NASA and Space Force work extremely closely in a vast number of capacities. There are dozens of ways she could have worked for NASA, and then had her responsibilities extend to assisting space force as well when it was created. Not sure why you desperately need to go out of your way to attack a successful woman, but it’s a pretty pathetic look.
Language is intended to convey content. Are you unable to understand what she said and need an adult to explain to you what she meant? While the wording could be less ambiguous, it does not detract from what she was trying to convey. She wasn’t posting a CV, and trying to dismiss her like this feels like you’re trying to come up with any reason to invalidate what she is saying.
To what end? What is the purpose that you feel you need to correct that inaccuracy, because she did not say “A former space communications specialist with NASA and later, the U.S. Space Force” like her actual bio does, even though you, and anyone else reading, understood that context?
She’s someone who distills space science down to easy to consume media to the point she specialized and got a job doing it for the government, so she has credentials to be able to talk about space on social media. That’s all the more she was saying.
NASA and Space Force work extremely closely in a vast number of capacities. There are dozens of ways she could have worked for NASA, and then had her responsibilities extend to assisting space force as well when it was created. Not sure why you desperately need to go out of your way to attack a successful woman, but it’s a pretty pathetic look.
Oh, did I say something inaccurate?
Not sure why you would disagree with accurate information.
It’s a pretty pathetic look.
Language is intended to convey content. Are you unable to understand what she said and need an adult to explain to you what she meant? While the wording could be less ambiguous, it does not detract from what she was trying to convey. She wasn’t posting a CV, and trying to dismiss her like this feels like you’re trying to come up with any reason to invalidate what she is saying.
Does it invalidate?
To me it corrects inaccuracies and deflates Forbes’ bullshit
To what end? What is the purpose that you feel you need to correct that inaccuracy, because she did not say “A former space communications specialist with NASA and later, the U.S. Space Force” like her actual bio does, even though you, and anyone else reading, understood that context?
And with 30 under 30, it’s 1,230 people a year. It’s just a list of influential under 30 year olds across various industries. It’s going to include good and bad people. Forbes itself addresses it even: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesunder30team/2023/11/28/hall-of-shame-the-10-most-dubious-people-ever-to-make-our-30-under-30-list/
She’s someone who distills space science down to easy to consume media to the point she specialized and got a job doing it for the government, so she has credentials to be able to talk about space on social media. That’s all the more she was saying.
Cool. Glad I was able to help her say it more accurately
Taking credit for a woman’s words…
It would be more accurate regardless of sex
I’m not the one making it about that
Pathetic