6 ms·

That’s a great question to ask. And if it were the question being asked by the new folks in charge that would be pretty great. Instead we’ve got drunk toddlers

That’s a great question to ask. And if it were the question being asked by the new folks in charge that would be pretty great. Instead we’ve got drunk toddlers smashing valuable things with a baseball bat. I’m not sure that’s an improvement over the status quo.

teddyh 2y ago
> drunk toddlers smashing valuable things with a baseball bat Believing your own government does such things seems extreme. Where did you hear that? Is that source (or sources) believable, and non-partisan? Have those sources pushed any other obviously false, now-debunked, partisan stories in the past?
- danorama 2y ago
  Where do you see an ordered, thoughtful, deliberate process taking place here? Is that source (or sources) believable, and non-partisan?
  - teddyh 2y ago
    Nowhere – I don’t follow the issue. The question was for those people who are somehow convinced that it’s complete chaos. In my experience, complete chaos is very rare, but fake reports of chaos in every field are a daily occurrence. If you believe every report of chaos that comes along, you’ll believe the world is ending every day. Which it obviously has not, yet. It follows that most reports of chaos are always false. Therefore, if you believe that some specific issue is really as chaotic as reported, you’ll have to have some pretty good sources to back that up.
    - petschge 2y ago
      How chaotic does https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o sound to you?
      - teddyh 2y ago
        [flagged]
        petschge 2y ago
        I was referring to the "The US government is trying to bring back nuclear safety employees it fired on Thursday, but is struggling to let them know they should return to work, NBC News has reported. [...]An email obtained by NBC said the letters for some NNSA employees 'are being rescinded, but we do not have a good way to get in touch with those personnel'." part. It's about 300 people affected. And when you apply at these types of positions they ARE aware of private contact information.
        teddyh 2y ago
        I really don’t get it. What is the story? Should the employer be shamed for not keeping home/private contact information for all employees? Or is the job of those employees so vital that they could never be considered for firing? The article does not state what their actual occupations are.
        dralley 2y ago
        >Or is the job of those employees so vital that they could never be considered for firing? The article does not state what their actual occupations are. They build, maintain and run security for the US nuclear weapons stockpile. This was, in fact, mentioned in the article. Quote: "The nuclear security officials who were laid off on Thursday helped oversee the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons. That included staff who are stationed at facilities where the weapons are built, according to CNN." Would you agree that this is a job of pretty vital importance?
        teddyh 2y ago
        > They build, maintain and run security for the US nuclear weapons stockpile. This was, in fact, mentioned in the article. That’s what the department does. The article does not say what the erroneously fired employees do. > Would you agree that this is a job of pretty vital importance? How would I know? The article does not explain it. To my uninformed ears it sounds like a pretty passive thing, which, if you assume physical security is intact, can keep just fine for quite some time. If they had fired some more vital people, like all security guards, by mistake, surely the article would have said so? But instead the article prevaricates. This makes the article sound untrustworthy.
    - tayo42 2y ago
      > Nowhere – I don’t follow the issue. Why are you commenting if you have no interest in informing your self?
      - teddyh 2y ago
        [flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- Nevermark 2y ago
  The problems you point out are very real. Serious. Frustrating. None of which invalidate the points you replied to in any way. Some kind of methodical work to solve problems is still how you keep a plane flying while you fix it. Handing bats to kids isn’t going to be better than the status quo Even though the status quo is miserable and increasingly intolerable, it is always easier to make things worse I would like to end this comment on an up note, a solution: be rich. Very very rich. Live in Canada or New Zealand. Carry a towel and remember: electrolytes.
- jmcgough 2y ago
  We are looking at a generational loss of research talent that directly benefits public health. Every post-doc and researcher I know is looking at options outside of academia, or even outside the country. This will not solve administrative overhead, it will lead to a brain drain.
  - varelse 2y ago
    [dead]
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > If that worked then drunk toddlers wouldn’t win elections promising the baseball bat. Even if one believes that overall, over a long term, democracy tends to produce more “accurate” assessments of merits of policy disputes than other systems—which, of course, is not generally the argument for democracy—that still wouldn't imply that there are no cases where the electorate just makes completely bad judgements. So, I’m not sure what your basis for the claim here is; as presented the argument seems to be the electorate never makes bad decisions, which is ludicrous on its face.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Nobody knows what the “bad judgments” and what the “good judgments” are, and we certainly can’t trust anyone with self interest to tell us. Democracy is a means for empirical truth finding that’s resistant to manipulation. I’m 40 years old. In my lifetime, educational and healthcare overheads have exploded while outcomes have gotten worse. Nobody working within these systems understands why or is capable of fixing them.

teddyh 2y ago

> drunk toddlers smashing valuable things with a baseball bat Believing your own government does such things seems extreme. Where did you hear that? Is that source (or sources) believable, and non-partisan? Have those sources pushed any other obviously false, now-debunked, partisan stories in the past?

danorama 2y ago
Where do you see an ordered, thoughtful, deliberate process taking place here? Is that source (or sources) believable, and non-partisan?
- teddyh 2y ago
  Nowhere – I don’t follow the issue. The question was for those people who are somehow convinced that it’s complete chaos. In my experience, complete chaos is very rare, but fake reports of chaos in every field are a daily occurrence. If you believe every report of chaos that comes along, you’ll believe the world is ending every day. Which it obviously has not, yet. It follows that most reports of chaos are always false. Therefore, if you believe that some specific issue is really as chaotic as reported, you’ll have to have some pretty good sources to back that up.
  - petschge 2y ago
    How chaotic does https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o sound to you?
    - teddyh 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - petschge 2y ago
        I was referring to the "The US government is trying to bring back nuclear safety employees it fired on Thursday, but is struggling to let them know they should return to work, NBC News has reported. [...]An email obtained by NBC said the letters for some NNSA employees 'are being rescinded, but we do not have a good way to get in touch with those personnel'." part. It's about 300 people affected. And when you apply at these types of positions they ARE aware of private contact information.
        teddyh 2y ago
        I really don’t get it. What is the story? Should the employer be shamed for not keeping home/private contact information for all employees? Or is the job of those employees so vital that they could never be considered for firing? The article does not state what their actual occupations are.
        dralley 2y ago
        >Or is the job of those employees so vital that they could never be considered for firing? The article does not state what their actual occupations are. They build, maintain and run security for the US nuclear weapons stockpile. This was, in fact, mentioned in the article. Quote: "The nuclear security officials who were laid off on Thursday helped oversee the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons. That included staff who are stationed at facilities where the weapons are built, according to CNN." Would you agree that this is a job of pretty vital importance?
        teddyh 2y ago
        > They build, maintain and run security for the US nuclear weapons stockpile. This was, in fact, mentioned in the article. That’s what the department does. The article does not say what the erroneously fired employees do. > Would you agree that this is a job of pretty vital importance? How would I know? The article does not explain it. To my uninformed ears it sounds like a pretty passive thing, which, if you assume physical security is intact, can keep just fine for quite some time. If they had fired some more vital people, like all security guards, by mistake, surely the article would have said so? But instead the article prevaricates. This makes the article sound untrustworthy.
  - tayo42 2y ago
    > Nowhere – I don’t follow the issue. Why are you commenting if you have no interest in informing your self?
    - teddyh 2y ago
      [flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

Nevermark 2y ago
The problems you point out are very real. Serious. Frustrating. None of which invalidate the points you replied to in any way. Some kind of methodical work to solve problems is still how you keep a plane flying while you fix it. Handing bats to kids isn’t going to be better than the status quo Even though the status quo is miserable and increasingly intolerable, it is always easier to make things worse I would like to end this comment on an up note, a solution: be rich. Very very rich. Live in Canada or New Zealand. Carry a towel and remember: electrolytes.
jmcgough 2y ago
We are looking at a generational loss of research talent that directly benefits public health. Every post-doc and researcher I know is looking at options outside of academia, or even outside the country. This will not solve administrative overhead, it will lead to a brain drain.
- varelse 2y ago
  [dead]
dragonwriter 2y ago
> If that worked then drunk toddlers wouldn’t win elections promising the baseball bat. Even if one believes that overall, over a long term, democracy tends to produce more “accurate” assessments of merits of policy disputes than other systems—which, of course, is not generally the argument for democracy—that still wouldn't imply that there are no cases where the electorate just makes completely bad judgements. So, I’m not sure what your basis for the claim here is; as presented the argument seems to be the electorate never makes bad decisions, which is ludicrous on its face.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Nobody knows what the “bad judgments” and what the “good judgments” are, and we certainly can’t trust anyone with self interest to tell us. Democracy is a means for empirical truth finding that’s resistant to manipulation. I’m 40 years old. In my lifetime, educational and healthcare overheads have exploded while outcomes have gotten worse. Nobody working within these systems understands why or is capable of fixing them.