One of those gadgets is designed to measure refraction and radiance from greenhouse gasses. I.e. to confirm or correct the only assumptions in climate modeling that are even remotely controversial.
Yeah, basically, if it doesn't involve killing people or the police state, it's getting a cut. Unfortunately, the language I would use to describe my feelings about this is probably not considered appropriate for HN.
Yes, but it's also important to realize that this is the will of the American people. They voted for this; they voted for this Administration, and they voted for this Congress.
The popular vote would disagree with this sentiment in regards to voting for this administration....
If the will of the people was a consideration then we would see a more balanced proposal without such severe cuts to agencies and programs that Trump associates with "liberals". Abolishing the NEA or destroying the ability of the EPA to regulate pollution is pure political ideology. Reducing the ability of our government to study climate change isn't based upon scientific fact - it's done because it doesn't fit within the worldview of our current administration.
The popular vote wasn't that far away; it never is, or else the election would have gone the other way. The Electoral College gives extra weight to votes in smaller states, but only so much.
That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this Congress, not just this Administration. They voted GOP not only for the House, but for the Senate too, so you can't even make any claims about "gerrymandering". They even voted GOP for governorships and local elections. The bottom line: outside of a few particular places (namely California), the people of this country want the GOP and its policies.
As for your "balanced proposal" idea, things don't work like that. When one party has total power in both Congress and the White House, they can do pretty much whatever they want. If the people had wanted more balance, they would have voted for a more balanced Congress. They didn't. They overwhelmingly filled the seats with GOP candidates.
> it never is, or else the election would have gone the other way.
The electoral college can, in principle, support very radical differences from the popular vote; the actual difference in 2016 was mild compared to what is theoretically possible in that regard, but still a pretty extreme far outlier compare to historical norms.
> That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this Congress, not just this Administration.
But numerous prominent Republicans in Congress have dismissed the Trump budget as unacceptable. You can't say "the American people voted for this" and then defend that by pointing to—even if completely accuratelt—thr American people voting for a set of politicians that don't clearly support the thing you claim the American people voted for by voting for those politicians.
>That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this Congress, not just this Administration. They voted GOP not only for the House, but for the Senate too, so you can't even make any claims about "gerrymandering".
The majority of voters voted for a Democratic senator.
> The popular vote wasn't that far away; it never is, or else the election would have gone the other way. The Electoral College gives extra weight to votes in smaller states, but only so much.
Even if there was no difference in weighting, the all-or-nothing nature of the electoral college allows for huge disparities. If half-plus-one of the electoral votes are won in states one by one vote, and all of the other states vote 100% the other way, and there was no distortion or aliasing, we'd see 3/4 of America having voted for the losing candidate. In principle, the "extra weight" allows it to be even worse than that. Of course in practice it will never hit the extreme, but there's plenty of room for "that far away".
It's far from clear that even this Congress supports the Trump budget, so that's irrelevant to the argument that the American people, in general, voted for the contents of the Trump budget, even indirectly by voting for politicians that support it.
Most of the points of the Trump budget are things the Republican Congresspeople agree with to some extent. They're just arguing now among themselves, with extremist Republicans wanting even more cuts, and moderate ones wanting less. They're all basically in favor of things like gutting the EPA and social programs.
So it's entirely logical to conclude that the American people want a budget more-or-less like this one. They're just quibbling over details.
> Most of the points of the Trump budget are things the Republican Congresspeople agree with to some extent.
Only in the sense that being tied down and forced to consume a gallon of everclear, because it is "consuming alcohol", is something that someone who ocassionally has a drink or two in an evening supports "to some extent".
> So it's entirely logical to conclude that the American people want a budget more-or-less like this one.
Defined broadly enough, any budget is "more-or-less" like this one, but there's not any evidence that the American people support a budget very much like this one.
Where are you getting this insane idea? Wishful thinking? The people clearly voted for GOP candidates across the board, at national, state, and local levels. It's no secret that the GOP generally dislikes spending on social programs, the environment, climate science, etc., and supports massive spending on defense. Therefore, it's quite clear that the American people support a budget something like this, which boosts military spending while cutting spending for social programs, the arts, the EPA, and climate science.
> It's no secret that the GOP generally dislikes spending on social programs, the environment, climate science, etc., and supports massive spending on defense.
It's no secret that they differ from Democrats, on average, in those directions. It's also not a secret that the GOP—including a large percentage of those currently serving on Congress whose election you are trying to use as evidence of support for the Trump budget—has has not generally sought the kind of spending choices in the Trump budget, even when they had unitary control of government under George W. Bush.
> Therefore, it's quite clear that the American people support a budget something like this
"Something like this" is a vague term that could apply to any budget. Given the wide range of issues in the elections involved, it's not clear that any coherent message on budget priorities can be drawn, but, even ignoring that, it's unreasonable to conclude that even viewing every Congressional seat's election as a budget referendum with no confounding issues would get support for a budget with the kind of extreme cuts in the Trump budget.
Yes, the direction of changes is what you'd expect from any Republican government. The direction isn't the thing that makes this budget noteworty, though.
Voting for dessert with dinner doesn't mean you support being forcefed a full-sheet cake. Radical differences of magnitude can't just be swept under the rug as irrelevant.
There was widespread voter suppression (the NC GOP bragged about it). Also the right wing media (radio, Fox News, Breitbart) lies blatantly. And the GOP donor class (the rich and corporations) have generously funded promoting their agenda (cut taxes on the rich) including through ALEC and the State Policy Network.
Despite all the lies and money, the current administration lost the popular vote and more people voted for Democratic than Republican senators.
America is a left-liberal nation that has been taken over by the agenda of the very wealthy through dirty electoral tricks.
The balance will swing back to caring about people eventually.
In each of the last three House elections, the Dems' House seats have been ~2.5% beneath their national vote, and the GOP's House seats have been 5-6% above their national vote. In 2012, Democrats actually won more seats nationwide but the GOP got 53.6% of the seats.
Also, this data ignores the voter suppression laws that prevent primarily Democratic citizens from voting.
Yes, -1% for NASA in the proposal. The EPA is what gets hit hard - listed as -31%.
Also worth noting:
"Discretionary spending limits, addressed by this proposal, are set by congressional budget resolutions. Congress typically makes changes to the president’s proposal — last year, lawmakers disregarded Obama’s budget altogether. "
I am professionally involved in space tech. Have to say, I like Trump's administration stance on NASA (quote):
"We see NASA in an exploration role, in deep space research," Bob Walker, a senior Trump adviser, told the Guardian newspaper. "Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission."
...much more then I liked the previous administrator (Charles Bolden) mission:
"When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things," Bolden said in the interview which aired last week. "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."
Why were Muslim national relationships a NASA mission? Thought we had State Department for that.
"The original 1958 act charged the new Agency with conducting the aeronautical and space activities of the United States "so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:"
- The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
- The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
- The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;
- The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.
- The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.
- The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;
- Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and
- The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.
In 2012, a ninth objective was added: "The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes."
> It makes perfect sense to move earth sciences to other agencies. NOAA should be taking point.
The other agencies that have related missions to which one might plausibly argue that NASA's earth science mission might reasonably be transferred are also (including NOAA) being massively cut, in those specific areas, by the proposed Trump budget.
So, while there might be a hypothetical budget which included massive cuts to NASA's earth-focussed science which was not alarming because the mission was merely being moved to a more appropriate agency, the proposed Trump budget is not that hypothetical budget.
How were they actively excluding anyone? NASA should be working with other space agencies that actually have the capability to do things. ESA has successfully launched rockets and probes, JAXA has done the same. What have middle-eastern nations done? Do they even have space agencies?
Sorry, but if your nation doesn't prioritize space exploration and have any capability there, that's not NASA's fault, and I don't think it should be NASA's responsibility to try to fix that.
edit: Note, personally I'm extremely worried about the near future under this administration and Congress, and I'm a big supporter of space exploration. But Obama's directives to NASA were IMO ridiculous and a distraction from the serious science work that the agency should be focusing on (both in space and in the atmosphere, as per the name). The Muslim world hasn't done anything useful in science and technology for centuries now. To be sure, some people from that area are very bright and have been very productive, but only when they've left that place and come to societies where their work is appreciated and not oppressed. But those people didn't need scientific agencies to set aside their serious work and pander to them to get them to step up and get involved. If you want more encouragement of people to get into this work, that's the job of the Education department, and perhaps the State department if it involves foreign relations. This doesn't mean NASA couldn't do a little outreach here and there (a big agency like that has all kinds of things it's doing all the time), but it shouldn't be made out to be a serious mission requirement, just like when tech companies send an engineer to schools to brainwash^Wshow kids how great STEM careers are, that's just a small extra job, not the company's main mission or even something they publicize as highly important to them.
1) That NASA's top three missions are inspiring kids, working more with other nations including reaching out to muslim nations
2) That NASA's three current focuses within its sub-goal of science outreach are the above.
One of these interpretations is ludicrous, and it appears to be the one you've latched onto. You might want to ask yourself why you've let yourself believe something so patently ridiculous. What is going on in your head that leads to you being so angry about something that clearly isn't true?
The problem here is that NASA's very name shows that the Earth's atmosphere is their concern. Now, that could be moved to another agency, with NASA concentrating only on space, but then it needs a new name. We could just drop the first 'A', making it the "National Space Administration" (or Agency), or "NSA" for short. Oh wait...
The most alarming thing is that they are explicitly cutting anything to do with climate change (there's a more comprehensive overview here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-presi...). That's also a large part of what the NASA budget cut is aimed at...
It's also incredibly shortsighted. The military and insurance industry are both well aware of the implications of unmitigated climate change. Likewise with the public health implications from increased pollution. These are tangible impacts that will cost us more than the "savings" proposed in this budget. It's like skipping oil changes on a car to save money....
NPR is also reporting that the Army Corp of Engineers has a proposed -16% cut (http://www.npr.org/2017/03/16/520305293/trump-to-unveil-hard...). Are they not responsible for mitigating the natural hazards that are expected to increase due to climate change?
I don't see what's alarming there. The guy is staying true to what he believes, or does not believe. And he was explicit about it. If you recall, he said something along the lines of climate change being a Chinese fairy tale.
It was alarming before when he said it, and then alarming then he followed up and did it, for exactly the same reasons. The scientific community is clear & unambiguous: this is a huge problem now with civilization-level consequences, and the political answer is "this is all a fairy tale, let's not look into it any more". Alarming is 100% correct. It should alarm everyone.
> I don't see what's alarming there. The guy is staying true to what he believes, or does not believe.
Hitler (hypothetically, not I recreated a I discussing whether or not this was his belief) genuinely believing Jews were a dangerous threat that could be dealt with by no means short of extermination does not reduce the degree to which his action on that belief would rightly be seen as alarming.
> If you recall, he said something along the lines of climate change being a Chinese fairy tale.
OTOH, I also remember his official campaign staff and unofficial campaign surrogates repeatedly saying that his statements on most policy issues should not be taken literally. A position that Co tinted to be uswd, in various forms, by his White House staff (e.g., in claiming that his statements explicitly referencing wiretapping are not literally about wiretapping but other activities.)
If one is alarmed at Trump's explicit statements, the response is "calm down, stop taking him literally".
If one is later alarmed that Trump acts in accord with such a statement, the response is "calm down, he's just doing what he explicitly said."
Aside from the obvious game being played here, doing what you previously said doesn't make an action less alarming, in much the same way that acting in accord with your own genuine (if unjustified) belief does not.
My point is, he said he was going to do all these things, but he was still voted in anyway.
The only thing that surprises me about Trump is this: He's from New York City. I'm not even talking New State, NYC! How did a guy like this come out of NYC?
"Also on the chopping block: the entire NASA Education office, which ... provides internships and scholarships for young scientists"
I was an intern last year working on one of the listed missions (now slated to be cut), and was planning on returning again this summer. I knew this was coming from Trump, but not this quickly or this hard. It's difficult to describe in concrete terms how I feel - I don't mean to be a sad sack; it's just a surreal situation. This means that many months of my work on my first real job were all for naught. Do you ever get personally attached to your work? I felt like my effort there was making an impact; it wasn't a boring sort-a-filing-cabinet internship. And it just disappeared for good, since I don't think there will be funding for a reboot later. I feel listless, which is also helped by the fact that it doesn't sound like I have a career in the near-term. Kinda pulled out from under me. And I only just found out about this from this news article; at least the concrete specifics.
Is anyone still taking applications for an undergrad intern, with intern-level experience in aerospace controls engineering (rising senior CS major)? I don't want to limit myself to that specifically either; anything with a decent cross-section of either math, software, or robotics is my jam. Sorry to put this out here like this, but I'm wary that I'm running out of time to find something since aerospace intern hiring seems to conclude all the way back in early Fall.
48 comments
[ 6.9 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] threadGee, I wonder why they want to cancel it.
NIH research also is proposed to suffer large cuts.
And while I'm at it, the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities are proposed to be eliminated entirely.
If the will of the people was a consideration then we would see a more balanced proposal without such severe cuts to agencies and programs that Trump associates with "liberals". Abolishing the NEA or destroying the ability of the EPA to regulate pollution is pure political ideology. Reducing the ability of our government to study climate change isn't based upon scientific fact - it's done because it doesn't fit within the worldview of our current administration.
That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this Congress, not just this Administration. They voted GOP not only for the House, but for the Senate too, so you can't even make any claims about "gerrymandering". They even voted GOP for governorships and local elections. The bottom line: outside of a few particular places (namely California), the people of this country want the GOP and its policies.
As for your "balanced proposal" idea, things don't work like that. When one party has total power in both Congress and the White House, they can do pretty much whatever they want. If the people had wanted more balance, they would have voted for a more balanced Congress. They didn't. They overwhelmingly filled the seats with GOP candidates.
Yes, it was
> it never is, or else the election would have gone the other way.
The electoral college can, in principle, support very radical differences from the popular vote; the actual difference in 2016 was mild compared to what is theoretically possible in that regard, but still a pretty extreme far outlier compare to historical norms.
> That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this Congress, not just this Administration.
But numerous prominent Republicans in Congress have dismissed the Trump budget as unacceptable. You can't say "the American people voted for this" and then defend that by pointing to—even if completely accuratelt—thr American people voting for a set of politicians that don't clearly support the thing you claim the American people voted for by voting for those politicians.
The majority of voters voted for a Democratic senator.
Even if there was no difference in weighting, the all-or-nothing nature of the electoral college allows for huge disparities. If half-plus-one of the electoral votes are won in states one by one vote, and all of the other states vote 100% the other way, and there was no distortion or aliasing, we'd see 3/4 of America having voted for the losing candidate. In principle, the "extra weight" allows it to be even worse than that. Of course in practice it will never hit the extreme, but there's plenty of room for "that far away".
No it's not.
> They voted for this
No, they didn't.
> they voted for this Administration
No, neither a majority nor even a plurality of the American people—even only of those actually voting—voted for this Administration.
So it's entirely logical to conclude that the American people want a budget more-or-less like this one. They're just quibbling over details.
Only in the sense that being tied down and forced to consume a gallon of everclear, because it is "consuming alcohol", is something that someone who ocassionally has a drink or two in an evening supports "to some extent".
> So it's entirely logical to conclude that the American people want a budget more-or-less like this one.
Defined broadly enough, any budget is "more-or-less" like this one, but there's not any evidence that the American people support a budget very much like this one.
It's no secret that they differ from Democrats, on average, in those directions. It's also not a secret that the GOP—including a large percentage of those currently serving on Congress whose election you are trying to use as evidence of support for the Trump budget—has has not generally sought the kind of spending choices in the Trump budget, even when they had unitary control of government under George W. Bush.
> Therefore, it's quite clear that the American people support a budget something like this
"Something like this" is a vague term that could apply to any budget. Given the wide range of issues in the elections involved, it's not clear that any coherent message on budget priorities can be drawn, but, even ignoring that, it's unreasonable to conclude that even viewing every Congressional seat's election as a budget referendum with no confounding issues would get support for a budget with the kind of extreme cuts in the Trump budget.
Yes, the direction of changes is what you'd expect from any Republican government. The direction isn't the thing that makes this budget noteworty, though.
Voting for dessert with dinner doesn't mean you support being forcefed a full-sheet cake. Radical differences of magnitude can't just be swept under the rug as irrelevant.
Despite all the lies and money, the current administration lost the popular vote and more people voted for Democratic than Republican senators.
America is a left-liberal nation that has been taken over by the agenda of the very wealthy through dirty electoral tricks.
The balance will swing back to caring about people eventually.
Due to gerrymandering, they did not.
In each of the last three House elections, the Dems' House seats have been ~2.5% beneath their national vote, and the GOP's House seats have been 5-6% above their national vote. In 2012, Democrats actually won more seats nationwide but the GOP got 53.6% of the seats.
Also, this data ignores the voter suppression laws that prevent primarily Democratic citizens from voting.
* 2012
Nationwide vote: Dem 48.8% / GOP 47.6%
Seats won: Dem 46.2% / GOP 53.8%
* 2014
Nationwide vote: Dem 45.5% / GOP 51.2%
Seats won: Dem 43.2% / GOP 56.8%
* 2016
Nationwide vote: Dem 48.0% / GOP 49.1%
Seats won: Dem 44.6% / GOP 55.4%
Also worth noting: "Discretionary spending limits, addressed by this proposal, are set by congressional budget resolutions. Congress typically makes changes to the president’s proposal — last year, lawmakers disregarded Obama’s budget altogether. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-presi...
"We see NASA in an exploration role, in deep space research," Bob Walker, a senior Trump adviser, told the Guardian newspaper. "Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission."
...much more then I liked the previous administrator (Charles Bolden) mission:
"When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things," Bolden said in the interview which aired last week. "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."
Why were Muslim national relationships a NASA mission? Thought we had State Department for that.
Also, NASA's charter is much more broad than just space exploration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space...
"The original 1958 act charged the new Agency with conducting the aeronautical and space activities of the United States "so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:"
- The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
- The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
- The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;
- The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.
- The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.
- The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;
- Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and
- The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.
In 2012, a ninth objective was added: "The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes."
The other agencies that have related missions to which one might plausibly argue that NASA's earth science mission might reasonably be transferred are also (including NOAA) being massively cut, in those specific areas, by the proposed Trump budget.
So, while there might be a hypothetical budget which included massive cuts to NASA's earth-focussed science which was not alarming because the mission was merely being moved to a more appropriate agency, the proposed Trump budget is not that hypothetical budget.
Inspiring children sounds like something the Department of Education would control if everyone needs to stay strictly within their own box.
Should NASA go out of their way to exclude other nations when planning space missions? I don't get it.
Sorry, but if your nation doesn't prioritize space exploration and have any capability there, that's not NASA's fault, and I don't think it should be NASA's responsibility to try to fix that.
edit: Note, personally I'm extremely worried about the near future under this administration and Congress, and I'm a big supporter of space exploration. But Obama's directives to NASA were IMO ridiculous and a distraction from the serious science work that the agency should be focusing on (both in space and in the atmosphere, as per the name). The Muslim world hasn't done anything useful in science and technology for centuries now. To be sure, some people from that area are very bright and have been very productive, but only when they've left that place and come to societies where their work is appreciated and not oppressed. But those people didn't need scientific agencies to set aside their serious work and pander to them to get them to step up and get involved. If you want more encouragement of people to get into this work, that's the job of the Education department, and perhaps the State department if it involves foreign relations. This doesn't mean NASA couldn't do a little outreach here and there (a big agency like that has all kinds of things it's doing all the time), but it shouldn't be made out to be a serious mission requirement, just like when tech companies send an engineer to schools to brainwash^Wshow kids how great STEM careers are, that's just a small extra job, not the company's main mission or even something they publicize as highly important to them.
1) That NASA's top three missions are inspiring kids, working more with other nations including reaching out to muslim nations
2) That NASA's three current focuses within its sub-goal of science outreach are the above.
One of these interpretations is ludicrous, and it appears to be the one you've latched onto. You might want to ask yourself why you've let yourself believe something so patently ridiculous. What is going on in your head that leads to you being so angry about something that clearly isn't true?
NPR is also reporting that the Army Corp of Engineers has a proposed -16% cut (http://www.npr.org/2017/03/16/520305293/trump-to-unveil-hard...). Are they not responsible for mitigating the natural hazards that are expected to increase due to climate change?
Hitler (hypothetically, not I recreated a I discussing whether or not this was his belief) genuinely believing Jews were a dangerous threat that could be dealt with by no means short of extermination does not reduce the degree to which his action on that belief would rightly be seen as alarming.
> If you recall, he said something along the lines of climate change being a Chinese fairy tale.
OTOH, I also remember his official campaign staff and unofficial campaign surrogates repeatedly saying that his statements on most policy issues should not be taken literally. A position that Co tinted to be uswd, in various forms, by his White House staff (e.g., in claiming that his statements explicitly referencing wiretapping are not literally about wiretapping but other activities.)
If one is alarmed at Trump's explicit statements, the response is "calm down, stop taking him literally".
If one is later alarmed that Trump acts in accord with such a statement, the response is "calm down, he's just doing what he explicitly said."
Aside from the obvious game being played here, doing what you previously said doesn't make an action less alarming, in much the same way that acting in accord with your own genuine (if unjustified) belief does not.
My point is, he said he was going to do all these things, but he was still voted in anyway.
The only thing that surprises me about Trump is this: He's from New York City. I'm not even talking New State, NYC! How did a guy like this come out of NYC?
I was an intern last year working on one of the listed missions (now slated to be cut), and was planning on returning again this summer. I knew this was coming from Trump, but not this quickly or this hard. It's difficult to describe in concrete terms how I feel - I don't mean to be a sad sack; it's just a surreal situation. This means that many months of my work on my first real job were all for naught. Do you ever get personally attached to your work? I felt like my effort there was making an impact; it wasn't a boring sort-a-filing-cabinet internship. And it just disappeared for good, since I don't think there will be funding for a reboot later. I feel listless, which is also helped by the fact that it doesn't sound like I have a career in the near-term. Kinda pulled out from under me. And I only just found out about this from this news article; at least the concrete specifics.
Is anyone still taking applications for an undergrad intern, with intern-level experience in aerospace controls engineering (rising senior CS major)? I don't want to limit myself to that specifically either; anything with a decent cross-section of either math, software, or robotics is my jam. Sorry to put this out here like this, but I'm wary that I'm running out of time to find something since aerospace intern hiring seems to conclude all the way back in early Fall.
I can tell you how I feel.
I feel great that I'm not being forced to subsidize your career with my tax dollars.