3 ms·
It seems to me that the decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico isn't the crux of the matter. Whether this decision is useful/justified is a totally different ma
by natmaka 2y ago
It seems to me that the decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico isn't the crux of the matter. Whether this decision is useful/justified is a totally different matter.
Isn't renaming a place rather common? Even nations were recently renamed (Swaziland, Macedonia).
Therefore the software (database included) managing the data (used by the USGS earthquake's) probably offers a way to rename a place.
Is there any documentation exposing how to perform such a renaming? Is it up to date and accessible (or did someone modify/hide it in order to annoy DOGE)? Was it not strictly followed by the person(s) who tried to rename this Gulf? Are all technical thingies associated to such a renaming free of major bugs?
If all answers to those questions are "yes" then the person(s) who tried to rename is the sole culprit.
If there is a single "no" then at least another person should be put into scrutiny.
- yujzgzc 2y agoI completely agree with the hypothesis that it has to do with feature renaming. DOGE isn't the person who asked renaming, it's POTUS. I don't think DOGE looks competent. I also don't think that they're the only incompetent people in govt.
- natmaka 2y agoAFAIK DOGE's personnel is young, and therefore probably cannot tackle the pressure from the POTUS cabinet ("you have a few days to establish everything we asked for"), hence the "Move fast and break things" effect.