>What is the expected compensation for participants? Compensation varies based on experience level and agency placement. Annual salaries are expected to be in the approximate range of $150,000 to $200,000. Benefits include health insurance, retirement plans, paid time off, and eligibility for performance-based awards.
>Tech Force will primarily recruit early-career technologists
So "early-career" but they're going to get paid GS-14/15 pay[1] in DC? New grad engineers in DC are going to be GS-7/9 at best. This is either a blatant lie, or created by someone who has no idea of how federal pay works (or both).
As an aside, I was a fed for >10 years and left last year for industry but stay in touch with friends still working federal jobs. Before this administration recruiting was extremely difficult and candidate quality was low. I've heard that it's nearly impossible now and in the last 18 months they've only been able to hire a single person. Federal jobs used to be considered stable, with good benefits, but low pay. Now they're unstable, the current administration is actively working to make benefits worse, and the pay is still really low.
> Before this administration recruiting was extremely difficult and candidate quality was low. I've heard that it's nearly impossible now and in the last 18 months they've only been able to hire a single person. Federal jobs used to be considered stable, with good benefits, but low pay. Now they're unstable, the current administration is actively working to make benefits worse, and the pay is still really low.
Also, many people took pride in the service they provided to their country (or to the people, or as part of a team that did good, however they thought of it).
I don't have high hopes for this new thing.
After recent treatment of federal employees, and other things going on in the US this year, including how USDS as DOGE was weaponized against the US... I'd expect this new thing to only be able to recruit from these categories:
1. Outright bad people, with anti-US, looter/saboteur intent, as we've seen from other facets recently. They will focus on their own bad-person individual interests.
2. People who aren't bad, but who are so cognitively impaired, that they still don't realize that they're probably going to get screwed personally and/or directed to be the baddies. They will be bad at everything they do.
3. People who are intelligent and pro-US, and have no illusions about what they're signing up for, but who desperately need the income, after being screwed earlier this year. They won't be inspired to execute well on whatever anti-US directives they're given.
Before all of this happened the hiring I had to deal with when I was federal fell into similar buckets:
1. Completely inept or lazy people that couldn't get a job anywhere else (~50%)
2. Smart people that took the job because it was close to their family (~30%)
3. Smart people that took the job because they liked the the specific mission and felt like it was really important (~10%)
4. Smart people that took the job after retiring from a private industry job as a sort of laid-back post-retirement hobby (we called them re-treads, ~10%)
From what I've heard, a lot of federal employers can only hire from the #1 category now, and the applicants in that category have gotten worse.
There's just no path to home ownership in the DC area for the fed career path after the ZIRP era. A capable person would have to be insane or desperate given the economics alone.
DC has the highest per capita income of anywhere in the US (vs other states/territories), so when you realize federal workers are producing the most value for America the economics are at least a little better. If you look at relative economic slackers like workers of NYC and the private industry where less value is per capita created, it's a bit rougher.
Googling average Federal worker income in DC, every number I came up with was the above the average for DC, and DC is higher than every other state/territory.
I find nothing supporting your assertion but plenty opposing it. Feds are not only pulling it up, but the biggest group of people doing so.
One thing to remember is that federal workers tend to be older because most agencies have been encouraged to hire contractors for decades. That skews averages up towards the mid-career managers, which will seem high if you compare it to the entire job market but if you only compare them with similar private sector employees who have comparable experience and skills they’re underpaid.
Yeah, it's marginally above average for DC, but that doesn't mean they're "raking it in". The average (which is a bad metric for income) is dragged up by the wealthy in DC balancing out the poor in DC, not hordes of Federal Workers (most of whom live outside DC in Maryland/Virginia, FWIW) making $120k.
What number do you have for median federal worker income in DC then? The median representing the 'hordes' were making $120+k from what I saw, not just the average.
Okay, cite your source for that. ZipRecruiter says the median federal income is $125k, with other sources saying the average is $130k. I don't see any source saying they're making way more than that.
This is a distorted comparison and you know it. DC in unique among US states and territories in that it encompasses a major metropolitan area with no rural regions. In this comparison, DC also leads the country in population density, average building height, public transit usage, latte consumption, and any other correlate of living in a city.
No it doesn't, not according to the linked data you're proposing. I sorted by per-capita income of MSAs on the second table of that page, it shows DC MSA blowing the other metropolitan areas away. Might not still be accurate as that's a 2010 census, but you're the one insisting on it.
Looks like you're the one, distorting your own citations, mate and you "know it." Methinks this a case of psychological concept known as 'projection'.
I thought you had to realize that comparing DC to a state like California wasn't going to be an apples-to-apples comparison, which is why I wrote, "and you know it." I'm sorry for making assumptions.
You're also right, I was sloppy with my citation. I looked into the source data, and I believe Wikipedia's second table may be wrong here. Here is B19301 from the 2010 census. The Bridgeport MSA is first: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5YSPT2010.B19301?q=b19301...
Unfortunately, the table on Wikipedia is uncited (beyond the 2010 census) and was added by an anonymous IP address editor, so I don't know how they got their numbers. I'll double check my work and update the article if I don't find anything else.
Generally, though, my point is that if you compare the states and DC, you'll find that DC is an outlier on a lot of dimensions. If you compare the DC metro area with other MSAs, a lot of that exceptionalism goes away.
This feels like it needs a MAGA vs Republican distinction. There are plenty of Republicans who (privately) have issues with some things Trump is doing.
They aren't in Congress, they are working in the states, I would guess. The Republicans in Congress mostly volunteered for a spinectomy when Trump was elected again.
That's part of it: many felt the winds and simultaneously made the choice to "focus on family" and step back from politics during the 2nd Trump administration.
But the wheel turns, and there's going to be a lot of folks in the party with very sharp axes to grind during the lame duck period.
The meme is that Susan Collins is “always concerned”. But still votes along with the MAGAs. If they are silently going along, what difference does it make? They are still MAGA.
No one except the Freedom Caucus in the House are true MAGA to their core the rest are just opportunists. I’m not sure who are the true believers in the Senate.
Absolutely not. Almost every non-MAGA Republican voice that served in federal public office has been ousted, and it's not like they were good to begin with.
by and large the "anti-trump republican" has ceased to be a relevant political bloc. they have either vote for trump / pro trump candidates and are functionally indistinguishable from MAGA, vote for the most moderate democrat possible, or have given up politics entirely. I suspect you didn't mean this, but the largest group of self identified republicans who have an issue with trump are angry he isn't far right enough (ie groypers, klansmen, neonazis, and like).
I've had two such chats with Trump supporters, and one said in great detail that this statement is true. He acknowledged that Trump has done a number of ethically and legally problematic things, and that supporting Trump means enabling this, but feels that he has to accept that necessary evil in order to achieve his policy goals on various issues. (The other flatly denied that Trump has ever done anything wrong and refused to keep talking when I produced examples of the most pointlessly cruel stuff.)
Have you heard differently in your own casual chats on the topic?
Reducing illegal immigration seemed to be the primary one. Some stuff on civil rights too, but I'm not sure if that was a big concern for the guy I was talking to or an attempt to find common ground where he knew I'd be more sympathetic.
> It's always easy to spot a person who has enclosed themselves in a political or ideological bubble. They're typically first to apply a label to a large group of people and then assume all the people with that label are the exact same.
Your recent posting history here includes calling the entire European Union a "non-contributing toddler" to the world. Hmm.
Nothing like putting in a multi decade civil service career and coming in one day to find a 20-something installed over you whose primary qualification was being hired at a "friendly" tech company and making the right kind of joke around the CEO.
... although that seems depressingly like it would also be the experience with new administrators being installed in executive agencies every 4 years, except they're slightly older.
By function a GS will ALWAYS be subordinate to a political appointee and there’s nothing they can do about it
I posted elsewhere that I left a govt career as a military officer precicely because of this reality. It’s like a old boring joke now that politicians are corrupt and worthless.
I will tell you from the inside that not only is it true but it’s 10 times to 100 times worse than you think it is.
I have multiple stories of operational systems, functions, whatever you wanna call them that we’re working exceptionally well had good backing, good funding and were completely wiped out because whoever became the deputy under secretary for that budget line decided they didn’t want to do it anymore. and completely shelved decades worth of work. Like literally I remember having to unplug a server that was running life-critical beacons for POWs because they weren’t being used enough.
As if that weren’t enough that same development problem then shifted over to some new hot organization that is in the politicians jurisdiction and then they start over from scratch with none of the learning from the previous admin.
There is no positive system that can be affected by the United States government
It does not exist, they cannot functionally or structurally exist, because the government of the United States but is not and has never been built on supporting citizens or the global community it is built and has always been built to support wealthy politicians and that’s all.
I’m not aware of how every other countries work but the ones I’ve seen the inside are the same
Going into the government for the “mission” is probably the most intentionally ignorant thing somebody could do given the plethora of easily accessible data proving exactly this
Somehow this country has managed to do big and bold things when it is needed. Those great systems that were dismantled got built at one point so it is theoretically possible to do good. Furthermore other countries seem to do a better job at serving their citizens so its not like effective government is impossible((look at how the EU at least gets some things that benefit their citizens even though most of it is a mess).
There has got to be some pathway to get back to that.
> a GS will ALWAYS be subordinate to a political appointee
It’s worth being specific about what is meant by “political appointee” here. That term has specific legal meaning in the context of federal staffing, and (as I understand it, not a lawyer) is not the same thing as “GS employee who was hired as part of an administration’s political agenda”.
> Nothing like putting in a multi decade civil service career and coming in one day to find a 20-something installed over you
GS grade does not correspond directly to manager/managee relationships at plenty of federal agencies. Someone getting hired at a higher GS grade is not automatically “over you” in the formal reporting hierarchy. That’s not to say this never happens (GS:org chart level is the case more often than not, I’d guess), but it’s not a given.
Now, if your issue is that agencies sometimes offer high (by the standards of current employees) GS grades to attract talented hires, then I agree that is a problem! The solution to that is to improve government pay scales and fix fed hiring more generally: https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/dear-mr-kupor-please-fix-fede...
Until that is done, (good) policies like the Pendleton Act cannot help that much.
Not being dismissive of your experience (or that of a civil servant with 10s of years of experience). I have a deep respect for that kind of work and folks who give up more lucrative opportunities in order to serve their country and fellow citizens.
> whose primary qualification was being hired at a "friendly" tech company and making the right kind of joke around the CEO
That’s being awfully dismissive of the individuals skill set. Nobody gets the job by making the right kind of jokes around the CEO. Nobody. Getting in the door takes hard work, talent and some amount of luck.
For DOGE specifically? Would be interested to hear of those DOGE employees who truly deserved to be GS-15s due to their extensive experience in both tech and government.
The USDS and DOGE had completely different mandates. Non government experience makes sense when you’re trying to learn the lessons of industry to improve gov website accessibility, performance and ux.
On the other hand, trying to slash spending with no understanding of the agencies you’re working at- let alone any life experience for a lot of these folks- is a very different mandate.
At least in 2010, it was common for new grads to get GS-14/GS-15 pay for in-demand tech skills. It's a bit odd that early career folks would start out at the max of the pay band, but it is what it is. These were for roles which required a clearance.
Not for people with just a BS, at least outside certain areas (DC) and roles (cybersecurity). GS-12 was a more typical "target" position (with GS-13 on occasion, like at some of the labs) back in 2010. A masters or a PhD could have bumped you up to GS-13/14/15 though.
Target: People typically enter, when coming out of college, at a lower grade in the GS-5/7/9 area with a target position of one of GS-11/12/13. IT (not CS) folks were often in GS-11 targeted positions, computer scientists and engineers often in GS-12 positions. They'd get promoted in two grade increases (5 to 7, 7 to 9, 9 to 11) or one grade increases (11 to 12, 12 to 13) until they hit their target grade. At a rate of either one increase per year or per 6 months depending on when they got hired, by what agency, and in what role. An IT person, usually one increase per year; engineer, typically two increases per year. Computer scientists usually got screwed and got one increase per year which meant you had fewer of them wanting to work for the government (they also, at that time, rarely got signing bonuses). This leaves a lot of the software shops in DOD (where I had experience) mostly filled with aerospace and electrical engineers.
"Cyber" roles (security; which could be a couple different job series) in some agencies jumped up faster or had a higher target grade due to the need (or perceived need) for more people.
> Not for people with just a BS, at least outside certain areas (DC) and roles (cybersecurity)
Based on the FAQ, US Tech Force roles are located in DC (so they'll get the DC adjustment) and from the sounds of it, this proposal is the AI Washing the "Cyber Service" or "Cyber Exempted Service".
Also, based on Scott Kupor's (former Managing Parter at A16Z turned head of OPM) memo [0] it appears they seem to be using the same approach used to start the USDS back in the Obama admin. And based on their mention of "fellows", I think they'll merging parts of what used to be the Presidential Management Fellows program.
If AI-washing and Trump-washing helps maintain the core of these programs, there's nothing wrong with that.
Edit:
Dug deeper thru the FAQ - it's basically an AI washed version of the PMF and PIF.
I was responding to someone's claim about new grads (read the comment I responded to), not about US Tech Force. The person I responded to claimed that it was common for new grads (circa 2010) to jump in at GS-14/15. That was not common.
Ahh! My bad! Yea you're absolutely right - aside from PMFs who came out of grad programs you aren't see a new grad starting beyond GS7/8 in most cases.
It's also why a large portion of Gov employees end up jumping ship to professional services firms like BAH, Deloitte, Accenture, etc.
It could be a bias in the roles I was looking at - but coming in with physics undergrad for computer science roles, that was the standard set of roles in the Boston area for defense roles. Granted, these were mostly with private contractors who mirrored the GS pay scale along with their supporting government offices.
This was absolutely not true, and I don’t know where you’re getting this. A newly minted CS PhD with a top end clearance would have gotten a GS-13 at most, anything less would have been much lower. Where I worked, STEM bachelors were generally hired on as GS-7s or 9s.
Not to mention “…recruiting an elite corps of engineers to build…” while also “…participants will receive technical training…”
So “elite” engineers need technical training?
What am I missing here.
I have extensive experience with this kind of government nonsense, but usually it is kind of in the background, blather no one really takes serious because it’s just blowing smoke. But this seems so credibility destroying through its ridiculous contradictions and bombast.
(1) Are you saying it's bad if they're upping engineer pay to be more competitive, or you're just skeptical that they will?
(2) I'd actually like the American government to pay better wages for its engineers, and optimize for hiring the best, rather than those desiring a stable, low-paying bureaucracy — I don't think that attracts the best people.
(3) On talent and recruiting: This is being done by the National Design Studio, it says at the bottom. That's led by a cofounder of Airbnb - I know one person who works at the National Design Studio and he's a phenomenal engineer. The administration also has the involvement of David Sacks, who founded Craft Ventures and is pretty well-known in SV. I think this is probably the most tech-competent the government will have been in a long time. I'm not crediting Trump at all for that, to be clear - just pointing out that tech talent in government seems to be getting better, not worse.
#1: I am extremely skeptical they are paying that. I suspect this was put together by someone who has no understanding of federal pay systems. "$150,000 to $200,000" is already an erroneous number, federal salary is limited by federal law and cannot exceed $195200.
#2: Overwhelmingly I agree. Federal pay is very, very broken. They should reform it to align more with the private sector, and there are laws in place that do that, and every year the sitting president literally writes a letter stating it would be an economic emergency to pay federal employees equivalent wages and instead sets them low. You are still limited by federal law to that current $195k, so it means it's impossible for the federal government to hire technical experts and pay them a fair wage.
#3: I'm sure the federal government is paying those people some ridiculous amount of money to put this together, and they'll probably do a decent job because of it. It still doesn't change the fact that federal hiring is really broken, and has become significantly worse in this admin.
Serious question: what makes you think team “hold my beer” won’t find a way around past norms, or just ignore them? Not that they actually care enough to do it, but I don’t think they wouldn’t/couldn’t if they did care.
Left federal and my private 401k is 150% match up to 6%. Better than TSP in everything except fees, which are slightly higher. But that mattered a lot less than my pay, I was a GS-15 in a leadership role and took a role in the private sector for a 30% pay increase back into an individual contributor role. So much less work and a huge pay increase.
3 dollars for every 2 up to 6% of pay? So you could get up to 15% of pay into the 401k (or the annual limit, whichever comes first)?
That’s by far the best I’ve ever heard of. Usually employers screw us by keeping the majority of the max annual contribution, which only they can make, out of our reach with crappy “50% match up to 3%” policies or whatever (even a 100% match means you can’t hit the actual annual max, it has to be higher than that).
Oh that's actually really good. Beats a TSP for sure even with the fees. But from what I remember you're at a defense contractor - they probably have the best benefits plans overall in the US.
As I wrote in another comment, US Tech Force participants doing 2-year stints won't qualify for the gov't backed retirement (unless they were prior military, prior civil service, or find a non-term appointment to follow this stint with). You need three years to keep the 5% TSP (401k equivalent) match, which is similar to many private companies. You also need 5 years to qualify for FERS (if you quit before then you can get your contributions back, but that's optional as you may want to come back to gov't later and have the years count).
If I was late-career with a good solid financial foundation im place and just looking to work to cover living expenses the Federal Gov as fucked as it may be doesn't seem like a bad gig. Since the bar is so incredibly fucking low you just mail it in and collect the money and when youre furloughed you play golf or do extra hobbies. The ball just needs to keep moving, it doesn't actually need to move quickly. Heck it doesn't even need to necessarily move forward.
I am 51 “late career” and there is no way in hell I would work for the federal government now.
Even if I didn’t care about the politics, I have made more than the posted salaries working full time for outside consulting companies contracting with the federal government over the last five years and I wasn’t working at the whims of the government
There are way more people calling it in at large orgs or FAANGs. Clearly you've never worked in a civil service position given your foolish caricature of one.
I read some articles when openai was first getting popular about them using cheap labor from English-speaking African countries (like Kenya): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34426421
I remember other articles specifically talking about English language features of those regions(like "Okay" instead of "OK") getting into LLMs because of this.
>NASA regresses so far that they are now unable to do anything by themselves...
I keep running across this perception and I don't understand where it comes from. Overwhelmingly, like since the 1970s, NASA has not built anything per it's appropriations from congress. Their job is to 1) Define mission requirements and objectives, 2) Oversee contracts to execute those missions, 3) Test and verify elements of those systems, and very distant 4) do some in-house research and development for cutting edge technology (still mostly contracted out). ~75% of their budget is contracts to private companies to execute missions.
NASA's job, as defined NASA directors over the years and by congress via appropriations, is to come up with ideas and fund private companies to execute them.
NASA JPL built all the Mars rovers, and Mars Helicopter. JPL is operated by Caltech, but it is a NASA-branded laboratory that builds and operates planetary exploration robots itself.
This pedantry just to honor the amazing work these people have done.
Not sure if any of my anecdata when I was a contractor are relevant anymore given current circumstances,
but among all the NASA facilities I worked with, JPL really seemed to be doing its own thing, mostly for better. They were a bit quirky to work with though, because they did seem to do so much more in-house than elsewhere.
So I don't know if it's that independence or their zip code that has made them such a target, but I wonder if it has been that they have less political capital from moneyed interests keeping them off the chopping block.
But any gutting of JPL is probably irreplaceable damage.
Yes, this. And the reason why congressional appropriations plummeted was that no one saw any need to maintain such high expenditures. There hasn’t been an actually coherent vision of what NASA is supposed to be working towards since the Apollo Program. Everything after that is lurching from one project to another, justifying it based on short-term possibility rather than committing to a longer-term goal the agency is supposed to be achieving. Just look at Shuttle. It accomplished some nice things, but it was always a dead end. Everybody in NASA knew it. ISS: accomplished some nice things, dead end. Sure, you can talk about how these were steps along the way to learning about long-term human habitation in space, but we’ve never had a coherent vision for that that everyone is aligned with. What they really were: make-work projects that were at least short-term justifiable, executed in order to preserve NASA’s capacity to do anything at all.
You mean the 1970s as in Raegan when the space program stalled and became irrelevant and became mostly a way to funnel money to districts for certain congresspeople?
The space program stalled because pouring national wealth into gigantic single-use rockets was unsustainable. They tried with Shuttle but the material science wasn't there yet (heck it might not be even now, it doesn't seem that they've really nailed down the heat shield on Starship yet).
I don't think Shuttle's issue was that the material science wasn't there. The issue was the way the design was constrained, and the general aerospace culture at the time (that only began to change with "New Space").
Shuttle's heatshield would've been much less dangerous if it wasn't facing a giant ice and insulation covered external tank (like, if it was mounted on top of a booster), but the Air Force's demand for crossrange forced giant wings, which forced the lower mounting position.
They could've iterated on heat shield designs, particularly with attachment mechanisms, but every mission had to carry people, so you couldn't risk it, and anyway, the industry culture was already set in the "even the simplest things must cost large amounts of money and time" stage.
One of the key points that I feel a lot of people miss is that Starship is pretty much the first program actually doing the flight testing needed to understand the engineering requirements for an efficient fully reusable heatshield. They don't have much prior art to look at for tile spacing, mounting mechanisms, metal tiles or transpiration cooling. The fundamental materials haven't changed a lot, but we can see over test flights that SpaceX are figuring things out.
In the early days they used to lose tiles all the time, even after just pressure testing IIRC. Nowadays they may barely lose any tiles on static fire tests. Similarly, tile loss on reentry has decreased greatly, and we've gone from seeing plasma leaving the fins barely attached, to the latest test, where the fins were pretty much fully intact.
I'd say material science since the only non-ablative material we can use is too brittle compared to a normal fuselage. I really hope they succeed but it's a pretty fundamental problem to have unanswered this deep into the program development (and gating Artemis no less). Also hard to judge their progress without the data their heat shield team is getting, see https://x.com/mcrs987/status/1978183753114505496 for example. It's great that they can tolerate loss of vehicle & have better margins due to the steel fuselage but for Artemis and Mars they need to solve it or they'll be burning up hardware fast, literally.
The issue with the shuttle wasn't the material science. It was designed around a mission profile of servicing spy satellites, which at the time had film which needed to be developed. The defense department gave NASA requirements which could only be satisfied by moving the orbiter to the side of the rocket, dramatically increasing potential damage to the thermal tiles and making crew escape basically impossible. This was all justified by the incredibly large number of flights that the shuttle would fly to service these satellites, and the money the defense department would pay for these missions. The shuttle was screwed late in production when digital camera technology allowed for spy satellites that didn't need regular servicing, eliminating most of the demand for the shuttle and rendering the infrastructure designed for it unsustainable.
Well for starters, this was the 70s - the space shuttle's development started in 1968 and its maiden flight was in 1981. The last spy satellite program to use film ran from 1971 to 1986. Further, the issue wasn't a lack of knowledge of TV signals - the first wireless video transmission had been made in 1923. The issue was producing digital video cameras of sufficient quality for the task in an appropriate size, and then transmitting such large files to the ground. Nobody in 1968 foresaw the massive improvements in digital electronics miniaturization that would unfold over the coming decades.
Rather than "very late to use tv" they were "very early to use CCDs". Even so that only happened in the 1980s. Before that film had to be used, same as we all had to use film for our holiday snaps until 2000.
Au contraire, the space program stalled because pouring national wealth into gigantic space projects was _too_ sustainable. The idea that NASA has had a lack of funding is a myth. The problem has long been them spending it ineffectively.
SpaceX uses flight proven boosters. The rockets aren't quite as gigantic nor as single-shot as the Saturn V. Also, they launch satellites into LEO for commercial reasons. It's quite a different beast from lobbing LEMs at the moon where the money is essentially lit on fire.
>Too many and too restrictive building codes are bad, but no codes? Yikes
You're confusing zoning codes (what land can be used for what type of structure, e.g., industrial and residential) and building codes (the rules for safely constructing a building).
I work on a large C++ codebase for an aerospace application. The code is relatively conservative, and when we add things, we're generally conservative in our approach to add new things. Copilot (with Claude or GPT under the hood) constantly wants to use modern and complicated approaches to any new thing we add.
Need to check three bits in a byte from a peripheral and populate them to telemetry?
Claude/GPT: Let's make a base struct with a virtual map function, then template a struct to hold the register with functions to extract bits, then make unique pointers to each register, then create a vector of pointers to map all the values, etc.
You can write a very clear, and long, prompt that explains not to do any of that and just pull the bits out of the byte, but writing the prompt takes more time than just writing the code. These tools seem to always reach for, what I would call, the pristine solution as their first attempt and I think many would call that gold-plating.
You can typically address that with a system prompt, so you don't have to mention your expectations every time.
If you're using one of the coding agents like Claude Code or Gemini CLI, you should have a .md file (e.g. CLAUDE.md) for your project which contains those kinds of instructions, and any other useful context for the project.
>I still use it as a fast version of what I would do myself
This is how I use AI coding tools, but I've internally described it to myself as, "Use the tool to write code only when I am certain of what the expected output should be."
If there is something that needs to be done and some reasoning is required, I just do it myself.
I've used nova launcher on my pixel phones for maybe 6 years now. I specifically switched to it because I didn't like UI updates that moved things around -- I like to customize my UI and have it stay there after an update.
I used to be all about nova launcher on my android phones. But they got purchased by a mobile data analytics company a while back. I don't trust them anymore and I don't recommend them anymore. Good thing there are loads of quality alternatives available.
I mainly stick to the stock launcher these days but I also go for phones that are close to stock android. I've heard good things about Niagara and Lawnchair if that helps.
In a previous job I pushed an STM32WL5 on a custom frequency over a private satellite constellation with a relatively large yagi antenna. Over 70k km round trip :D
>Tech Force will primarily recruit early-career technologists
So "early-career" but they're going to get paid GS-14/15 pay[1] in DC? New grad engineers in DC are going to be GS-7/9 at best. This is either a blatant lie, or created by someone who has no idea of how federal pay works (or both).
As an aside, I was a fed for >10 years and left last year for industry but stay in touch with friends still working federal jobs. Before this administration recruiting was extremely difficult and candidate quality was low. I've heard that it's nearly impossible now and in the last 18 months they've only been able to hire a single person. Federal jobs used to be considered stable, with good benefits, but low pay. Now they're unstable, the current administration is actively working to make benefits worse, and the pay is still really low.
[1] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...