Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

You don’t understand how scientific innovations occur. You don’t recognize the existence of “fundamentals” and the necessity of basic research.

You’re a GD moron.

No need for name-calling, let’s keep it respectful. I get that fundamental research is important, but the real question is who should be paying for it. If a study has real value, private industry, philanthropy, or universities will fund it, like we see with AI, biotech, and space exploration. If no one outside the government wants to invest in it, maybe it’s not as essential as some think. Good debate is how ideas get better, so let’s focus on that instead of throwing insults.

There are plenty of examples of wasteful government-funded research, which is why people question if taxpayer money is always well spent. They’ve funded things like a robotic squirrel to study rattlesnake reactions, shrimp running on a treadmill, and even an $80,000 study on why certain teams dominate March Madness. Maybe some of these had merit, but if research is actually valuable, private funding will step in. If no one wants to pay for it outside of government, that’s a sign it probably wasn’t that important to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

Isn’t your buddy Elon also taking advantage of of government research? Why don’t you pose these questions to him?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

You don’t understand how scientific innovations occur. You don’t recognize the existence of “fundamentals” and the necessity of basic research.

You’re a GD moron.

Anonymous wrote:I get that the federal government seems upset about cutting staff and shifting directions, but is that just because they aren’t used to it?

Today I had to cut half of one manager’s team across multiple departments, letting go of 9 people because of budget and priority changes. They’re all technical staff, and their manager thinks they’re talented. While it’s tough, they’ll almost certainly land something soon since their skills are in demand. In the private sector, this kind of thing happens all the time, and while no one likes it, it’s just part of the reality. We’re giving them 30 days' notice, which is more than enough from a private sector viewpoint. Many companies give nothing, with employees discovering the same day they’re let go. So, it’s interesting to see how differently government workers react to job changes.

Thinking about the fork email, it seems like if I could give those employees 8 months of paid time to look for a job while doing nothing, they’d be thrilled. Is the outrage from the federal side just because government employees aren’t used to these kinds of shifts?

I also talked to a relative in their 70s who works for the government, and they’re actually excited about the deferred resignation deal. From their perspective, getting paid for 8 months without working before retiring is a dream scenario and a once-in-a-lifetime chance.

One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of government jobs don’t have portable skills like IT or accounting that easily transfer to the private sector. I also see people who spend their entire careers managing government grants, foreign aid, and similar programs. It seems like these jobs exist mainly to process government functions that wouldn’t even need so much administration if the system were more efficient. If that’s the case, shouldn’t employees in these roles be training for portable skills instead of putting all their eggs in the federal government basket?

And if government priorities shift, isn’t it normal for those employees to look elsewhere? If we’re cutting foreign spending or shoring up the border, wouldn’t it make sense for them to move to agencies in demand instead of expecting a lifetime job in a field that changes with each administration?

Like, if a job was focused on managing the Pony Express mail system back in the day, and then new technology made it obsolete, shouldn’t people in those roles have expected that focus to stop instead of assuming they’d do it forever?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that the federal government seems upset about cutting staff and shifting directions, but is that just because they aren’t used to it?

Today I had to cut half of one manager’s team across multiple departments, letting go of 9 people because of budget and priority changes. They’re all technical staff, and their manager thinks they’re talented. While it’s tough, they’ll almost certainly land something soon since their skills are in demand. In the private sector, this kind of thing happens all the time, and while no one likes it, it’s just part of the reality. We’re giving them 30 days' notice, which is more than enough from a private sector viewpoint. Many companies give nothing, with employees discovering the same day they’re let go. So, it’s interesting to see how differently government workers react to job changes.

Thinking about the fork email, it seems like if I could give those employees 8 months of paid time to look for a job while doing nothing, they’d be thrilled. Is the outrage from the federal side just because government employees aren’t used to these kinds of shifts?

I also talked to a relative in their 70s who works for the government, and they’re actually excited about the deferred resignation deal. From their perspective, getting paid for 8 months without working before retiring is a dream scenario and a once-in-a-lifetime chance.

One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of government jobs don’t have portable skills like IT or accounting that easily transfer to the private sector. I also see people who spend their entire careers managing government grants, foreign aid, and similar programs. It seems like these jobs exist mainly to process government functions that wouldn’t even need so much administration if the system were more efficient. If that’s the case, shouldn’t employees in these roles be training for portable skills instead of putting all their eggs in the federal government basket?

And if government priorities shift, isn’t it normal for those employees to look elsewhere? If we’re cutting foreign spending or shoring up the border, wouldn’t it make sense for them to move to agencies in demand instead of expecting a lifetime job in a field that changes with each administration?

Like, if a job was focused on managing the Pony Express mail system back in the day, and then new technology made it obsolete, shouldn’t people in those roles have expected that focus to stop instead of assuming they’d do it forever?

Why did you do that? Are you not able to find other positions for these people within your company, are there no other teams with open spaces or that are looking to expand? Seems like bad management.

Call it bad management but in fact our company is reducing staff across it happens frequently.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91272368/tech-layoffs-2025-salesforce-meta-amazon-add-to-list-of-job-cuts

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that the federal government seems upset about cutting staff and shifting directions, but is that just because they aren’t used to it?

Today I had to cut half of one manager’s team across multiple departments, letting go of 9 people because of budget and priority changes. They’re all technical staff, and their manager thinks they’re talented. While it’s tough, they’ll almost certainly land something soon since their skills are in demand. In the private sector, this kind of thing happens all the time, and while no one likes it, it’s just part of the reality. We’re giving them 30 days' notice, which is more than enough from a private sector viewpoint. Many companies give nothing, with employees discovering the same day they’re let go. So, it’s interesting to see how differently government workers react to job changes.

Thinking about the fork email, it seems like if I could give those employees 8 months of paid time to look for a job while doing nothing, they’d be thrilled. Is the outrage from the federal side just because government employees aren’t used to these kinds of shifts?

I also talked to a relative in their 70s who works for the government, and they’re actually excited about the deferred resignation deal. From their perspective, getting paid for 8 months without working before retiring is a dream scenario and a once-in-a-lifetime chance.

One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of government jobs don’t have portable skills like IT or accounting that easily transfer to the private sector. I also see people who spend their entire careers managing government grants, foreign aid, and similar programs. It seems like these jobs exist mainly to process government functions that wouldn’t even need so much administration if the system were more efficient. If that’s the case, shouldn’t employees in these roles be training for portable skills instead of putting all their eggs in the federal government basket?

And if government priorities shift, isn’t it normal for those employees to look elsewhere? If we’re cutting foreign spending or shoring up the border, wouldn’t it make sense for them to move to agencies in demand instead of expecting a lifetime job in a field that changes with each administration?

Like, if a job was focused on managing the Pony Express mail system back in the day, and then new technology made it obsolete, shouldn’t people in those roles have expected that focus to stop instead of assuming they’d do it forever?

Why did you do that? Are you not able to find other positions for these people within your company, are there no other teams with open spaces or that are looking to expand? Seems like bad management.