9 ms·
Intent to drop in, make major changes, and pretend like they won't break anything is ill intent We criticize engineers who drop into a code base and try to mak
by hnthrow90348765 2y ago
Intent to drop in, make major changes, and pretend like they won't break anything is ill intent
We criticize engineers who drop into a code base and try to make changes without understanding. You can be forgiven for doing it a few times, but after that you're doing it intentionally. And if they hired engineers that didn't know this, that's incompetence at both levels.
Not only is this different code bases and IT products, it's across organizations and done very rapidly.
I am also not convinced that they don't simply have malicious intent most of the time.
- CyrsBel 2y ago[flagged]
- barbazoo 2y agoDid they mention which tax payers those 20% will be going back to?
- CyrsBel 2y agoNot yet as far as I've seen.
- lesuorac 2y agoHere you got then - https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BU/BU00/20250213/117894/BILLS-119HConRes14ih.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BU/BU00/20250213/117894/BILL... Spoiler: Nobody is _directly_ getting a refund. That money will be less than the planned increase in the deficit. (This is the house's budget bill which is the supported version of the president unlike the senate's version).
- SrslyJosh 2y agoYep, and even if they weren't planning on just ignoring the deficit (as republicans always do when they're the ones doing the spending), any money "saved" by these assholes was going to go straight into the pockets of Musk, Trump, and their assorted superrich cronies.
- smallmancontrov 2y agoSmall temporary income tax cuts, big permanent capital gains tax cuts. Always has been, always will be.
- CyrsBel 2y agoSo far they said 20% refunds, 20% against the debt, and the rest...presumably they are determining to what extent to put that into tax cuts and the other two buckets some more. This way everyone wins, assuming their savings so far are sustainable and annualized.
- smallmancontrov 2y agoNo, loudly broadcasting the heavy-handed implication that you have found $100B in fraud without having found $100B in fraud is still bad, even if the 1/1000th that they did find (I'm being generous here) is real and goes into tax cuts / debt. Also, the capital gains taxes ARE low and the income taxes ARE high, so just paying down the debt isn't nearly so "even-handed" as it seems.
- larkost 2y agoWhile I agree with you on the opinion that capital gains taxes are low (I should not be paying less on my winnings from bets on the stock market than I am on the income from my work). I think you need to justify the opinion that income taxes are high. Personal income taxes are the larges revenue source for the U.S. Government, so it is the main way we have decided to tax ourselves. Arguably it is one of the most steerable, and we have long health that progressive taxation is for the common good (as much of a mockery as some high-income individuals have made of that). So with that as the background, the U.S. ranks towards the bottom of the OCED countries in taxes vs. GDP. Yes we get less than the citizens of the countries paying the most, but not that much less. https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-co...
- pqtyw 2y ago> 20% against the debt That seems insignificant when their other proposed policies are intended to massively increase that debt?
- madeofpalk 2y agoDo you think they can be trusted to tell the truth?
- CyrsBel 2y ago[flagged]
- Smeevy 2y agoEven if you believe that trust shouldn't be earned, it is inadvisable to believe anything that Elon Musk says is in good faith. How many more examples do you need after the Hyperloop debacle? Here's an expanding list: https://elonmusk.today https://elonmusk.today How many times do you need to be lied to by the exact same person before you realize that facts don't mean anything to them? At this point, I'm surprised when I hear something from Musk that is verifiably true.
- lowercased 2y ago> because they make promises around goals with incomplete understanding and data and then recalibrate as more information becomes available. Perhaps you should simply announce an investigation, then deliver findings of the investigation and recommendations. They're starting with the end in mind - the dismantling of the administrative state - then making cuts. Then finding out what the impact might be, then continuing cuts. There is no good faith here, and there is nothing in 'doubt' that someone should benefit from.
- pqtyw 2y ago>I've seen was an offer of 8 months Wasn't that actually "if you agree to resign and leave next September we'll continue paying your salary until then and you wont have to RTO if you work remotely" rather that actually 8 months of severance? > then recalibrate as more information becomes available. So you are waiting until they will start actually lying when they have more information (instead of "just" being incompetent)? Giving someone who has proven time and time again to be exceptionally dishonest (Trump but also arguably Musk) the benefit of the doubt seems unwise. Why would they suddenly stop lying? The fact alone that they have promised a huge tax cut to high income earners will will inevitably outweigh any potential savings by DOGE means that any claims about reducing public debt are inherently dishonest.
- ketzo 2y agoYou give them the benefit of the doubt because they tell you exactly what you want to hear?
- CyrsBel 2y agoIt is in my nature to give the benefit of the doubt, but as my post clearly says at the end: "That being said, these are nice things that people would want to hear so I too am paying attention."
- ludsan 2y agoPost your bank account number here. Give us the benefit of the doubt.
- CyrsBel 2y agoWhat feature on HN requires a premium membership?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- intended 2y agoTypically i would agree with the harsh tone, but this person is being clear about their position. Perhaps I sympathize since I may also have a habit of being too credulous.
- ludsan 2y agoCredulity is a fine default for human interaction. It is gift of assumed sincerity. Deciding at which point that gift was misplaced is a learned skill and one I cannot claim to have expertise in. I may credulously assume that our poster friend is sincere. However, as I read replies that the poster has made to sincere responses, I observe: * a claim of mutual empathy via mutual distrust "I've criticized Musk!" ... "I've been contradicting DOGE on things since they became a thing" * a surrender of high-ground via tenuous appeal-to-authority "Bibi says he's not a nazi" * a veneer of emotional maturity over others: "we don't have to be so stressed about needing to trust DOGE's changes" I've seen enough of on-line conversations to understand the "I'm just asking questions" type -- the kind who only grows in power as response after response is parried with "my goodenss, how rude?!" aplomb. Buffeted yet calm, our poster friend claims the high-ground while having-and-eating cake. Our poster is in an incredulous superposition of: "So yeah, I don't trust him." and "I was shocked" or "I don't think they'd renege on it. I'm certainly not naive!" I've wasted too much time discussing our mutual friend. I should not have done my drive-by, and I apologize to you both for the energy consumption of my this and my previous post. I shrink away cowardly from responding anymore. I do not apologize for lacking credulity.
- radlad 2y agoYou're giving them the benefit of the doubt because they made a vague promise to give you a bigger tax refund?
- CyrsBel 2y agoDid you read the entire post you are responding to? I clearly said this at the end: "That being said, these are nice things that people would want to hear so I too am paying attention." It is in my nature to give the benefit of the doubt.
- malcolmgreaves 2y ago> It is in my nature to give the benefit of the doubt. I would implore you to develop the skill of judging one’s character overtime. Some folks have proven they don’t deserve the benefit. Otherwise, I fear that your good nature will become a vulnerability instead of the strength that I can be.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lowercased 2y ago> It is in my nature to give the benefit of the doubt. There should be little to doubt at this point, however. "Dismantling of the administrative state" was a mantra for many who are now in positions of power. Then: "Prices will come down on day 1!" Now: "It's hard to get prices to come down once they're up". At some point, there's not much reason to doubt someone's goals, regardless of what they say. You can look at past say/do combinations and make reasonable predictions. Stop giving 'benefits' to people with years of documented track records under the aegis of 'doubt'.
- watwut 2y ago> It is in my nature to give the benefit of the doubt. Then you should be giving the benefit of the doubt to the people and institutions that are accused on flimsy evidence. Then you should be giving benefit of the doubt to Harris and Clinton too, to progressives, to SJWs, feminists, to centrists.
- financetechbro 2y agoI’m sorry but the naivety of your comment is absolutely hilarious. Good luck getting your refund when the IRS is being ran by a handful of angsty young adults
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- CyrsBel 2y agoDOGE and POTUS are incentivized to follow through on this type of thing because it would increase good-faith in the masses big time. I don't think they'd renege on it. I'm certainly not naive! You can see that I've been contradicting DOGE on things since they became a thing. (@cyrsbel on X)
- lowercased 2y agoHow are those public contradictions going? > increase good-faith in the masses big time What incentive is there for anyone in the Trump administration to care about that? I don't see one. > I don't think they'd renege on it. Lower prices on day 1. Stopping Ukraine war on day 1. Trump just says things in the moment to play for approval, then says something contradictory later if need be. There is no fallout, pushback or consequence from his supporters, and they have control of ... all branches of government right now.
- hobs 2y agoI am not reading your twitter history to say that assuming Elon and Trump wont renege on something is the worst bet of your entire life.
- CyrsBel 2y agoThe point of that comment was to show that I am not naive about these matters. They need to be called out for reneging so that they stop doing it.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
- spott 2y agoYou realize that the entire executive branch excluding defense is like 10% of the federal budget. There isn’t enough money to be saved to give you back anything.
- ModernMech 2y agoPeople don’t understand scale. They will cut spending $800B, cut taxes by $4T and people will say that action is budget neutral.
- ojbyrne 2y agoI did have a question about that. Where does the other 60% go? Isn’t the whole point to reduce the debt?
- dr-detroit 2y ago[dead]
- basscomm 2y ago> The reason I still give them benefit of the doubt on their intentions is...because they did come out and say that 20% of the savings should go back to taxpayers as a refund and that 20% should go directly to reducing the debt. That being said, these are nice things that people would want to hear so I too am paying attention. I'd rather the government keep the money and use it to pay for the many services that it provides. Like ensuring that I have clean water, unadulterated food, clean air, a functional banking system, healthcare, safe vehicles, making sure that unemployed people don't starve, researching infectious disease remediation, performing scientific research, maintaining national parks, making sure that kids have a baseline education, doing humanitarian work around the globe, and a thousand other things I don't have the time to enumerate.
- gadflyinyoureye 2y agoShould the government get a blank check? If there is waste and removing it won’t reduce efficacy, it should be purged.
- CyrsBel 2y agoYou are both correct. It's not an either-or.
- John23832 2y ago> and removing it won’t reduce efficacy, it should be purged. This is the load-bearing idea that is made of toilet tissue. It will create inefficiency. In the best case because it's not how the decades of built up institutional knowledge knows how to get stuff done. If the worst (and most probable) case, because what you're removing is actually needed... and we'll get an "oops sorry" later when the damage is done.
- intended 2y ago>This is the load-bearing idea that is made of toilet tissue. Needed to save that line,
- 2y ago
- dTal 2y agoYou are not paying attention if you believe that a crack team consisting of the world's richest man and half a dozen tween interns physically invading government offices and dismantling entire departments fast enough to make your head spin is anything other than "ill intent".
- SmirkingRevenge 2y agoThis is Clientelism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clientelism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clientelism It's what authoritarian populists do when they get control of governments. They "hack" the economy with short-term stimulus and giveaways to keep the rubes content and happy while they dismantle civil society and the rule of law and entrench themselves. Economic stagnation and decline usually follow within a couple year, but if they've entrenched themselves well enough, they don't have to care about public opinion very much and can shift to repression.
- madeofpalk 2y agoAny sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice
- CyrsBel 2y agoThis is correct. Depending on the stakes, the right answer would be to err on the side of caution. Certainly repeated incompetence in a private setting would be grounds for suspension or termination.
- cempaka 2y agoPeople with malice like Elon Musk have noticed the widespread use of this aphorism and repeatedly leverage it to their advantage.
- specialist 2y agoYes and: fraud and errors are often indistinguishable.
- godelski 2y agoAt what point does incompetence /become/ malice? There is certainly a level of incompetence that requires active ignorance to one's naivety. I'd certainly consider a stubborn person who arrogantly ignores concerns of experts malicious. The active nature certainly matters.
- tshaddox 2y agoYes. Consider the concept of negligence. It is malicious to take action without exercising reasonable care, and part of reasonable care is ensuring that you are the slightest bit qualified to perform the action.
- godelski 2y agoI obviously agree, but for anyone reading along, this is also the legal definition: reasonable care. Reasonable is determined by peers, not the general population. So...
- smallmancontrov 2y agoElon has been operating in bad faith since the Twitter Files (so, the very start). Announce X, publish receipts that show ~X, but nobody reads receipts so checkmate. The "140 year old people in social security DB" post is just the latest example of bad-faith. Either there is actually >>$100B of social security fraud and that's the story or he wants to pretend like that's the case when he knows full well that presence in the DB does not indicate eligibility or payouts.
- lowercased 2y agoAgreed. Show the check numbers, mailing dates, bank transfers, etc. If there's actually really tens of billions flowing out to dead people monthly... demonstrate that. Should NOT be hard at all.
- smallmancontrov 2y agoShould not be hard... if it exists. Which is why I'm 99% sure it doesn't. But the lie will go twice around the world before the truth gets its pants on, as always.
- freedomben 2y agoFor sake of testing your position, let's assume the fraud is true and he does what you want and publishes the details like that. What about the corner-case person who actually is legitimate and now has incredibly private information out there to make stealing their identity trivial? As a statistical anomaly who is often that corner case, I'm glad you're not the one making the policy. I wish Elon wasn't as well, and I'm sure there's going to be a giant mess at the end, but using government power (which Elon has, whether rightly or wrongly) to publish personal information about people (which they get by force giving their monopoly on government power) especially without trial or due diligence is very wrong IMHO.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]