5 ms·

https://archive.is/Qo634 https://archive.is/Qo634 Sources said they did not believe the employees were specifically targeted because of their work on Neuralink

• adastra22 2y ago
  Yeah I’m not sure how this action would be beneficial to Musk.
  • dc396 2y ago
    Fear.
    • jesterson 2y ago
      Fear of what?
      • throwaway5752 2y ago
        Fear of being fired by unfavorably reviewing political allies of the current administration. A basic form of political corruption.
        • adastra22 2y ago
          They’ve already been fired…
          • out-of-ideas 2y ago
            not all of them; what is happening is retaliation to previous decisions and a strong-arm to any whom are left to cater to their wants vs properly, fully doing their jobs, or be "randomly" fired in cuts. i put randomly in air quotes cuz we're all just plebs and will never know the full truth
          • anon7000 2y ago
            Sure, and now they can be replaced with regulators who are more “aligned” with Musk’s ideas — definitely no opportunity for Musk to make a decision that could make his companies billions. Let’s stop defending this tech CEO wet dream of applying “move fast and break things” to the federal government.
            • adastra22 2y ago
              That’s nor how hiring works in the federal government.
              • kujnetyr 2y ago
                a few weeks ago if you described how firing is currently happening, almost anyone would have said "that's not how firing works in the federal government" yet here we are
                • adastra22 2y ago
                  I would have described it this way. This is and always was a a way in which firing could happen. You zero a budget and they people under it are let go. Hiring necessarily has more steps involved.
              • dralley 2y ago
                How did Marko Elez get re-hired.
  • kurikuri 2y ago
    Getting rid of reviewers of his stuff does 2 things: the first is obscure any existing observations, the second is to increase the chance that a Musk-friendly person will be in this position later. The only way this could cost him would be if the government retaliates, which there is clearly no appetite for (and he could probably fire the people perusing a response anyways).
• apical_dendrite 2y ago
  Let's say someone is in charge of regulating one of Musk's companies. They know that layoffs are imminent. They know that Musk's people are telling the agencies who to lay off. They know that Musk is vindictive, and that he has access to all the agency personnel information. They know that the structures that are supposed to protect the civil service from partisan interference have been co-opted (see for instance, Trump firing the head of the agency that protects whistleblowers (OSC) and the head of the agency that federal workers can appeal to if they are fired for political reasons (MSPB), and that the administration is perfectly happy to lie and break federal law when it fires people (for instance, when it fired thousands of probationary employees for "performance" even though they had good performance evaluations). Under those circumstances, is it reasonable to expect that a regulator is going to make any decision that's detrimental to one of Musk's companies, no matter how justified it might be?
• archagon 2y ago
  The only "source" who would know this is Musk himself, given the shallow hierarchy of DOGE.
• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Doesn’t matter if they were specifically targeted or not; conflict of interest either way