4 ms·

This article is indirectly saying something critical about a certain someone with a wide following of non-digital and digital beings, so I wouldn't expect it to

• readthenotes1 2y ago
  One can only hope it a coincidence that a common synanthrope belongs to the family Muscidae
• smitty1e 2y ago
  Applying the logic of the article to itself, what existing vendor with cozy arrangements would want to let someone with Extensive Monetary assets anywhere near the prize? The article makes a good point about healthy skepticism; let that be omnidirectional.
  • anildash 2y ago
    There are absolutely vested interests that would want to stop any new players from entering and would try to stop that from happening. One benefit of existing processes is that there is usually at least some degree of visibility or accountability in the legacy procurement processes that would make their efforts visible. A non-department “department” like DOGE has no such transparency, as is obvious by the fact that there’s been no vetting of its current operations, not even the suggestion of congressional oversight, and no mention of the fact that it’s run by government suppliers with obvious conflicts of interest. The plain conflict of interest of current suppliers is obvious.
    • smitty1e 2y ago
      > One benefit of existing processes is that there is usually at least some degree of visibility or accountability in the legacy procurement processes that would make their efforts visible. "...at least some..." is a fine fig leaf for covering the naughty bits, yes. As Jonah Goldberg noted: "Complexity is a subsidy".