4 ms·

They will have had to impose this too. The systems were built as separate systems to avoid (in a systems designers most fevered nightmares) a scenario like thi

by stuaxo 2y ago

They will have had to impose this too. The systems were built as separate systems to avoid (in a systems designers most fevered nightmares) a scenario like this.

scarab92 2y ago
[flagged]
- noja 2y ago
  The organisations were designed to be separate, and the systems design follows that.
  - scarab92 2y ago
    Not really, agencies are merged and split and have their remit changed all the time. If there were a way to efficiently manage 2.5 million staff in a single department, then we'd likely do that, but it's more efficient to specialise, so we do that instead. Firewalling data between departments is rarely a design consideration, except in obvious cases (military), and it hardly matters in this scenario anyway, because it's not like Musk is walking into all 400 agencies with a laptop. DOGE is hiring an army of advisors and dividing them up between agencies.
    - intended 2y ago
      I believe Americans would be terrified of the idea of government agencies linking all their information together. Letting them be siloed is quite likely intentional. You seem to be making the analysis based on first principles, but it looks like it’s inspired by some facts or experience you have. could you share that source /info?
    - l33tman 2y ago
      I don't know about the US but in other countries it is definitely by design that the departments and their data are separate. It is far too easy to abuse gathering and joining data on people otherwise. History did teach us these lessons, and it's continuously visible as well today, fortunately at small scales just because they are separate. It would truly be a nightmare scenario to have all government databases under a single potentially corrupt roof or having someone with access to all of them cough.
- junon 2y ago
  > It's just the default nature of systems that were created by different agencies, under different projects with different teams. ... Yes, because those teams by default do not simply get to share access, because of various very well understood security and privacy issues by doing so. > Trump only granted DOGE a 12 month window to eliminate waste, and there's 400 federal agencies, so parallelism is crucial. That's what he says, at least. Also, if their current blatant lying[0] about the """waste""" continues then I don't really see a point. It seems clear Musk and the Breakfast Club boys who are unilaterally changing government finances have no idea how a government contract works (or it's willful ignorance). [0] https://x.com/electricfutures/status/1891898336208105676 https://x.com/electricfutures/status/1891898336208105676
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bootsmann 2y ago
  In clearance there is the concept of classification by compilation, which means that the clearance required for a piece of information can be higher than the one required by any single component that makes up that information. Being able to combine data across agencies makes it much more dangerous than keeping it separate and compartmentalized. Parallelism is a gigantic risk from a security perspective and ripe for abuse, especially given that DOGE itself has flaunted court orders trying to hold it accountable.
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  So cooking the books and defrauding the citizens of the United States by exaggerating your progress by x1000 is crucial, you mean. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-musk-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-mus... DOGE Claimed It Saved $8 Billion in One Contract. It Was Actually $8 Million. The biggest single line item on the website of Elon Musk’s cost-cutting team included a big error. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/musk-s-doge-accused-of-cooking-the-books-after-8-billion-savings-is-immediately-debunked/ar-AA1znHiG?ocid=msedgdhp https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/musk-s-doge-accuse... Musk's DOGE Accused of 'Cooking the Books' After $8 Billion Savings Is Immediately Debunked Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) falsely claimed an $8 billion cost savings from a canceled government contract, which was later revealed to be worth only $8 million. https://x.com/electricfutures/status/1891898336208105676 https://x.com/electricfutures/status/1891898336208105676 Momentum Chaser @electricfutures After several delays, @DOGE has finally posted its purported savings. Why did it take so long to create a simple webpage with a 1000-row table? Who knows! Let's dig in. Headline number: $55B saved. They list the savings per nixed contract. This should be easy to verify then. [...]
- guelo 2y ago
  I can't believe people believe that it's actually an "audit". Both Trump. and Elon are famous liars. The reality is they think they found a loophole to destroy the government without having to pass any laws by fiting as many people as they can and stopping payments randomly. It's all illegal and evil.
  - briandear 2y ago
    Have you read Article II?
    - bonzini 2y ago
      Have you read Marbury v. Madison?
- jonahbenton 2y ago
  None of what you are saying is true.
flanked-evergl 2y ago
The executive branch was intended to be separate from the judicial and the legislative branch, not separate from itself.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  And this is why the executive branch was never meant to have as much power as it has today. We've spent the better part of 80 years moving power from legislative to execute and granting executive a whole host of new powers. We made this bed, now it sure seems like Trump is making us sleep in it.
  - Loughla 2y ago
    Why do people seem drawn to having a king? What is it in human nature that makes us want a strong man in charge with absolute power?
    - oblio 2y ago
      Laziness. Convenience is the most powerful force in humanity and it's driving us to self destruction. Obesity, car oriented everything, etc.
    - krapp 2y ago
      Most people don't want a strong man in charge with absolute power. Dictators rule by fear and naked force, far more so than even the "monopoly on violence" claimed by modern states. A king is just another word for dictator, it's all the same. Although I would say Americans aren't really drawn to the model of a king so much as a "CEO in chief," but CEOs are essentially kings within their domain. The people who do support it believe that they themselves will be granted noble status within the new regime, rather than being serfs.
    - 52-6F-62 2y ago
      Natural order. We structure all of nature into kingdoms. They flower out from a core archetype. And it also helps project an inheritable identity. The problem above any American political and philosophical questions (moral questions notwithstanding), is mistaking Trump for anything resembling a worthy king. It will bring trouble. In the ancient world the king was a symbol of the prosperity of the people and scapegoat for the sins and troubles of the people and was ritually killed and replaced when things weren’t working out. History whispers that one should be careful what one wishes for.

by stuaxo 2y ago

They will have had to impose this too. The systems were built as separate systems to avoid (in a systems designers most fevered nightmares) a scenario like this.

scarab92 2y ago

[flagged]

noja 2y ago
The organisations were designed to be separate, and the systems design follows that.
- scarab92 2y ago
  Not really, agencies are merged and split and have their remit changed all the time. If there were a way to efficiently manage 2.5 million staff in a single department, then we'd likely do that, but it's more efficient to specialise, so we do that instead. Firewalling data between departments is rarely a design consideration, except in obvious cases (military), and it hardly matters in this scenario anyway, because it's not like Musk is walking into all 400 agencies with a laptop. DOGE is hiring an army of advisors and dividing them up between agencies.
  - intended 2y ago
    I believe Americans would be terrified of the idea of government agencies linking all their information together. Letting them be siloed is quite likely intentional. You seem to be making the analysis based on first principles, but it looks like it’s inspired by some facts or experience you have. could you share that source /info?
  - l33tman 2y ago
    I don't know about the US but in other countries it is definitely by design that the departments and their data are separate. It is far too easy to abuse gathering and joining data on people otherwise. History did teach us these lessons, and it's continuously visible as well today, fortunately at small scales just because they are separate. It would truly be a nightmare scenario to have all government databases under a single potentially corrupt roof or having someone with access to all of them cough.
junon 2y ago
> It's just the default nature of systems that were created by different agencies, under different projects with different teams. ... Yes, because those teams by default do not simply get to share access, because of various very well understood security and privacy issues by doing so. > Trump only granted DOGE a 12 month window to eliminate waste, and there's 400 federal agencies, so parallelism is crucial. That's what he says, at least. Also, if their current blatant lying[0] about the """waste""" continues then I don't really see a point. It seems clear Musk and the Breakfast Club boys who are unilaterally changing government finances have no idea how a government contract works (or it's willful ignorance). [0] https://x.com/electricfutures/status/1891898336208105676 https://x.com/electricfutures/status/1891898336208105676
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bootsmann 2y ago
In clearance there is the concept of classification by compilation, which means that the clearance required for a piece of information can be higher than the one required by any single component that makes up that information. Being able to combine data across agencies makes it much more dangerous than keeping it separate and compartmentalized. Parallelism is a gigantic risk from a security perspective and ripe for abuse, especially given that DOGE itself has flaunted court orders trying to hold it accountable.
DonHopkins 2y ago
So cooking the books and defrauding the citizens of the United States by exaggerating your progress by x1000 is crucial, you mean. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-musk-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-mus... DOGE Claimed It Saved $8 Billion in One Contract. It Was Actually $8 Million. The biggest single line item on the website of Elon Musk’s cost-cutting team included a big error. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/musk-s-doge-accused-of-cooking-the-books-after-8-billion-savings-is-immediately-debunked/ar-AA1znHiG?ocid=msedgdhp https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/musk-s-doge-accuse... Musk's DOGE Accused of 'Cooking the Books' After $8 Billion Savings Is Immediately Debunked Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) falsely claimed an $8 billion cost savings from a canceled government contract, which was later revealed to be worth only $8 million. https://x.com/electricfutures/status/1891898336208105676 https://x.com/electricfutures/status/1891898336208105676 Momentum Chaser @electricfutures After several delays, @DOGE has finally posted its purported savings. Why did it take so long to create a simple webpage with a 1000-row table? Who knows! Let's dig in. Headline number: $55B saved. They list the savings per nixed contract. This should be easy to verify then. [...]
guelo 2y ago
I can't believe people believe that it's actually an "audit". Both Trump. and Elon are famous liars. The reality is they think they found a loophole to destroy the government without having to pass any laws by fiting as many people as they can and stopping payments randomly. It's all illegal and evil.
- briandear 2y ago
  Have you read Article II?
  - bonzini 2y ago
    Have you read Marbury v. Madison?
jonahbenton 2y ago
None of what you are saying is true.

flanked-evergl 2y ago

The executive branch was intended to be separate from the judicial and the legislative branch, not separate from itself.

_heimdall 2y ago
And this is why the executive branch was never meant to have as much power as it has today. We've spent the better part of 80 years moving power from legislative to execute and granting executive a whole host of new powers. We made this bed, now it sure seems like Trump is making us sleep in it.
- Loughla 2y ago
  Why do people seem drawn to having a king? What is it in human nature that makes us want a strong man in charge with absolute power?
  - oblio 2y ago
    Laziness. Convenience is the most powerful force in humanity and it's driving us to self destruction. Obesity, car oriented everything, etc.
  - krapp 2y ago
    Most people don't want a strong man in charge with absolute power. Dictators rule by fear and naked force, far more so than even the "monopoly on violence" claimed by modern states. A king is just another word for dictator, it's all the same. Although I would say Americans aren't really drawn to the model of a king so much as a "CEO in chief," but CEOs are essentially kings within their domain. The people who do support it believe that they themselves will be granted noble status within the new regime, rather than being serfs.
  - 52-6F-62 2y ago
    Natural order. We structure all of nature into kingdoms. They flower out from a core archetype. And it also helps project an inheritable identity. The problem above any American political and philosophical questions (moral questions notwithstanding), is mistaking Trump for anything resembling a worthy king. It will bring trouble. In the ancient world the king was a symbol of the prosperity of the people and scapegoat for the sins and troubles of the people and was ritually killed and replaced when things weren’t working out. History whispers that one should be careful what one wishes for.