4 ms·

Aren't you just doing the same thing, just in reverse? Ie you don't know any facts about individual cases, yet assume there is no problem. (If that's not your p

by marky1991 2y ago

Aren't you just doing the same thing, just in reverse? Ie you don't know any facts about individual cases, yet assume there is no problem. (If that's not your position, in what sense is gp "totally wrong"?)

zimpenfish 2y ago
> yet assume there is no problem. Is it plausible that, given the claim is that people currently >150 years old are receiving money, in the previous 40 years of audits, etc., no-one has noticed that people >110 (vanishingly rare in the US) were getting money? That it took the arrival of Elon and his Special Boys with their cursory glance to immediately spot this problem that must have been missed by every other developer, tested, auditor, etc. for AT LEAST 40 years? Or that there has been some vast conspiracy - on both sides of the US political aisle - to keep paying out this money to clearly ineligible people without a single person ever whistleblowing? My money is on the vastly simpler "Elon and his Special Boys[0] have misunderstood" hypothesis. [0] who have not demonstrated a great acumen for being correct at any point, let's be honest.
Dylan16807 2y ago
The number of super old accounts is many millions. There is no way that this particular number is indicative of a fraud problem. Now you could motte-and-bailey the sentence "the technical details are irrelevant if there are people getting payments with those attributes it's a problem" by saying oh if any accounts in this group are getting payments, even if it's just a handful of them, that's a problem. But if we're talking about the number of these accounts being representative of the amount of fraud, there's no way that's true.
- frugalmail 2y ago
  Nobody ever said all of those records were fraud other than legacy media and internet randos.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    The person I was replying to was implying that they were fraud. But uh, you don't think Musk was implying that? He decided to make an announcement that there were lots of super old accounts without any implication beyond their mere existence in a completely inactive state? And I'm not going to ignore blatant implications to accept "oh he didn't say it".

zimpenfish 2y ago

> yet assume there is no problem. Is it plausible that, given the claim is that people currently >150 years old are receiving money, in the previous 40 years of audits, etc., no-one has noticed that people >110 (vanishingly rare in the US) were getting money? That it took the arrival of Elon and his Special Boys with their cursory glance to immediately spot this problem that must have been missed by every other developer, tested, auditor, etc. for AT LEAST 40 years? Or that there has been some vast conspiracy - on both sides of the US political aisle - to keep paying out this money to clearly ineligible people without a single person ever whistleblowing? My money is on the vastly simpler "Elon and his Special Boys[0] have misunderstood" hypothesis. [0] who have not demonstrated a great acumen for being correct at any point, let's be honest.

Dylan16807 2y ago

The number of super old accounts is many millions. There is no way that this particular number is indicative of a fraud problem. Now you could motte-and-bailey the sentence "the technical details are irrelevant if there are people getting payments with those attributes it's a problem" by saying oh if any accounts in this group are getting payments, even if it's just a handful of them, that's a problem. But if we're talking about the number of these accounts being representative of the amount of fraud, there's no way that's true.

frugalmail 2y ago
Nobody ever said all of those records were fraud other than legacy media and internet randos.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  The person I was replying to was implying that they were fraud. But uh, you don't think Musk was implying that? He decided to make an announcement that there were lots of super old accounts without any implication beyond their mere existence in a completely inactive state? And I'm not going to ignore blatant implications to accept "oh he didn't say it".