• @kbotc
    link
    English
    315 hours ago

    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.

    • @HappySkullsplitter
      link
      -115 hours ago

      Does it invalidate?

      To me it corrects inaccuracies and deflates Forbes’ bullshit

      • @kbotc
        link
        English
        215 hours ago

        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.

          • @kbotc
            link
            English
            114 hours ago

            Taking credit for a woman’s words…

            • @HappySkullsplitter
              link
              -214 hours ago

              It would be more accurate regardless of sex

              I’m not the one making it about that

              Pathetic