recovering the first and second stages. Consider the launch rate of Falcon 9 and then consider the fact that they are building twice as many launchpads while designing the boosters to be immediately reflown.

The only real question is whether they will have the same initial teething problems with their third generation of the rocket that they did with the first two, but I doubt they will.