4 ms·

So do you also disagree with the premise of the government providing to this service, or only that it’s not the stated role of embassies to do it? In deciding

So do you also disagree with the premise of the government providing to this service, or only that it’s not the stated role of embassies to do it? In deciding it’s quite reasonable to stop, is the thinking that “mission creep” = bad, so it justifies stopping something regardless of the big picture benefits? Or do you not consider the benefits significant? Given a business with many departments, say you notice one department has some mission creep but somehow it’s also increasing profitability for the company overall. What do you focus on - only mentioning stopping the department mission creep, or first mentioning people should make damn sure the value is preserved as they consider any reorganization?

mytailorisrich 2y ago
I do not know the benefits, if any. But that's actually besides the point, which is mission and scope. It is not the job of the US government (or of any foreign governments) to provide air quality data in cities around the world and so I find it reasonable if they decide to stop. That's all. I feel the reactions are much too strong and emotional, probably because many people here have been riled up by Trump and Musk so now overreact to anything they announce.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  It costs almost nothing, it helps people around the world, and it creates good will for the US.