5 ms·
25yo from DOGE pushing untested code to production Treasury payments system
- squircle 2y agoYou made a backup, right? ...right?
- stickfigure 2y agoThe title [of the linked article] is unfortunate clickbait. The interesting aspects (if the article is correct) are that: * A single pseudonymous jr engineer (3 years graduated from Rutgers) is making edits to the Treasury department payments system. * The new code is being deployed directly to production rather than going through the regular release cycle (dev, staging, etc). * There are no tests. It almost doesn't matter what the code does.
- sympil 2y agoDid the title of the post change because from what you wrote it appears to be an accurate description of what is happening.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoTitle of the HN post is accurate. Title of the linked article is clickbait.
- sympil 2y agoI see. Thanks.
- silexia 2y ago[flagged]
- jbrins1 2y agoWhat evidence do you have to support this assumption? Also, if weight-loss is measured by “pounds saved” and speed of implementation then amputation would easily win over other solutions.
- silexia 2y agohttps://www.doge-tracker.com/ https://www.doge-tracker.com/
- senordevnyc 2y agoThere's no real information here. What are these contracts for?
- silexia 2y agoGovernment backed racism, also known as DEI consulting.
- senordevnyc 2y agoAllegedly. But since there’s zero transparency, we’ll just have to take the known liar and fraudster’s word for it.
- cratermoon 2y ago[citation needed]
- silexia 2y agohttps://www.doge-tracker.com/ https://www.doge-tracker.com/
- cratermoon 2y agoDo you know propaganda when you see it? How about an independent, certified, audit?
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoWe should also be talking about what the pushed code does. If this is true, it enables them to block certain payments from the Treasury, while hiding the fact that they are blocking them. Is there any legitimate use for that? If you're not going to pay, say that you're not going to pay, and why.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bradgessler 2y agoI’ve worked on government IT systems and their definition of fully QA’ed code can be pretty heavy. The project I worked on required that changes to be printed, documented, bound in a paper manual, and put on a shelf after it went through a QA process where somebody had to write a test script, print, and bind that. There was a whole acceptance procedure that a state official had to sign off on after all that before it was deployed. That was only what happened after a feature was implemented—I can’t imagine what it must have been like to define, design, and implement the feature. A lot of that is OK, but the insistence the state had on print, binding, and shelving the documentation felt a bit extreme. It also took forever to get changed from idea to production, which is a feature or a bug depending on your agenda.