4 ms·
I don't see any big trouble with the quoted text. The language is a bit nerdy, and a bit bureaucratic, but that's exactly what I'd expect from NASA.
by nine_k 7mo ago
I don't see any big trouble with the quoted text. The language is a bit nerdy, and a bit bureaucratic, but that's exactly what I'd expect from NASA.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- archontes 7mo agoThis has got Russell Vought's fingerprints on it, mark my words. There's some way this is enshittified.
- rdiddly 7mo agoIt's scattered and disorganized like this administration. You work on real missions, alongside the teams building them OK alongside, but not ON, the teams building them? So apparently not actually building them myself? And also, does anyone build missions, or do they perhaps build systems? For a few days, access is granted to this work. Access is granted to whom? And to what work, the work I'll supposedly be doing? Hopefully yeah I have access to my own work. Or do you mean the work of the people alongside whom I'll be working on missions (the builders of the missions that is)? The number is extremely limited. What number? The window only lasts four days. Oh now there's a window analogy too. And they already said "a few days" so one of the two is redundant.
- suttontom 6mo agoYou would make a good technical writer!
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- dartharva 7mo agoAre you serious? Those aren't even coherent sentences!?
- altmanaltman 7mo agoNo, its literally written using ChatGPT