It had a plutonium power source which freaked a handful of people out (as they feared it would be spread around if the mission failed and exploded in the upper atmosphere).
More interestingly Cassini’s plunge into Saturn was done for “environmental” reasons, potentially - after passing through a plume coming up from Enceladus and discovering that beneath the icy surface the moon has a warm, salty water core, it was decided to end the mission by disposing of the craft in Saturn, just in case it was carrying any Earth microbes that had survived the journey and could contaminate a life bearing moon of Saturn.
I generally think people should be allowed to say dumb things. And I think way too many people, on both sides, that make dumb holocaust comparisons. However, if she cared about her job, she should have been cognizant of the fact that Disney was looking for a reason to fire her. Hell, there’s rumors that she was essentially fired back in November, with Disney just looking for another excuse to make it public. Imo, if you want to make troll posts, make an anonymous account. Do you have to “famously” troll? Anyway, I highly doubt she wasn’t given any internal warnings. You get warnings, you do what your employer says, if you want to keep your job. Just like everybody else.
Many deep-space probes utilize plutonium as their power source. If a significant mass of plutonium were vaporized in the atmosphere upwind of a city, it could cause serious health problems for thousands if not millions of people.
The 1997 Cassini mission carried 72 pounds of plutonium. That’s a molar fuckton of plutonium. It’s more than any previous space mission and more than the biggest nuclear bombs.
Caution and scrutiny were absolutely warranted in that case. But to say “the environmentalists wanted to cancel Cassini” is just lowkey ignorance combined with lowkey dishonesty.
Here. Basically some nuts got panties twisted over the spacecraft’s RTG, a pretty common component of deep space missions. There’s an RTG on Perseverence, the craft that just landed on Mars.
And down goes McCammond. Just weeks after her boyfriend went down for going mafia on a Politico reporter.
I agree that the tweets are horrible - and the fact that they were made 10 years ago when she was a teenager doesn’t change the fact that they still needed to be confronted. What I question is this idea that you have to threaten someone’s future to make whatever point SJWs are trying to make.
“Well it was a business decision” – Yes, I get that. But I think businesses, like all people, have a civic responsibility to act reasonably, and to make reasonable decisions.
It’s not about ‘justice’ or ‘atonement.’ It’s about exploiting wokeness for power. Instead of exploiting class differences the loons on the far left and their cowardly enablers are exploiting a victimhood hierarchy.
I’m not even sure what this reference to SJWs is supposed to be.
The point the magazine staff had was that there were plenty of other qualified candidates for the position without the baggage and/or with a better record of dealing with their historically shitty behavior. Her boyfriend’s “defense” of her did not help at all. That sort of abuse of power compounds the problem.
And after Conde Nast backed McCammond, their other point was that Conde Nast doesn’t exactly have the greatest history with dealing with these sorts of situations. That whole situation with Kamala Harris’ Vogue cover is hardly a few months old.
And if you have the likes of molluscs of dubious intelligence agreeing with you, it’s a good time to question one’s position.
I wouldn’t say that; I think it’s about wanting to see someone suffer because they have thoughts that remind us of some sort of hurt we’ve experienced, and I get that on some level. But I don’t just firing someone’s ass makes racism go away; it becomes a cliched response after a while.
Yes, in other words, “it was a business decision,” which I get, as I said. I don’t think it’s a reasonable reaction. I think a lot of internet shaming is understandable on an emotional level but not necessarily helpful.
When someone gets fired for not being woke enough, it doesn’t make the person who gets shit canned any more woke; it either hurts people who already have changed and who get it, or it makes those who are less woke dig in deeper and fight against their detractors. It does nothing to fight racism or intolerance. Absolutely nothing.
Even if the idea is good, which is nominally working to end bigotry, the arbitrariness and disproportionate magnitude of the mob is why the concept of due process is so important and mob rule is dangerous. People on the left foolishly believe they can control the woke mob and use it to push an agenda that normal democracy takes too long to enact. Well this woke mob is not controllable and it’s going to get nuttier.
I don’t think the left think they’re controlling anyone; they’re not weaponizing a mob. I think that’s kinda ‘out there’, actually.
Various constituencies believe that they are doing good by potentially scaring others from making similarly offensive comments. Again, I get the logic. Show people you mean business – fire those who say this crap and send a message that this won’t be tolerated, and that there will be consequences.
I don’t know…I think sometimes we all say shit we regret. If someone recorded some of the shit I’ve said in private I’m sure I would have been fired 10 or 15 times. I am still a very compassionate and ‘woke’ guy for the most part. I’d be bitter as hell if someone used one bad moment against me and harmed my ability to earn a living. It wouldn’t make me more tolerant.
No it doesn’t. First of all the increasing ludicrousness of what is or isn’t racist or bigoted makes the whole concept of racism a joke. Secondly, it alienates would be yet rational allies. Finally, the internal intellectual contradictions in the woke movement leads to bigotry within the woke movement.
You have a more generous and optimistic outlook on human nature than I do. I’ve never seen a movement in human history based upon a never ending malleable set of standards of ideological purity that has ended well.