u/DinoAlonso

My Take. One Episode. Every Series (live). No Apologies. Your Thoughts?

No, I don’t think these are the most popular. They’re certainly not the most quoted. This is one episode from each series that I think best represents what that show was actually capable of at its most honest and arguably the best of Trek. I could be wrong about some of these. I’m probably wrong about at least one. Sound off!

TOS: Balance of Terror

Most people remember this one as a great submarine thriller, which it is, but that’s the surface. What’s underneath is a 1966 network television show telling its audience that the enemy is human, that prejudice is corrosive, and that the man trying to kill you might be your equal in every way that matters. Mark Lenard’s Romulan Commander is one of the finest performances in the entire franchise and he’s in it for maybe twenty minutes, you know? The tragedy of two honorable men on opposite sides of a line neither drew is Shakespearean in the most unshowy possible way. Roddenberry made a lot of promises about what Trek would be. This episode kept them.

TNG: The Inner Light

Here’s something I didnt know. Patrick Stewart fought for this episode. The production was behind schedule, over budget, and there was real pressure to simplify it. Stewart understood what it was and refused to let it become less than it could be. What resulted is essentially a forty five minute argument that a life fully lived, however quiet and however brief, is enough. Picard doesn’t save anyone. He doesn’t outwit anyone. He just lives, loses, loves, and carries it home in a flute. It feels like to me the least Star Trek episode Trek ever produced and somehow the most. I’ve watched it a dozen times and I’m still not entirely sure how they pulled it off.

DS9: In the Pale Moonlight

One of my very favorite eps. Sisko lies. Sisko cheats. Sisko is complicit in murder. And then he decides he can live with it. That last scene, the log entry deletion, is one of the most morally audacious moments in the history of American network television, not just Trek. Here’s what I found out and that doesn’t get mentioned enough. Ira Steven Behr had to fight Paramount almost line by line to keep the ending intact. The studio wanted consequences, wanted Sisko punished, wanted the moral universe tidied up and restored. Behr held the line because the entire point was that sometimes it isn’t. That the good guys win ugly and then have to look at themselves in the mirror. Trek had never gone there before and hasn’t fully gone back since. Which, you know, tells you something. 🤦🏻‍♂️

VOY: Timeless

Voyager gets a bad reputation, some of it earned if I’m being honest, but Timeless is the show operating at a level it rarely sustained. Harry Kim and Chakotay, fifteen years in the future, are trying to undo a catastrophic mistake that killed the entire crew. What elevates it beyond a standard time travel episode is the weight of genuine guilt carried by Garrett Wang, an actor who didn’t always get material worthy of his ability. The episode also contains one of the more quietly devastating images in Trek history, Voyager frozen in ice on a desolate planet, the crew preserved inside like insects in amber. It’s a ghost story dressed up as science fiction and, iMHO, it hits harder than it has any right to.

ENT: Similitude

Enterprise spent too much time apologizing for existing and not enough time doing what this episode did. Phlox creates a mimetic clone of Trip Tucker to harvest neural tissue that will save the original’s life, knowing the clone has a lifespan of fifteen days. The clone knows this. The clone lives those fifteen days anyway, fully, and then makes the choice the episode has been quietly building toward. It’s a story about the right to exist, the nature of identity, and what we owe each other when the math is brutal and the clock is running. For a show that often felt like it was killing time before the real Trek started, this episode had no interest in killing time at all. It’s the one that makes me wish Enterprise had trusted itself more from the beginning. And I wish we had too.

DIS: Such Sweet Sorrow Parts I and II

I’ll anticipate the eye rolls and I get it🙄, I do. Discovery’s relationship with its own plotting was, let’s say, complicated. But this two -parter contains one of the most emotionally sustained sequences in modern Trek. The crew choosing individually, freely, and at genuine personal cost to follow Burnham into an unknown future is the kind of moment the show spent two seasons earning and actually delivered. It’s also the rare Discovery episode where the emotional register feels proportionate to what’s actually happening on screen rather than running about forty percent hotter than necessary. In a series that occasionally confused volume with depth, this one found the difference. You know what I mean. I think. 😳

PIC: Seventeen Seconds

Ok. PIC. I know. Season three of Picard was a sustained argument that the people who made TNG still had something to say, and this episode is where that argument became undeniable. The revelation about Jack Crusher recontextualizes everything before it while the parallel story of Riker and Picard’s fractured friendship plays out with the kind of quiet specificity that only comes from writers who actually understand these characters. It also contains Terry Matalas essentially daring you to feel something, which after seasons one and two felt less like good television and more like a small miracle.

SNW: The Elysian Kingdom

Hear me out on this one because I know how it sounds. This episode gets dismissed as a whimsical bottle episode, a fairy tale diversion, and it is those things. It’s also a story about a dying child, a father’s grief, and the specific loneliness of being a doctor who can’t heal the person he loves most. M’Benga’s daughter Rukiya exists at the center of an episode that uses its fantasy framing not as an escape from emotional reality but as the only container large enough to hold it. Strange New Worlds sold itself as the fun Trek, the accessible Trek, the one that didn’t take itself too seriously. This episode quietly suggested there was considerably more going on underneath than the marketing implied. It’s the best argument the show has made that it has real depth when it trusts itself enough to look for it. Which, in my opinion, isn’t often enough. But that’s just me.

These are mine. Give me yours!

reddit.com
u/DinoAlonso — 3 days ago
▲ 502 r/fednews

OPM says the loyalty question on federal job applications is optional.

This one makes me hot under the collar. This loyalty oath is nothing but 1883 calling to say it wants its patronage system back. But it is still worth your time to understand if you’re currently applying for federal jobs.

This is my read of it. OPM’s Merit Hiring Plan added essay questions to federal job applications asking candidates how they’d advance the president’s executive orders and policy priorities. OPM said publicly the questions are optional and that leaving them blank won’t get you disqualified.

However, court filings from an active lawsuit show that on a bunch of job postings the question has a red asterisk next to it. You know what a red asterisk means on a form. You can’t submit without filling it in.
Attorneys tried to apply for positions at the Justice Department, OSHA, and the Defense Health Agency and couldn’t get past the loyalty question without answering it. The application just wouldn’t go through.

OPM’s response was basically that agencies are choosing to make it required against OPM guidance and that’s not their problem.

So let me get this straight. OPM says it’s optional. Agencies are marking it required. Applicants can’t submit without answering. And OPM is pointing at the agencies.

The question has shown up on about 33,000 job postings so far. Nearly 100% of Labor Department postings have it. About 75% of Justice and Energy postings.

I’m not going to tell you what to think about the politics. But if you’re applying right now you need to know this is out there and it’s not as optional as OPM says it is.

Source: Federal News Network, April 28 2026

reddit.com
u/DinoAlonso — 12 days ago
▲ 206 r/fednews

OPM’s retirement backlog just dropped below 50,000.

So I was going through OPM’s retirement processing numbers again because- apparently- I can’t help myself. God knows why I bludgeon myself like this😆

Amazingly, the backlog dropped to 49,888 in April (according to my dodgy math). Two straight months of decline. OPM processed more claims than it received which is genuinely good news and I don’t want to take that away from anyone waiting on a check.

But here’s what’s been giving me an itch.
A year ago the April backlog was 16,173. So we’re still three times higher than normal and calling it progress. In the first seven months of this fiscal year OPM received 133,773 new retirement claims. In the same period last year it was 60,573. Less than half.

The previous all time record going back to 2012 was 61,108. February 2026 hit 65,237 and broke it.

Average processing time in April was 78 days. Paper claims averaged 100 days.
I’m genuinely glad the direction changed. But if you retired in late 2025 or early 2026 you’re probably still waiting and the math on when this fully clears isn’t great.

If any body can correct me or my math please speak up. I’m all at once glad for the reduction and terribly sad to see so many retirements. I imagine many of them didn’t want to retire yet under other conditions.

Source: OPM April 2026 Retirement Statistics / FedSmith

fedsmith.com
u/DinoAlonso — 13 days ago

Rabbit holes again and I think a lot of people in this community may not realize where this particular rabbit hole actually stands right now.

Most of you know Schedule Policy/Career passed as a final rule back in February and took effect March 9th. That part got coverage. What I don’t think got enough attention is what happens next and honestly I’d like to know if anyone here has more information than I do.

The rule itself doesn’t tell you if your position is affected. It can’t. The way it works is agencies submitted lists of positions to OPM, OPM reviews them and makes recommendations, and then the president has to issue a separate executive order actually designating which positions move into Schedule Policy/Career. That executive order hasn’t dropped yet as far as I can tell.

So right now somewhere around 50,000 positions are potentially affected and nobody outside of OPM and the White House knows which ones. You could be on that list and have no idea.

What that means practically is that if your position gets designated you lose your adverse action protections. No advance notice requirement. No MSPB appeal rights. Effectively at-will 😡. The whistleblower piece moves from the Office of Special Counsel to your own agency’s general counsel, which I’ll be honest makes me a little nervous. General council in my agency was a political hack.

I’m not trying to be alarmist here. Legal challenges are already filed and the courts may well intervene. But I think people deserve to know where this actually stands right now rather than thinking it’s a done deal or still just a proposal.

Has anyone heard anything about when that executive order might come? Or whether your agency has already submitted positions?

Sources:
Partnership for Public Service FedSupport FAQ: https://fedsupport.org/resources/resource-library/faq-schedule-policy-career-formerly-schedule-f/

Federal Register Final Rule Feb 6, 2026: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/06/2026-02375/improving-performance-accountability-and-responsiveness-in-the-civil-service

reddit.com
u/DinoAlonso — 15 days ago
▲ 114 r/Veterans

So I do this thing where I can’t sleep and end up reading federal reports at 2am because, apparently, that’s who I am now.

I’m going through a GAO report from January 2026 and I find something so ridiculous I wondered if in fact I was awake.

The VA calculates your disability rating based on how much earning capacity your service connected condition takes away from you. That’s the whole basis of the system. Makes sense right?

Here’s the part that left me scratching my head. As of January 2026 the VA has never updated the earnings data that that calculation is based on. Not once. The GAO said it plainly. The earnings loss information used to determine your rating is from 1945.

Eighty one years ago.

The GAO has flagged this to Congress, apparently. Studies show veterans with mental health conditions are probably being undercompensated because of it. And the VA still hasn’t updated the numbers.

I’m not interested in any partisan comments, please. I’m just a retired vet and fed who reads too many government documents too late at night. But if your rating feels wrong to you, there might be a reason that has nothing to do with your claim and everything to do with data that predates television.

So, please, someone, tell me I’m
barking at shadows. Is this right? Common knowledge? Preferably someone with a full nights sleep - please set me straight.

Source: GAO-26-108844, January 2026

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108844

u/DinoAlonso — 20 days ago
▲ 2.1k r/RandomShit_ISaw+1 crossposts

I spend an inordinate amount of time digesting federal rule changes and reviewing data aggregation sites. But I want to pause on something for a minute because I don’t think it’s getting the attention it deserves. Or perhaps it has but it’s not sinking in.

Between January 20, 2025 and January 2026, 386,826 federal employees separated from service. Quits, retirements, layoffs, deferred resignations. Just gone.

It’s hardly evening news. It’s just a staggering number. Unless, of course, you count yourself, and by extension your family, within that hard figure.

Here’s the part that really threw me. Of those separations, 10,436 were formal reductions in force. Over the prior ten years, RIFs hardly ever exceeded 300 per fiscal year. Not three thousand. Three hundred.

So we went from a rough ceiling of 300 in a bad year to over ten thousand in one year. I’ve been around federal employment for a long time and I genuinely don’t have a frame of reference for that.

136,822 of the total came through the deferred resignation program alone. Which means a lot of people made a decision under pressure with incomplete information about what they were giving up. If I stop to do any accounting, it’s almost heartbreaking.

I’m not going to tell you what to think about the politics of it. But I do think we owe it to ourselves to actually look at the scale of what happened before we move on to the next news cycle.

Source: Partnership for Public Service, The Federal Workforce One Year into the Trump Administration, January 2026.

reddit.com
u/DinoAlonso — 19 days ago
▲ 462 r/govfire+2 crossposts

Hey guys! I was going through the latest federal regulatory changes, the kind of dry reading most people skip, and came across something that gave me a double-take.

On March 30th, the Department of Labor published a proposed rule that would allow private equity, private credit, real estate, and crypto into the default funds where most 401(k) contributions automatically land. Default. That word is doing a lot of work here.

Quick note for the feds in the room: this doesn’t touch the TSP. That operates under its own statute. But if you’ve got a 401(k) from prior private sector work, or a spouse with one, keep reading.

Here’s what caught my attention. Harvard sold roughly a billion dollars of private equity exposure in April 2025. Yale is looking to unload up to six billion. The most sophisticated institutional investors on the planet are quietly getting out of these same assets at whatever price they can get.

And the federal government just proposed routing your retirement contributions in as the replacement buyers.

The public comment window closes June 1st. You can submit a comment directly to the DOL at dol.gov. Takes ten minutes and goes into the official record.

https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20260330

u/DinoAlonso — 21 days ago

So I’ve been digging into this proposed OPM rule that’s been making the rounds and I want to break it down in plain English because the takes I’m seeing range from “no big deal” to “the sky is falling” and honestly neither is quite right.

What’s happening

OPM published a proposed rule on March 5th that would fundamentally change how Reductions in Force work. Right now if your agency conducts a RIF, seniority is king. Years of service protect you. Under the new proposal that flips entirely. Your three most recent performance ratings become the primary factor in who stays and who goes.

The scoring system they’re proposing runs like this. Outstanding gets you 7 points. Exceeds Fully Successful gets 5. Fully Successful gets 3. Anything below that gets you zero. Veterans preference points still apply on top of that. Ties go to tenure as a tiebreaker, but tenure is no longer the lead factor.

Why it matters

A 15 year employee with solid Fully Successful ratings could theoretically be separated before a 5 year employee with Outstanding ratings. That’s a complete reversal of how this has worked since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.

Here’s where it gets more complicated. OPM simultaneously proposed a separate rule that caps how many employees can receive top ratings, roughly 30% of employees versus the current 65% who typically receive Level 4 or 5. So the same administration proposing to make performance the primary RIF factor is also making it harder to get the ratings that protect you in a RIF. Critics argue that’s not a coincidence.

Long tenured career employees who’ve built their protection through years of service are the most exposed here. Senior employees with Fully Successful records, which has always been considered solid performance, now sit in a more vulnerable position than they’ve ever been.

Why they say they’re doing it

OPM’s stated rationale is that the current system rewards longevity over merit and that high performers get separated while less effective but more senior employees survive. There’s a legitimate argument in there honestly. I’ve seen it happen. But the combination of this rule with the ratings cap proposal is what raises the most serious questions about whether this is actually about merit or about making it easier to conduct large scale workforce reductions with less procedural friction.

What you can do

The public comment is still open until May 4th. But this is still a proposed rule. It isn’t final yet and it can be challenged legally once finalized. Federal employee unions including AFGE have already signaled they’re reviewing legal options.

If you’re a long tenured employee the practical advice right now is straightforward. Make sure your most recent performance ratings are documented accurately and reflect your actual contributions. If you’ve been coasting on Fully Successful when your work merits more, now is the time to have that conversation with your supervisor. And stay connected to what your union or employee association is doing on this.

This one’s worth watching closely.

reddit.com
u/DinoAlonso — 22 days ago