When ACA passed, and being female could no longer be considered a pre-existing condition, my premiums dropped, and my grant budget for travel and equipment effectively achieved gender parity.

European centrists

Call them:

Schumer (NY)
202 224-6542

Booker (NJ)
202 224-3224

King (ME)
202 224-5344

Hassan (NH)
202 224-3324

Durbin (IL)
202 224-2152

Ossoff (GA)
202 224-3521

Shaheen (NH)
202 224-2841

Gillibrand (NY)
202 224-4451

Masto (NV)
202 224-3542

Warner (VA)
202 224-2023

Fetterman (PA)
No Point

Risk is HIGHLY skewed. Managers manage a successful program if the item gets to flight, regardless of its ultimate fate. Technical engineers built flight hardware and get promoted. But the currency of scientists is publication of results. We get nothing if the experiment fails.

So we get a lot of offerors asking (telling) scientists to "do science" with base measurements that they can readily make. It's like telling me that since someone can measure each blade of grass on my lawn every day for a year, I should figure out how to "do my science" with that.

In the abstract, inefficiencies may be overcome by more frequent opportunities. But more opportunities cost more money, so we don't really have that luxury in practice.

I actually think that the platform - instrument model can probably work well in some situations, but that it does shift a lot of cost and redundant systems onto the instrument if they can't rely on the bus for accommodations. It's inefficient.

I'm glad to be in your orbit.

attn @dddawson.bsky.social

Hot wok-ed Mountain Dew

YAY

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXfc...