4 ms·

I'm not paying close attention to all the noise, so forgive me if I am way off base. But aren't they effectively doing a values purge/refinement/reset? Similar

I'm not paying close attention to all the noise, so forgive me if I am way off base. But aren't they effectively doing a values purge/refinement/reset? Similar to what Elon did with twitter and what few companies have managed to do to transform themselves? My point is (in an effort to maintain a most respectful interpretation) that I imagine the environment is becoming more hostile to people with certain values while becoming less hostile to people with other values. And while there's a good chance I'm wrong, my generous assumption would be they are making a hostile environment for people who value process over outcome and making it less hostile to people who value outcome over process. (Replacing bureaucrats and risk-averse money wasters with problem solvers, innovators and cowboys)

Vegenoid 2y ago
Even if this is the case, “process” is immensely more important in government and military than in companies because government has the authority, the prerogative even, to use violence, ruin lives, and kill people. The onerous processes are in place to protect civilians. When you shoot from the hip at a tech company, the bad outcome is that a lot of money gets wasted and people lose their jobs. When the federal government shoots from the hip, trust in the institution erodes and people die. Not that there is no room for streamlining and reducing bureaucratic and IT bloat, but it is very important to remember that the government is not a business, and in many ways should be run very differently from a business.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Plus, many of the laws government has to follow are exactly about the process by which things are done. That is what helps ensure it is fair, effective, transparent, etc.
  - FloorEgg 2y ago
    I agree, but what was fair and effective in 1970 might not be anymore, right? Do you agree that these processes need to evolve over time? And if so, what if they haven't been evolving as fast as the rest of the world and have fallen behind? What is a leader to do, when many processes no longer are in anyone's best interest other than the people who maintain them and those have learned to exploit them? The government doesn't seem like a machine to me, more like society's nervous system. It's a very scary idea that it has become so rigid and so outdated that a massive overhaul is necessary. It does seem like an opening for extremism (fascism, tyranny), which I'm sure we both fear. I just find it very hard to tell whether disrupting the system or letting it continue will lead to a better outcome for Americans.
    - kmijyiyxfbklao 2y ago
      Yeah, structural changes don't happen slowly and by the rules. What people don't like is what they think the new system is going to look like. But we don't know what that is going to be because Trump seems to be better at destroying than at building. It will depend on his successor(s) being good at building institutions. Or it may fail and the old system regenerates.
      - FloorEgg 2y ago
        This seems accurate to me. They are destroying many US institutions, and what replaces them may be better or may be worse. I am not sure anyone can tell right now. This wouldn't be happening if everyone was happy with the status quo, if the US was in a golden era, but it wasn't. Many things clearly weren't working. Sometimes it's easier to tear something down and rebuild it than fix it (not always, but sometimes).
        anon84873628 2y ago
        I'm not convinced things were as bad as people claim. The right wing has been conducting a concerted propaganda war for the last 20 years to make people scared.
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    Fair and transparent are arguable. I have never met someone who deals with the government on a regular basis that has ever described it as effective, and at this point I am willing to sacrifice some fairness and transparency for effectiveness.
    - anon84873628 2y ago
      In a fairly recent interview where he was asked about DOGE, Bill Gates estimated 10-15% waste in government spending. Saving that amount is not worth all the collateral long term damage Trump is doing. You may not put much stock in another billionaire's opinion, but personally I think he's been engaged with our system enough to have a good perspective on things. That doesn't mean every government operations are 90% efficient, but I'd rather walk the side of slowness and bureaucracy than graft and corruption, let alone Trump's outright fascism. And by the way, my father worked at a federal manufacturing plant so I've heard plenty of stories, good and bad.
      - fallingknife 2y ago
        First of all, my comment has nothing to do with Trump, so let's leave him out of it. I would doubt Gates's number because I have never been in a company that had 15% or less waste. e.g I don't think you could find a tech company out there that couldn't reduce its AWS bill by 15% without any service degradation, but it's just not a priority. But the meaning of "waste" is highly subjective so some people wouldn't count that type of inefficiency as "waste". It may take a lot of resources to follow the process that the government mandates or use the ancient technology that it uses, and if the government efficiently follows the process with the existing tech, then it's not "wasteful." But I would call the process itself and the failure to upgrade the tech waste. As for corruption vs bureaucratic inefficiency, why should I favor one over the other except by cost comparison? If the government pays $100 million to build a road that really costs $50 million because the contractor is owned by the governors cousin, that's a lot better for me than paying $200 million for the same road because the bureaucratic process to keep the governors cousin from unfairly getting the contract costs $150 million. And that's not even getting into the fact that the bureaucratic path also costs more in terms of time. IMO the process is just as much graft as the nepotism. All those lawyers and consultants and government employees that consume the $150 million are just as much the recipients of ill gotten gains as the governor's cousin. I recognize that this can't be eliminated, so I simply would choose whichever one was cheaper. And in the US I think we are in a situation where the bureaucracy consumes much more than would be taken by corruption. China is quite corrupt and yet their government gets a lot more done for a lot less money, and in a lot less time than ours does.
- FloorEgg 2y ago
  That's all true. Process and bureaucracy are guard rails, and guard rails limit change. So when the whole system is barrelling towards a cliff (default, hyperinflation, kinetic war), what should the leaders try and do? It probably seems like I'm defending their actions, I genuinely don't know if their actions are correct and I'm not defending them. I'm just acknowledging it seems like many US institutions haven't been appropriately evolving, and now the US as a whole is between a rock and a hard place. If I'm going to spend time thinking about these things (that I have virtually no control over), I would prefer to do it in a curious and mostly emotionally detached way.
  - immibis 2y ago
    I don't quite get the metaphor - you might have reversed it. The whole system is barrelling towards a cliff because of the current administration, who took away the guard rails that stopped the system barrelling towards a cliff, and then set course directly towards the cliff. The old system could well have been, like, scraping against the guard rails, flattening them gradually over time. The solution to that is not to remove the rails and aim directly for the cliff. Unless you're an accelerationist. Accelerationists are people who view bad times as inevitable, and want them to come as quickly as possible so we can get through to the other side (where times are good again) as quickly as possible, instead of prolonging the collapse by doing it more slowly. Does that describe you?
    - FloorEgg 2y ago
      I think that the most appropriate strategy depends on the specifics of the situation. For some types of problems the best course of action is to do nothing, some times the best course of action is to make small adjustments, sometimes do less, sometimes do more, sometimes slow down, sometimes speed up, and sometimes the best course of action is to make radical changes. I don't over-generalize and prescribe the same ideological answer to everything. I have also witnessed first hand how new terminology can have very different meanings to different people. Ask 100 product leaders to define what a "customer need" is and you will probably get dozens of different answers. Ask 100 CIOs to define what a "data mesh" is, and you will probably get dozens of different answers. I think that when an environment is changing at an accelerating pace, its necessary for the organisms living in the environment to adapt at a similar pace in order to survive/thrive. I also believe that our environment is changing at an accelerating pace. I suspect that you think I have reverse the metaphor because you have been paying more close attention to recent rage-baiting news, and I have spent a longer time paying closer attention to "boring" economic analysis. My model of the situation includes many historical examples of hyperinflation and what led to them, the consequences of Muammar Gaddafi dropping the petrodollar, the impact of citizens united on the military industrial complex, the exploding web of "NGOs" meddling in world affairs, how technology is an extremely deflationary force and how regulatory capture shifts economic benefits of new technology from the consumer to industry incumbents, how the Bretton-woods era started and ended, and how the neoliberal era started (and was ending regardless of political party), etc, etc. Despite all this perspective I mentioned, I feel as though I know a tiny % of what is important to know in order to judge the situation accurately. The more I learn the more it seems like I don't know, and the more curious I get. Color me in the Dunning Kruger "valley of despair". So no, I don't think the simplistic blanket decision making protocol you defined describes me.
anon84873628 2y ago
You're being way too generous about the values they're trying to set. If it were about "people who value outcome over process", they would have done cuts in a way that keep those type of people, and programs that already have good outcomes. Instead they just cut everything uncritically, because the outcome they want is for nothing to work. And the value they want in the remaining people is personal loyalty to Trump, not loyalty to the law or expertise in their job.
mint2 2y ago
> Similar to what Elon did with twitter Wait who thinks what Elon did with Twitter was a success? While it hasn’t fully collapsed like some predicted, it seems like a total unmitigated failure in any standard economic or business terms. It’s been a success only in terms of providing a bigger mouthpiece to Elon and those he favors, not a typical metric of corporate success. In that regards, yes what is happening at the federal government mimics Twitter - making the government worse in terms of any usual metric of government performance but making it better in terms of carrying out arbitrary whims of a leader.
- FloorEgg 2y ago
  Are you basing your opinion on your own personal experience using twitter, or on what you've read or heard about it on other media platforms?
  - mint2 2y ago
    Well revenue cratered and that’s usually a critical business metric for financially viable businesses Reminds me the joke of how to become a millionaire that’s basically start with a billion and invest in xyz terrible idea. That’s basically twitter, a shell of its former revenue and status.
    - FloorEgg 2y ago
      There are many legitimate reasons to criticize Elon, but I think you are mistaken about this one. After years of implementing no new functionality at twitter, Elon cut 75% of the workforce and in a relatively short time that followed they implemented: Expanded Content Capabilities: Users can now post long-form content, including articles up to 25,000 characters, and upload videos up to three hours in length. AI Integration: The platform introduced "Grok," an AI chatbot developed by xAI, integrated into X to provide real-time assistance and content summarization. Job Search Functionality: X added a job search feature, allowing users to explore employment opportunities directly on the platform. Financial Services: Plans were announced for "X Money Account," a digital wallet enabling real-time payments and fund transfers, developed in partnership with Visa. Communication Tools: Audio and video calling features were introduced, expanding the platform's communication capabilities. Content Monetization: Users can now earn income from engagement on their posts. Many more things... tiered subscription plans, overhaul of moderation policies, community notes expansion, algorithm changes. They were able to do all these things with a 75% reduction in workforce. Don't you find that interesting? If it had nothing to do with Elon, what would you think about it? It's also been reported that X/Twitter is now more profitable than it has ever been. It's revenue may have shrunk, I am not sure, but even if it's true cherry-picking that fact isn't intellectually honest.

Vegenoid 2y ago

Even if this is the case, “process” is immensely more important in government and military than in companies because government has the authority, the prerogative even, to use violence, ruin lives, and kill people. The onerous processes are in place to protect civilians. When you shoot from the hip at a tech company, the bad outcome is that a lot of money gets wasted and people lose their jobs. When the federal government shoots from the hip, trust in the institution erodes and people die. Not that there is no room for streamlining and reducing bureaucratic and IT bloat, but it is very important to remember that the government is not a business, and in many ways should be run very differently from a business.

anon84873628 2y ago
Plus, many of the laws government has to follow are exactly about the process by which things are done. That is what helps ensure it is fair, effective, transparent, etc.
- FloorEgg 2y ago
  I agree, but what was fair and effective in 1970 might not be anymore, right? Do you agree that these processes need to evolve over time? And if so, what if they haven't been evolving as fast as the rest of the world and have fallen behind? What is a leader to do, when many processes no longer are in anyone's best interest other than the people who maintain them and those have learned to exploit them? The government doesn't seem like a machine to me, more like society's nervous system. It's a very scary idea that it has become so rigid and so outdated that a massive overhaul is necessary. It does seem like an opening for extremism (fascism, tyranny), which I'm sure we both fear. I just find it very hard to tell whether disrupting the system or letting it continue will lead to a better outcome for Americans.
  - kmijyiyxfbklao 2y ago
    Yeah, structural changes don't happen slowly and by the rules. What people don't like is what they think the new system is going to look like. But we don't know what that is going to be because Trump seems to be better at destroying than at building. It will depend on his successor(s) being good at building institutions. Or it may fail and the old system regenerates.
    - FloorEgg 2y ago
      This seems accurate to me. They are destroying many US institutions, and what replaces them may be better or may be worse. I am not sure anyone can tell right now. This wouldn't be happening if everyone was happy with the status quo, if the US was in a golden era, but it wasn't. Many things clearly weren't working. Sometimes it's easier to tear something down and rebuild it than fix it (not always, but sometimes).
      - anon84873628 2y ago
        I'm not convinced things were as bad as people claim. The right wing has been conducting a concerted propaganda war for the last 20 years to make people scared.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  Fair and transparent are arguable. I have never met someone who deals with the government on a regular basis that has ever described it as effective, and at this point I am willing to sacrifice some fairness and transparency for effectiveness.
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    In a fairly recent interview where he was asked about DOGE, Bill Gates estimated 10-15% waste in government spending. Saving that amount is not worth all the collateral long term damage Trump is doing. You may not put much stock in another billionaire's opinion, but personally I think he's been engaged with our system enough to have a good perspective on things. That doesn't mean every government operations are 90% efficient, but I'd rather walk the side of slowness and bureaucracy than graft and corruption, let alone Trump's outright fascism. And by the way, my father worked at a federal manufacturing plant so I've heard plenty of stories, good and bad.
    - fallingknife 2y ago
      First of all, my comment has nothing to do with Trump, so let's leave him out of it. I would doubt Gates's number because I have never been in a company that had 15% or less waste. e.g I don't think you could find a tech company out there that couldn't reduce its AWS bill by 15% without any service degradation, but it's just not a priority. But the meaning of "waste" is highly subjective so some people wouldn't count that type of inefficiency as "waste". It may take a lot of resources to follow the process that the government mandates or use the ancient technology that it uses, and if the government efficiently follows the process with the existing tech, then it's not "wasteful." But I would call the process itself and the failure to upgrade the tech waste. As for corruption vs bureaucratic inefficiency, why should I favor one over the other except by cost comparison? If the government pays $100 million to build a road that really costs $50 million because the contractor is owned by the governors cousin, that's a lot better for me than paying $200 million for the same road because the bureaucratic process to keep the governors cousin from unfairly getting the contract costs $150 million. And that's not even getting into the fact that the bureaucratic path also costs more in terms of time. IMO the process is just as much graft as the nepotism. All those lawyers and consultants and government employees that consume the $150 million are just as much the recipients of ill gotten gains as the governor's cousin. I recognize that this can't be eliminated, so I simply would choose whichever one was cheaper. And in the US I think we are in a situation where the bureaucracy consumes much more than would be taken by corruption. China is quite corrupt and yet their government gets a lot more done for a lot less money, and in a lot less time than ours does.
FloorEgg 2y ago
That's all true. Process and bureaucracy are guard rails, and guard rails limit change. So when the whole system is barrelling towards a cliff (default, hyperinflation, kinetic war), what should the leaders try and do? It probably seems like I'm defending their actions, I genuinely don't know if their actions are correct and I'm not defending them. I'm just acknowledging it seems like many US institutions haven't been appropriately evolving, and now the US as a whole is between a rock and a hard place. If I'm going to spend time thinking about these things (that I have virtually no control over), I would prefer to do it in a curious and mostly emotionally detached way.
- immibis 2y ago
  I don't quite get the metaphor - you might have reversed it. The whole system is barrelling towards a cliff because of the current administration, who took away the guard rails that stopped the system barrelling towards a cliff, and then set course directly towards the cliff. The old system could well have been, like, scraping against the guard rails, flattening them gradually over time. The solution to that is not to remove the rails and aim directly for the cliff. Unless you're an accelerationist. Accelerationists are people who view bad times as inevitable, and want them to come as quickly as possible so we can get through to the other side (where times are good again) as quickly as possible, instead of prolonging the collapse by doing it more slowly. Does that describe you?
  - FloorEgg 2y ago
    I think that the most appropriate strategy depends on the specifics of the situation. For some types of problems the best course of action is to do nothing, some times the best course of action is to make small adjustments, sometimes do less, sometimes do more, sometimes slow down, sometimes speed up, and sometimes the best course of action is to make radical changes. I don't over-generalize and prescribe the same ideological answer to everything. I have also witnessed first hand how new terminology can have very different meanings to different people. Ask 100 product leaders to define what a "customer need" is and you will probably get dozens of different answers. Ask 100 CIOs to define what a "data mesh" is, and you will probably get dozens of different answers. I think that when an environment is changing at an accelerating pace, its necessary for the organisms living in the environment to adapt at a similar pace in order to survive/thrive. I also believe that our environment is changing at an accelerating pace. I suspect that you think I have reverse the metaphor because you have been paying more close attention to recent rage-baiting news, and I have spent a longer time paying closer attention to "boring" economic analysis. My model of the situation includes many historical examples of hyperinflation and what led to them, the consequences of Muammar Gaddafi dropping the petrodollar, the impact of citizens united on the military industrial complex, the exploding web of "NGOs" meddling in world affairs, how technology is an extremely deflationary force and how regulatory capture shifts economic benefits of new technology from the consumer to industry incumbents, how the Bretton-woods era started and ended, and how the neoliberal era started (and was ending regardless of political party), etc, etc. Despite all this perspective I mentioned, I feel as though I know a tiny % of what is important to know in order to judge the situation accurately. The more I learn the more it seems like I don't know, and the more curious I get. Color me in the Dunning Kruger "valley of despair". So no, I don't think the simplistic blanket decision making protocol you defined describes me.

anon84873628 2y ago

You're being way too generous about the values they're trying to set. If it were about "people who value outcome over process", they would have done cuts in a way that keep those type of people, and programs that already have good outcomes. Instead they just cut everything uncritically, because the outcome they want is for nothing to work. And the value they want in the remaining people is personal loyalty to Trump, not loyalty to the law or expertise in their job.

mint2 2y ago

> Similar to what Elon did with twitter Wait who thinks what Elon did with Twitter was a success? While it hasn’t fully collapsed like some predicted, it seems like a total unmitigated failure in any standard economic or business terms. It’s been a success only in terms of providing a bigger mouthpiece to Elon and those he favors, not a typical metric of corporate success. In that regards, yes what is happening at the federal government mimics Twitter - making the government worse in terms of any usual metric of government performance but making it better in terms of carrying out arbitrary whims of a leader.

FloorEgg 2y ago
Are you basing your opinion on your own personal experience using twitter, or on what you've read or heard about it on other media platforms?
- mint2 2y ago
  Well revenue cratered and that’s usually a critical business metric for financially viable businesses Reminds me the joke of how to become a millionaire that’s basically start with a billion and invest in xyz terrible idea. That’s basically twitter, a shell of its former revenue and status.
  - FloorEgg 2y ago
    There are many legitimate reasons to criticize Elon, but I think you are mistaken about this one. After years of implementing no new functionality at twitter, Elon cut 75% of the workforce and in a relatively short time that followed they implemented: Expanded Content Capabilities: Users can now post long-form content, including articles up to 25,000 characters, and upload videos up to three hours in length. AI Integration: The platform introduced "Grok," an AI chatbot developed by xAI, integrated into X to provide real-time assistance and content summarization. Job Search Functionality: X added a job search feature, allowing users to explore employment opportunities directly on the platform. Financial Services: Plans were announced for "X Money Account," a digital wallet enabling real-time payments and fund transfers, developed in partnership with Visa. Communication Tools: Audio and video calling features were introduced, expanding the platform's communication capabilities. Content Monetization: Users can now earn income from engagement on their posts. Many more things... tiered subscription plans, overhaul of moderation policies, community notes expansion, algorithm changes. They were able to do all these things with a 75% reduction in workforce. Don't you find that interesting? If it had nothing to do with Elon, what would you think about it? It's also been reported that X/Twitter is now more profitable than it has ever been. It's revenue may have shrunk, I am not sure, but even if it's true cherry-picking that fact isn't intellectually honest.