I was given another.
So, it's a shitty job because people yell at you for <=$100K (his reason) and also you could be making $500+k elsewhere (my reason).
> It isn't clear what losing a kid has to do with qualified officials approving a failed Alzheimer drug
Your basic complaint is that those particular government workers were either corrupt or incompetent. I don't disagree with that assessment.
But if you can't understand why people take industry jobs for $500K instead of government jobs for $100K, especially when the government job additionally requires "telling someone in a position of serious power who is going to loose his kid next year to back off", then I'm not really sure what to say.
And if you can't understand how "the job is shit and doesn't pay well" has downstream effects like incompetence and corruption, then, well, I'm not really sure what to say.
Most problems with failed governance in the USA basically boil down to "Want competence and ethics? Pay market rates & don't fucking outsource." See also: the Obamacare website debacle.
That doesn't seem to be what he asked. He asked us to Try telling someone in a position of serious power who is going to loose his kid next year to back off.
It isn't clear what losing a kid has to do with qualified officials approving a failed Alzheimer drug, ostensibly in blatant and clear violation of their own protocols. Presented with that non-sequitur, I chose to restate the event in play.