3 ms·
> rush of getting the site out and stabilized. I agree that there's no evidence, at least not yet, of malicious intent. But remember that the "rush of getting
by declan 12y ago
> rush of getting the site out and stabilized.
I agree that there's no evidence, at least not yet, of malicious intent. But remember that the "rush of getting the site out" took place back in 2012-2013, with a launch in 2013. It's 2015 now.
- acdha 12y agoOh, sure – I just suspect that project has been in death-march mode for the last few years. I'd be shocked if the initial launch & stability rush wasn't immediately followed by “now that that's done, we have this backlog of postponed requirements…”
- Alupis 12y agoWould it excuse it if it were, say, not HealthCare.gov but rather some private company's website? (probably not)
- acdha 12y agoI don't see anyone excusing it – only discounting the supposition that it was intentional. The only reason this is particularly newsworthy is that it's a .gov service connected to a contentious political issue – I mean, my health insurance company uses the same DoubleClick tracking service and I doubt I could even get a reporter to call me back if I tried to peddle some conspiracy theory about it.