This is probably just coincidence so don't take me too seriously but here's what I've noticed:

The professors of my biology/chem courses: "Hey buddy, don't be afraid to ask questions we've made sure to try and make things easy to understand. Here are some extra resourses for you if you're having trouble. We've structured the marking so that you have lots of opportunities to catch up if you have a bad week etc. Good luck! So proud of you all! 🥰"

The professors of anything to do with math or tech: "LISTEN HERE YOU LAZY PEICES OF SHIT. IF YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING I'M SUPPOSED TO BE TEACHING IN CLASS THEN FUCK YOU. WE HAVE ONE TEST AND IF YOU FAIL THAT THEN YOU'RE FUCKED AND IT'S YOUR FAULT FOR NOT READING THE EXTRA RESOURSES I HID WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE THEY WERE THERE. WHAT? YOU HAVE A QUESTION? THAT'S A YOU PROBLEM, IDIOT! frothingfash"

  • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean they're all DOE, either NNSA (so nuclear weapons adjacent) or Office of Sciences (catch-all for everything else). Obviously the former is more problematic, but in the end, the funding allocation and priorities are set in Washington to further the federal governments interests.

      • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Haha, you think that based on the title, but their primary responsibility is not energy, it's nuclear weapons. Energy is something of a euphemism.

        Division Funding (Billions)

        Nuclear Security $11.5

        Energy and Environment $9.5

        Science $4.9

        Management $0.25

        Other $0.85

        Total $28

          • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean I work for a state government, so my objections aren't working for the government as opposed what jobs in the government I'm qualified for, which are largely NatSec. I could work for NOAA I suppose as a modeler, which I wouldn't find morally objectionable, it's just not directly in my previous fields.