• Zaktor
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 hours ago

      That’s almost exactly the number of expected retirements. I think it’s something like 110k regular retirements in a year and the period covers 2/3rds of a year, so it’s basically spot on.

    • DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Of the handful of people I know of, most were retiring anyway. They’re basically getting 7 months of paid leave. I wished one person a happy retirement last week and then “welcome back” this week. They’re working until the end of February.

      Of the one person I know that isn’t eligible for retirement, they were planning on leaving anyway due to circumstances in their family.

      What I’m interested in is how many of those people will be back by October as contractors. I’ve seen it before where someone retires and then a few months later they’re back working in a similar job. Just because someone leaves gov services doesn’t mean their skill sets aren’t in demand.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Of the one person I know that isn’t eligible for retirement, they were planning on leaving anyway due to circumstances in their family.

        That was going to be my second question- how many were not retiring, but were planning on leaving for other reasons? How many had a new job lined up before Trump even took office?

        These idiots put no restrictions on this offer. And despite that, 75,000 is still far lower than the number of federal employees who retired per year in the past 10 years according to OPM.

        https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/retirement-statistics/

        So that means even plenty of people who would entirely benefit from this offer at no risk to themselves are telling Trump to go fuck himself.

  • Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    wtf is up with that thumbnail image? Either a mid shop job or a weird ass image-gen on just the face. Just…why?

    • SilverCode@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      13 hours ago

      It looks like a baby who just pooped it’s diaper. I’m inclined to think it is a real photo.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        It’s not that the face is unbelievable, it’s the weird, high definition of the details compared to the rest of the photo. If it was 2015, I’d confidently say they copied a better quality picture of his face over this one.

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          Isn’t it just the thing that smartphones do these days where they slightly blur the background to make the person stand out more? Like you might do adjusting the focus, but faked.

          • Skua@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Isn’t it just a regular shallow depth of field? You can see the piece of paper smoothly transition towards being in focus

            • Dave@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              You might be right. Looking close up the edges don’t stand out as being faked, I just didn’t look that close before. Though the arm on the right (his left arm) is full in focus and the box right next to it is very out of focus.

              To be honest it’s been so long since I’ve seen a photo that wasn’t autocorrected up the wazoo that I can’t remember what things are supposed to look like anymore.