5 ms·

They specifically said these people are getting payments. That means whether the cause is accurate representation in the database, or inaccurate representation

They specifically said these people are getting payments. That means whether the cause is accurate representation in the database, or inaccurate representation in the database, this linchpin data should invalidate any payments.

NoPicklez 2y ago
Do they know that or do they think or assume that? There is supposedly an automated process to remove social security payments from people over the age of 115, unless there is an exception. https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0202602578 https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0202602578
- fastball 2y ago
  Entirely possible that part of the system fails on whatever is causing there to be 150 year olds.
  - NoPicklez 2y ago
    There are a multitude of possibilities, of which none of them were addressed by Musk with no nuance at all.
    - fastball 2y ago
      I don't think it is useful to do that in a press conference.
      - NoPicklez 2y ago
        Neither is it useful to make such claims as he did so blatantly
        fastball 2y ago
        Well, it is useful for him, as (if it turns out to be mostly true) then it highlights how poorly operations in our government are. The only reason you have to believe that Musk's statements are not correct is the aforementioned inaccurate assertion about COBOL.
        zimpenfish 2y ago
        > The only reason you have to believe that Musk's statements are not correct is [...] And his well documented history of spouting bullshit and flim-flam.
        chillingeffect 2y ago
        That's ingenuoua. He posted the ssa's process for culling 115 year olds above. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Presently, there is no evidence. This is precisely why business and government are different entities. Business is a wealth-creating opportunity with less responsibility. Government may not be low-latency, but its aim is to be responsible and correct. Confusing the two is a major problem.
        fastball 2y ago
        What is ingenuoua?
        frugalmail 2y ago
        What was the claim? That there are millions of people above 120 years old in the SS database that aren't marked dead? That doesn't sound extraordinary, or a claim that's hard to challenge by even past employees that had access to the data. but all we got is propaganda and FUD.
        computerthings 2y ago
        Right, so it's useful to just just say things without evidence, because they "might turn out to be true" in the future. Something being useful to Musk and his goons doesn't make it "useful" without such qualifiers. > The only reason you have to believe that Musk's statements are not correct is the aforementioned inaccurate assertion about COBOL. Hardly. That's just saying how little attention you paid to the man.
    - frugalmail 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - skissane 2y ago
    In fact, if you read that document, it mentions there are exceptions in which the automated process doesn't terminate someone for being >115, and the termination has to be done manually for: > Beneficiaries with other claimants active on the record; > Dually or technically entitled beneficiaries with a discrepancy among records (information pertaining to date of birth (DOB), suspension, and termination; or > Beneficiaries in an active pay status on a dually entitled record. What we don't know, is how many >115 records get pushed to manual processing, and how efficient that processing is. Is there a backlog? How big is it? It mentions that one thing that can prevent the automated process, is when they have multiple records for a person, and they have conflicting dates of birth – and then they have to follow some process to resolve the discrepancy. What happens if they get stuck and can't work out which date of birth is the right one? It also mentions how in some cases they need proof of death to carry out the manual termination. What if their attempts to procure such proof are unsuccessful? Speculation: maybe there are a cohort of individuals who are long deceased, but they fall into one of the exceptions to the automated termination at 115 process, SSA is missing proof of death, and if nobody is actually "cashing the checks", it might be administratively easier to just keep on "paying" them by printing the checks and then burying them at the back of a filing cabinet than to cancel their social security. Maybe that's who these "150 year old social security recipients" are. So nobody would actually be committing fraud, and the government isn't really losing any money (since the checks are never cashed). Not exactly good, but maybe not quite as bad as Musk et al make it sound either. And quite likely it is just a small handful of people who are a rounding error in the federal budget.
    - frugalmail 2y ago
      >...exceptions in which the automated process doesn't terminate someone for being >115 You gave a several good explanations about why the current automated processes don't mark the records as deceased. But those are excuses. Just because the design of the system is flawed, that doesn't mean the system isn't in error because the code implements the design. All those sound like it needs to be fixed to me. As somebody that deals with data for large enterprises that are nowhere near, obviously, as the government, but definitely companies with 100k employees and several in the Fortune 20. It's rudimentary to: - have a data staging area before data gets into any financial system intended for payment transactions. Those staging systems can be used for analytical, reporting, and especially data cleaning. - No use one record to represent the obligations to a completely different records of the same type. i.e. overloaded corrupt master data. Uncurated data systems should be treated completely differently than systems that actually impacts financial transactions. Just because it's taxpayer money, they shouldn't be able to avoid criticism because they're wasting the money. If anything they should be more accountable.

NoPicklez 2y ago

Do they know that or do they think or assume that? There is supposedly an automated process to remove social security payments from people over the age of 115, unless there is an exception. https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0202602578 https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0202602578

fastball 2y ago
Entirely possible that part of the system fails on whatever is causing there to be 150 year olds.
- NoPicklez 2y ago
  There are a multitude of possibilities, of which none of them were addressed by Musk with no nuance at all.
  - fastball 2y ago
    I don't think it is useful to do that in a press conference.
    - NoPicklez 2y ago
      Neither is it useful to make such claims as he did so blatantly
      - fastball 2y ago
        Well, it is useful for him, as (if it turns out to be mostly true) then it highlights how poorly operations in our government are. The only reason you have to believe that Musk's statements are not correct is the aforementioned inaccurate assertion about COBOL.
        zimpenfish 2y ago
        > The only reason you have to believe that Musk's statements are not correct is [...] And his well documented history of spouting bullshit and flim-flam.
        chillingeffect 2y ago
        That's ingenuoua. He posted the ssa's process for culling 115 year olds above. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Presently, there is no evidence. This is precisely why business and government are different entities. Business is a wealth-creating opportunity with less responsibility. Government may not be low-latency, but its aim is to be responsible and correct. Confusing the two is a major problem.
        fastball 2y ago
        What is ingenuoua?
        frugalmail 2y ago
        What was the claim? That there are millions of people above 120 years old in the SS database that aren't marked dead? That doesn't sound extraordinary, or a claim that's hard to challenge by even past employees that had access to the data. but all we got is propaganda and FUD.
        computerthings 2y ago
        Right, so it's useful to just just say things without evidence, because they "might turn out to be true" in the future. Something being useful to Musk and his goons doesn't make it "useful" without such qualifiers. > The only reason you have to believe that Musk's statements are not correct is the aforementioned inaccurate assertion about COBOL. Hardly. That's just saying how little attention you paid to the man.
  - frugalmail 2y ago
    [flagged]
- skissane 2y ago
  In fact, if you read that document, it mentions there are exceptions in which the automated process doesn't terminate someone for being >115, and the termination has to be done manually for: > Beneficiaries with other claimants active on the record; > Dually or technically entitled beneficiaries with a discrepancy among records (information pertaining to date of birth (DOB), suspension, and termination; or > Beneficiaries in an active pay status on a dually entitled record. What we don't know, is how many >115 records get pushed to manual processing, and how efficient that processing is. Is there a backlog? How big is it? It mentions that one thing that can prevent the automated process, is when they have multiple records for a person, and they have conflicting dates of birth – and then they have to follow some process to resolve the discrepancy. What happens if they get stuck and can't work out which date of birth is the right one? It also mentions how in some cases they need proof of death to carry out the manual termination. What if their attempts to procure such proof are unsuccessful? Speculation: maybe there are a cohort of individuals who are long deceased, but they fall into one of the exceptions to the automated termination at 115 process, SSA is missing proof of death, and if nobody is actually "cashing the checks", it might be administratively easier to just keep on "paying" them by printing the checks and then burying them at the back of a filing cabinet than to cancel their social security. Maybe that's who these "150 year old social security recipients" are. So nobody would actually be committing fraud, and the government isn't really losing any money (since the checks are never cashed). Not exactly good, but maybe not quite as bad as Musk et al make it sound either. And quite likely it is just a small handful of people who are a rounding error in the federal budget.
  - frugalmail 2y ago
    >...exceptions in which the automated process doesn't terminate someone for being >115 You gave a several good explanations about why the current automated processes don't mark the records as deceased. But those are excuses. Just because the design of the system is flawed, that doesn't mean the system isn't in error because the code implements the design. All those sound like it needs to be fixed to me. As somebody that deals with data for large enterprises that are nowhere near, obviously, as the government, but definitely companies with 100k employees and several in the Fortune 20. It's rudimentary to: - have a data staging area before data gets into any financial system intended for payment transactions. Those staging systems can be used for analytical, reporting, and especially data cleaning. - No use one record to represent the obligations to a completely different records of the same type. i.e. overloaded corrupt master data. Uncurated data systems should be treated completely differently than systems that actually impacts financial transactions. Just because it's taxpayer money, they shouldn't be able to avoid criticism because they're wasting the money. If anything they should be more accountable.