4 ms·
The way you combat the creep of bureaucratic miasma is by regularly turning a critical eye inward. At least private organizations perform regular layoffs. At l
by dcow 2y ago
The way you combat the creep of bureaucratic miasma is by regularly turning a critical eye inward.
At least private organizations perform regular layoffs. At least private organizations are accountable to shareholders.
The government is accountable to citizens and citizens voted for this. Yes, it’s disruptive. That’s the point.
- davepeck 2y ago> The way you combat the creep of bureaucratic miasma is by regularly turning a critical eye inward It certainly can’t hurt. Alas for the current moment, but it seems the eye we’re turning inward is as far from “critical” as can be.
- dcow 2y agoI keep seeing this argument. Can you help me understand what parts are serving a hidden agenda?
- davepeck 2y agoWho said anything about a hidden agenda? Can you consider that the current efforts are outright foolish?
- dcow 2y agoI disagree that trying to curb “fraud waste and abuse” is an outfight foolish endeavor, no.
- davepeck 2y agoThere are effective approaches to curbing fraud waste and abuse and ineffective or even damaging approaches. Which do you believe the current administration is engaged in?
- dcow 2y agoI believe they will prove effective. I believe the government is in need of disruptive change. I welcome the effort.
- davepeck 2y agoFor what it’s worth: I believe they will prove ineffective at best, damaging at worst. I believe disruptive change should be undertaken with a deep understanding of the history of an organization and a clear-eyed accounting of its successes and failures. I see no evidence of this. I believe the current effort is, well, a bit more like a recklessly wielded chainsaw.
- dcow 2y agoIf Twitter was a failing business and Musk didn't have a proven track record, I’d be a lot more skeptical in general. If the nuclear staffing cuts weren’t immediately rolled back, I’d feel more concerned about the ability of the wielders.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- whyenot 2y agoA plurality (49.8%) of voters voted for Trump. More voted for something else.
- dcow 2y agoI’m not following.
- Insanity 2y agoFair, but not on the same “something else” so Trump still had the majority share. I guess I’m more surprised by the low voter turnout. If you voted for Trump or didn’t vote at all, you are partly responsible for the mess being created lol. Choosing not to pick a side is a choice in itself - not the absence of choice.
- svantana 2y agoNo. Trump had the largest share, not the majority.