• @KazuyaDarklight@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1332 months ago

    At least the NASA hires were all “former” nazis, rather than actively practicing. (At least on paper, I’m not actively aware of anyone continuing to be terrible after jumping to the US.)

  • @vexikron@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    55
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    In fairness NASA does not likely currently employ too many Nazis, compared to say other large aerospace companies that often get govt contracts for similar kinds of groundbreaking engineering work.

    Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc.

    My cousin, my Jewish cousin actually had to leave a promising engineering contract at Lockheed (likely Skunkworks, more on that later), because he could not handle the Anti Semitism, far right views of coworkers, combined with having to basically live in the middle of nowhere.

    He now works for Blue Origin.

    Given my cousin’s expertise in advanced ceramics and what he mentioned about his work, I’m convinced he was working in the SR 72 but he of course cannot confirm due to NDA.

    • @Xatix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      32
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Hello, I‘m a happy anonymous internet user in the internet and not at all working for a secret government agency. I am taking great interest in your cousin. Please send me the address of your cousin.

      Sincerely,

      Your friend the internet user.

    • IWantToFuckSpez
      link
      fedilink
      132 months ago

      Not a big surprise that engineers in the military industrial complex are racist right wing chuds.

    • @Thrashy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      There’s a plant where I live that refurbishes non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons. I haven’t yet seen any of their engineering staff implicated in the January 6 insurrection, but I figure with the politics I’ve heard out of that bunch it’s only a matter of time.

    • @hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 months ago

      I’m pretty sure that’s sarcastic… I can’t believe there would be people actually thinking so.

      Then again we’re talking about someone in xitter so

        • As a libertarian, I agree, that’s pretty standard.

          My personal views are a bit different though. I want schools to all be charter schools (so publicly funded, privately run), and require city transit to service the schools in the area (i.e. no more school buses). That way kids can pick their school based on the merits of the school, not whatever boundaries they happen to live in. Good schools would survive, bad schools would close.

          Inner city public schools tend to suck, so those kids should have more options. That’s the main intuition here.

          • @Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            22 months ago

            The metrics of good and bad will be gamed even worse than the neo-liberal’s “no child left behind” system does. Those with early adoption, or starting from a heightened pedestal, will use their advantage to kill competition. The bad schools would be shuttered, replacements will be scrapped as margins thinned, and you will end up with the same old bad areas simply being without options at all or, if forced, even worse ones than previous. Tensions with the public will be worse as pocketed politicians skirt doing anything about this. Suggestions like forcing the ones left to take everyone will just have everyone invested in this system pointing out that it would just be the public school system again. This will deepen the divide between haves and have-nots.

            Require city transport to allow school kids? Well that runs contrary to the wishes of the libertarian billionaires who are in the process of privatizing all of that. Sure they may virtue signal at first and, seemingly, eagerly jump on the idea. The whole time they will be working on convincing everyone that this is just giving hand outs to the kids of lazy parents who can’t even pay a few dollars a day for their kid to get to school. Also, a bunch of cities already do this. Having a high school, and often college, student ID gets you on the bus at no cost at point of service. When these cities privatize their public transportation these types of services for students, seniors, small children, etc., free rides, and discounts, are immediately put on the chopping block.

            Inner city schools often suck because of decades of efforts to disenfranchise the minority populations in them, especially the ones left over after white flight. The public school system at large sucks because there is a massively moneyed interest group who wants it to fail. So they can impose a system of chartered schools, and private schools, at the public expense, without needing to concede the resources they currently do to the demographics they don’t want to.

            The only offered solutions offered will be loans to pay for primary education. Loans that will be backed by the government, with few limitations on the schools, like the system devised by investment firms in the 70s that became things like FAFSA, and further means of turning as much tax money over to private interests as possible. This has already happened in pocket instances, and continues to.

            Fortunately, for now, these issues have slowed the adoption rate of such policies, and created strong resistance to it among the broader population. This is one of the reasons the GOP has gone so much harder on schools in the past few years. It allows for the billionaire set to divert that tax money to their pockets, and it also allows the fascists, and theocrats, they have allied themselves with to impose their dogma on everyone. They even say as much in the Project 2025 document.

            • The metrics of good and bad will be gamed even worse

              I don’t follow. In my area, charter schools use the same metrics as public schools, they’re just expected to outperform in order to keep their charter. They’re also not allowed to discriminate, so admissions are based on a lottery system.

              They have an unfair advantage because they don’t have to provide buses, which means only kids whose parents can take them end up going, and those parents tend to have more time to be involved in schools.

              Require city transport to allow school kids?

              It’s more than that, it should shift the burden of getting kids to school onto the city transit system. This would, at first, just put city transit in charge of public school bus routes, but those routes would be adjusted to overlap with other city lines . If we merely require buses to take kids for free, that’s only going to help for kids and schools already along bus routes (which is exactly 0 schools in my area out of 6 or so).

              Having the city handle transit for school kids puts charter and public schools on the same footing since it removes the requirement for parents to take their kids to attend a different school.

              This way, schools can specialize, such as IT, science, or fine arts. Public schools are usually jacks of all trades, masters of none. Allowing schools to specialize should improve outcomes since kids could move schools until they find one that works for them. They would all be held to the same metrics, they’d just differ on the extras they provide.

              Inner city schools often suck because of decades of efforts

              Right, and this would enable kids to leave those crappy schools and go to ones in more privileged areas. So those inner city schools would need to improve (i.e. specialize) or completely fail.

              private schools

              Private schools should never receive public funding. Full stop. If parents want to send their kids to a private school, they can pay for it and give up the public funding (which improves public and charter schools for everyone else). So I’m very much against voucher systems.

              Charter schools should receive public funding because they’re providing the same service for the same price. But they need to be on equal footing with public schools.

              The only offered solutions offered will be loans to pay for primary education. Loans that will be backed by the government

              The government shouldn’t be in the business of loans. The issue with FAFSA loans are that they’re not dischargeable in bankruptcy, so there’s pretty much no risk to the lender. If risk is low, the lender will lend to people who really shouldn’t be taking out loans.

              If the only loans available were dischargeable, private loans, banks would only give loans to people who have a high chance of repaying them, so people with good grades studying in-demand fields. Or perhaps companies would offer scholarships in exchange for a contract to work upon graduation. Also, since loans would be harder to get, schools would be more motivated to keep prices affordable since kids wouldn’t just be able to get a FAFSA loan to pay whatever ridiculous tuition they charge.

              Either we should go for free higher education or remove federal loans entirely. I’m totally fine with federal grants, but anything coming from the government should be free of any obligation to repay. I’m convinced that federal student loans are largely at fault for drastically increasing higher education costs.

              GOP

              Well yeah, the GOP is full of complete nonsense here. They’re worse than the Democratic Party on education, even though I think Democrats also have poor policies.

              What we need is higher paid teachers, and to reduce the barrier for students in bad schools to go to better schools.

              • @Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                12 months ago

                They have to do better than public schools, with those gone they will be in competition between each other. There will no longer be a standing baseline school. In the few places that put their money where their mouth is, and moved to some sort of charter system, it didn’t take long for things to end up like the corporate world. First ones in, and the ones with the biggest money behind them, ended up being all that was left, with fewer schools, them not willing to take on more and more students, them pointing towards their vanishing “operations margins”. That if they lost these their discretion on payments of staff and services would be gone and they would just be public schools, with extra steps, again. Public schools were re-opened. This generally didn’t even take over 5 years.

                Charter schools were not designed to take over public schools in the first place. They were created to pick-up the demographics that had more resources than those in poverty, but not quite enough to really afford private schools. Private school vouchers against taxes will always be a wedge in this debate. The same people who want the charter system want this. These people are often libertarians. I don’t care about no true scottsman ideas of what a libertarian is, the libertarian composition gets most of it’s money from these people, so this is what libertarian is. There is also the whole libertarianism was never meant to be a means of creating liberty but, instead, just completely handing over power to the new lords, industrialists, and this is why the early libertarians were so enamored with fascism. Not that fascism isn’t an issue with the modern libertarian party.

                The government didn’t originally want the loan system we got. The extremely wealthy paid people until the bill read in such a fashion, and continued until schools could basically ask for whatever and get it. I mean, if the only thing keeping people out of Harvard and Princeton was their academic performance, well then it would no longer be the country club with classes anymore. The only way to ensure that “elite” schools could keep the poors out is to allow them to ask whatever they wanted. This makes a wave throughout the whole school system though, and is raises the prices at every level eventually. The only other way was socialized schooling, which you mentioned. This is not an option to the libertarian billionaires. So the compromise is to set up a system to extract as much tax money as possible. Also, most private loans has some form of government subsidy, even if hidden, and often preferably hidden, behind a byzantine system of bureaucracy. Corporations get to extract tax money and it’s difficult enough to find out how little risk they actually take on. This allows them to keep their government scapegoat.

                I did underwriting for Sallie Mae for years. This was in the early 2000s and moving to a charter system was THE hot topic in the US school industry. We did a lot of research on this subject. It ultimately didn’t take over because it can’t. It either makes the short side of the stick just not exist anymore, or it becomes a public school via forced private entities. You either have public education, or you have the poor go without. This is not tenable in the long run. While it would be a huge dump of resources into the “upper middle” and create a bunch of gains initially, it is myopic. The loss of those resources at the bottom create a larger drag than the reassignment of those funds creates in gains. There were smaller cities that tried this. It was an unmitigated disaster. That is why the government, and the banks, haven’t budged since and it’s mostly people who have never done anything with the education system at large that keep it as a talking point, or some pet project at the local level with rich people and their government stooges. We need to get private industry out of the school loan system. So we can scrap school loans. Education just needs to be available to everyone. This includes vocational training and certification. This is what was actually wanted, but private money interests butted in and turned it into a method to extract tax money, the current loan system, like always. Then they turned the narrative around.

                Your point about the school busses doesn’t really matter much. If the government has to pay for the transportation to these schools it will get in the way of private industry profiting off kids getting to school. So this will not be popular amongst the privatize everything set, unless they can turn it either into a segue into being that, or just extracting tax money.

                I think we agree on the last point except, rather than burden better schools with more students, we come to the reality that bad schools are bad because the areas are poor. This mean they have more mental health issues, have more physical health issues, and just all-around have more issues because being poor is more expensive per capita than having wealth. So we need to put more money per capita in. This actually gets brought up often, but then the poor, poor, white suburbanites cry about how it’s unfair, even though their schools generally receive more resources even in places where local income doesn’t affect school budget (ie TX). So “inner city” and rural schools stay falling apart.

                Also we need to stop using “inner city” as the whipping boy. This is a racist dog whistle. Rural USA is poor, it is soaked in drugs, violence, bad schools, few opportunities, pregnant teens, etc. It’s just easier to keep this on the down low when it’s mostly white, and it’s rather isolated. They “benefit” from not being paraded around like minority demographics, and because it’s easier for the local government to ignore a LOT of the problems there. So it never goes on record. Everyone here knows you don’t just go wandering around rural Appalachia, but everyone also claims it’s so safe. Documentaries routinely come out putting a spotlight on how a lot of rural USA looks like “developing” nations and has drugs and crime everywhere. They then gasp, then go right back to “rural = better life” but might be boring.

                • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  The goal here is an education experience where kids and parents are in control (with kids getting more control the older they get), not districts. Some kids do better with more structure, some do better with less, and I don’t think the public school system can really provide that diversity.

                  I want a school system where you can get a good job with a high school education, and to get there, high schools need to provide a diverse set of marketable skills, from STEM to trades. I’ve heard good things about the German school system, so maybe the public school system can provide that, idk.

                  And maybe that’s where those areas you mentioned failed, they probably treated charter schools as the end goal and not a tool.

                  feel free to skip (discussion about libertarianism)

                  libertarian

                  Feel free to skip this section, I’m merely trying to give context to how I use the term libertarian.

                  There’s at least three things people think of when it comes to libertarians:

                  • hardcore fiscal conservatives, i.e. Tea Party Republicans
                  • the Libertarian Party, and whatever caucus currently has control (right now, that’s the Mises caucus)
                  • ideological libertarians, who base their views in the Non-Aggression Principle

                  There’s more than that as well that may fit (e.g. anarcho-capitalists like Javier Milei in Argentina), but that’s getting into the weeds.

                  I think you’re referring to first group, and I generally refer to the last, and I think of it more as a direction than a destination (as Penn Jillette puts it, “solve problems with more freedom, not less”).

                  And then you mention “libertarians” and “fascism” in the same breath, so you and I must have a very different understanding of libertarianism. American libertarianism has its roots in the classical liberalism of the founding fathers (especially Jefferson), and really got going opposing FDR’s coopting of the term “liberal” to mean “progressive.” Before FDR, libertarians would’ve been called “liberals,” in favor of small government.

                  Fascism is completely opposite to my understanding of libertarianism. At no point would I ever consider the needs of the state (not society, the state) to trump the liberty of the individual, yet that’s precisely what fascism is all about.

                  That’s about as far a I’ll go in the “no true Scotsman” discussion, which is neither productive nor interesting. I just wanted to clarify what I mean to give context when I use the term.

                  Also we need to stop using “inner city” as the whipping boy

                  I use it because it’s low hanging fruit. An urban area already generally has a functioning transit system, so moving people from the poor part of town to a wealthier area wouldn’t be a big ask in terms of new resources.

                  Rural areas have a different set of problems. They don’t have the population to support competition, so those schools should probably remain government run, at least until there’s decent transportation to more densely populated areas.

                  Whatever system we end up with, it’s going to need to look different in urban vs rural areas.

                  So we can scrap school loans

                  I don’t think that should be the goal here. Maybe it makes sense ultimately, but the true goal should be to make K-12 education sufficient for most people (it currently is not), and for higher education to be available for those who truly want/need it. Many kids won’t finish high school, much less take advantage of free college.

                  The reason we got stuck with federal student loans is because the government made such a big push to get kids to go to college. A lot of kids couldn’t afford it, hence the direct student loan was born. So many kids get degrees because they’re told they need to go to college and find out later that many degrees just aren’t worth anything in the market.

                  Free education misses this point entirely imo. The core problem isn’t that students are getting into debt (that’s a symptom), it’s that they’re getting unmarketable degrees or simply drop out. Eliminating school costs fixes the debt problem, but it doesn’t solve the worthless degree problem.

                  We need to deemphasize college and make our K-12 schools as good as they can be. I think competition is the way forward, and there are a lot of ways that can be structured.

  • @Bassman27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    How would a civilian support either of these companies apart from writing tweets about how cool they are…?

    Edit: re-read the tweet I’m dumb sorry folks!