Aside from the different perception between the genders. It goes without saying that these biases must be accounted for even before we start training AIs on these classifications.

do or don't? Your Mastodon post says "don't", your Bluesky post says do.

DESI has the cosmology survey, other science piggybacks on.
This one defines surveys first and then distributes the observations to the best targets available from a selection function (finish targets which need various visits, cadence requirements, survey completion percentage, etc.).

I forgot to say that the 15 surveys are on top of the 10 Consortium surveys, so 25 surveys in total.

Targets are:
Metal poor halo stars, Stars in the Magellanic Clouds, eRosita / AGN follow-up, Time-Domain targets, Cosmology, etc. etc. etc.!

Ha!

We have *so much* astronomy data - not scarce at all. It was true in the 90s that we were data limited, but not anymore. Plus most data is public after a year.

Yes, I actually found the "9 more JWSTs" funny 😄. I did not want to come accross as killjoy.

But if there were 10x the resources, I am sure that there would still be an oversubscription (probably not 9:1, alas), simply because there would be more astronomers. Supply and demand.

And why not to combat hunger? Or housing? Or child education? Or even arts? Why spend it on luxury science?
Yours, just as mine above are strawman arguments.

With more resources, there was a clear path on the decadal which project would get money next (for example a successor to Chandra or a FarIR instrument), nowhere was there a mention of a second JWST. Experts have spent time on this.

I fail to see how more resources would increase the available time to observe on an unique telescope. The year only has ~pi x 10^7 seconds, no money can change that.