3 ms·

The Russian IPs may also be a ploy by people at DOGE to cause doubt about the security of the NLRB to get play at a court in order to not disclose company secre

The Russian IPs may also be a ploy by people at DOGE to cause doubt about the security of the NLRB to get play at a court in order to not disclose company secrets required for cases. I guess DOGE wanted to write a report how they saw Russian IPs login in but it back fired because the people at NLRB have proof DOGE created the accounts. EDIT: edited for clarity.

amarcheschi 1y ago
I do not understand why we should still give these people the benefit of doubt. How many scandals we have to endure? How many evil things need to be done? How many people need to be unnecessarily fired? Edit: the parent comment was edited
- kubb 1y ago
  There’s no limit. Everything Musk does can and will be given the benefit of the doubt. It’s a matter of identity, he’s their guy and they stick to him through malpractice and treason.
  - amarcheschi 1y ago
    The level of faith that there's in some of those communities is... Cultish. These days I was reading on effective altruism, sbf, ftx debacle and macaskill influence on sbf. It's weird how long it is possible to go to justify someone's actions
    - kubb 1y ago
      They’ll always stick to their team, no matter what. Anything else means losing.
      - amarcheschi 1y ago
        And that's what scares me the most about those ideologies. With their p(doom) they basically say oh an infinite damage may happen! And to prevent an infinite damage, of course everything is allowed. And that absolutely doesn't bode well for democracy. And of course it goes well with the oligarchy at the silicon Valley because they see themselves as saviors
        ModernMech 1y ago
        This is silicon valley and particularly Musk's logic put into practice in the government. Look at how they talk about driverless cars. "Automobile deaths are bad and numerous, we want to get rid of them with driverless cars, which will kill people in the course of their development, but that's okay because remember we told you about the deaths we will prevent in the future? Therefore we can expend as many lives as we want now because by doing so we will save infinite lives. This is why we must be permitted to operate beta robots on public roads." The rationale continues on to starship and neuralink. We have to go to Mars to save humanity, therefore you must tolerate starships exploding and destroying the ecosystem over your house. We have to invent this important medical device to save people, therefore we must conduct morally gray research on implanting devices into human brains. The justifications and rationalizations are endless.
        amarcheschi 1y ago
        And somehow, it's never - or always never - them those who have to bear the consequences of the hardships they cause to endure before we reach heaven Paint me surprised
        AnimalMuppet 1y ago
        Radical utopians think the ends justifies the means. But the problem is, utopia never arrives, so we never get the ends, but we certainly get the means. The same is (almost) true of radical anti-dystopians. The problem is that their p(doom) is... shall we say uncalibrated? It may be a case of tiger repellent. But while they're trying to prevent their "doom", the damage they do is real. And they're willing to do unlimited amounts of it, because doom is really bad. The "almost" part is because doom is sometimes real. Hitler, for example, really happened. The problem is that in 1931, say, it wasn't obvious that Hitler was actually going to become what he became. (Yeah, I know, Mein Kampf had already been written. It wasn't obvious that Hitler was actually going to be able to pull any of it off.) So in 1931, what was p(doom)? The doom everyone was trying to avoid in 1931 was economic. They weren't worried about trivial (!) little problems like a guy with a funny mustache who once wrote a nasty book. So the p(doom) crowd, even if they're right that doom is coming, still are often wrong about which doom is coming, and so their steps to avoid it are just causing damage, and not preventing doom at all.
- Muromec 1y ago
  There is an easy (but maybe incorrect) answer. People who give benefit of doubt in the face of obvious bullshit excuse are simply okay with alleged things happening. A stronger version of this claim is -- such people don't believe the bullshit excuse at all and want alleged things to happen.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  But his suggestion that they're connecting from Russian IPs as a ploy to make the NLRB seem insecure with the plan of using that as a way to make it unable to prosecute cases, is that really giving them the benefit of the doubt? Isn't that instead to suspect them of a nefarious plan to basically cripple labour law enforcement?
  - amarcheschi 1y ago
    Rereading his comment, I think it has been edited and reframed in a more suspicious tone towards doge
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      Yeah, okay.

amarcheschi 1y ago

I do not understand why we should still give these people the benefit of doubt. How many scandals we have to endure? How many evil things need to be done? How many people need to be unnecessarily fired? Edit: the parent comment was edited

kubb 1y ago
There’s no limit. Everything Musk does can and will be given the benefit of the doubt. It’s a matter of identity, he’s their guy and they stick to him through malpractice and treason.
- amarcheschi 1y ago
  The level of faith that there's in some of those communities is... Cultish. These days I was reading on effective altruism, sbf, ftx debacle and macaskill influence on sbf. It's weird how long it is possible to go to justify someone's actions
  - kubb 1y ago
    They’ll always stick to their team, no matter what. Anything else means losing.
    - amarcheschi 1y ago
      And that's what scares me the most about those ideologies. With their p(doom) they basically say oh an infinite damage may happen! And to prevent an infinite damage, of course everything is allowed. And that absolutely doesn't bode well for democracy. And of course it goes well with the oligarchy at the silicon Valley because they see themselves as saviors
      - ModernMech 1y ago
        This is silicon valley and particularly Musk's logic put into practice in the government. Look at how they talk about driverless cars. "Automobile deaths are bad and numerous, we want to get rid of them with driverless cars, which will kill people in the course of their development, but that's okay because remember we told you about the deaths we will prevent in the future? Therefore we can expend as many lives as we want now because by doing so we will save infinite lives. This is why we must be permitted to operate beta robots on public roads." The rationale continues on to starship and neuralink. We have to go to Mars to save humanity, therefore you must tolerate starships exploding and destroying the ecosystem over your house. We have to invent this important medical device to save people, therefore we must conduct morally gray research on implanting devices into human brains. The justifications and rationalizations are endless.
        amarcheschi 1y ago
        And somehow, it's never - or always never - them those who have to bear the consequences of the hardships they cause to endure before we reach heaven Paint me surprised
      - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
        Radical utopians think the ends justifies the means. But the problem is, utopia never arrives, so we never get the ends, but we certainly get the means. The same is (almost) true of radical anti-dystopians. The problem is that their p(doom) is... shall we say uncalibrated? It may be a case of tiger repellent. But while they're trying to prevent their "doom", the damage they do is real. And they're willing to do unlimited amounts of it, because doom is really bad. The "almost" part is because doom is sometimes real. Hitler, for example, really happened. The problem is that in 1931, say, it wasn't obvious that Hitler was actually going to become what he became. (Yeah, I know, Mein Kampf had already been written. It wasn't obvious that Hitler was actually going to be able to pull any of it off.) So in 1931, what was p(doom)? The doom everyone was trying to avoid in 1931 was economic. They weren't worried about trivial (!) little problems like a guy with a funny mustache who once wrote a nasty book. So the p(doom) crowd, even if they're right that doom is coming, still are often wrong about which doom is coming, and so their steps to avoid it are just causing damage, and not preventing doom at all.
Muromec 1y ago
There is an easy (but maybe incorrect) answer. People who give benefit of doubt in the face of obvious bullshit excuse are simply okay with alleged things happening. A stronger version of this claim is -- such people don't believe the bullshit excuse at all and want alleged things to happen.
impossiblefork 1y ago
But his suggestion that they're connecting from Russian IPs as a ploy to make the NLRB seem insecure with the plan of using that as a way to make it unable to prosecute cases, is that really giving them the benefit of the doubt? Isn't that instead to suspect them of a nefarious plan to basically cripple labour law enforcement?
- amarcheschi 1y ago
  Rereading his comment, I think it has been edited and reframed in a more suspicious tone towards doge
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    Yeah, okay.