Of course everybody wants the government to be efficient. People just have very different idea of what that means in practice (what is useful vs. wasteful spending is highly subjective (in many cases))
Which idea? The marketing, or the goal? Because nothing about DOGE was an idea about making the government "efficient". It was about weakening the government.
This is a disingenuous comment, possibly involuntarily so, but it assumes that the parties involve ever had any other goal than just killing what Elon deemed useless.
One of the darkest pages in American history.
> You're unlikely to find any seriously critical views here.
You're welcome to criticize him yourself, if you want. I suspect that your complaints will be pretty weak relative to the broader American political zeitgeist.
I've had plenty of political conversations on HN before. I've literally been on the platform for almost a decade. It's always been bent one way - which makes political dialogue a pointless endeavor.
I agree with you about this. If you go against the prevailing politics here, you'll get "source?"-d and nitpicked to death by an army of fact checkers while they can state opinions as facts with impunity. If your facts are unassailable you simply get downvoted and ignored.
The best thing to do is to flag political posts and comments to bury them. Happily, this appears to have happened here.
Two arguments that have so far, been talking completely past each other with no desire to understand each other:
1) efficiency means "use software to identify and cut federal programs that could reasonably be taken over by either the State dept, States themselves, or the market"
2) efficiency means "add new software and programs that streamline existing processes"
As usual, we should be doing both in a careful and considered way, and definitely should not be accusing the other side of either fascism or communism. "Efficiency" is not a decision on funding or not funding federal science research, and everyone using that word to mean that is being knowingly disingenuous.
There was a huge amount of bloat in USAID, and I'm sure there will be a huge amount of bloat in NYC, and I'm sure there was a lot of good in both. Unless you're willing to discuss specifics and tradeoffs with a calm head, you're not helping just by virtue of being upset.
given that DOGE took a chainsaw to legitimate medical research that was working on saving lives and conditions for people who have no other options ... no, they were beyond heavy handed. They were out for blood using DEI as a smokescreen. Stop. This crap isn't welcome in the industry.
No, DOGE only recommended personnel and contract changes within various agencies. Trump promised not to touch entitlements and to increase military spending.
Note this was not the point of the original comment or my reply. You can in fact reduce spending without addressing defense spending: the majority of the federal budget is entitlements. No presidents (D or R) is even remotely hinting at doing this; it would be political suicide.
You mean they are making useful software and not just eliminating people and groups that were investigating Elon in some way?
https://archive.is/PSE0i
You mean the thing that was wrong with DOGE was execution, not the idea itself
Of course everybody wants the government to be efficient. People just have very different idea of what that means in practice (what is useful vs. wasteful spending is highly subjective (in many cases))
Which idea? The marketing, or the goal? Because nothing about DOGE was an idea about making the government "efficient". It was about weakening the government.
Ideas are a cover for the execution as it's the results that matter. Whoever is against government waste?
This is a disingenuous comment, possibly involuntarily so, but it assumes that the parties involve ever had any other goal than just killing what Elon deemed useless. One of the darkest pages in American history.
The college scorecard Lisa Gelobter lead is really useful:
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/search/
you can't beat the Zorhan!
so much politics on HN these days. edit: I mean politics related content
[dead]
[flagged]
> You're unlikely to find any seriously critical views here.
You're welcome to criticize him yourself, if you want. I suspect that your complaints will be pretty weak relative to the broader American political zeitgeist.
I've had plenty of political conversations on HN before. I've literally been on the platform for almost a decade. It's always been bent one way - which makes political dialogue a pointless endeavor.
Kinda sounds like a cop-out. You alleged that he's due criticism, but you're unable to levy it?
No, you're trying to egg me into a political conversation on HN, and I'm refusing. I thought that was pretty clear in the last comment.
I want you to substantiate your original political claim, not lament your loneliness for having an unpopular opinion.
I agree with you about this. If you go against the prevailing politics here, you'll get "source?"-d and nitpicked to death by an army of fact checkers while they can state opinions as facts with impunity. If your facts are unassailable you simply get downvoted and ignored.
The best thing to do is to flag political posts and comments to bury them. Happily, this appears to have happened here.
Glad I'm not crazy. This is exactly the behavior I've witnessed over the years.
[dead]
Two arguments that have so far, been talking completely past each other with no desire to understand each other:
1) efficiency means "use software to identify and cut federal programs that could reasonably be taken over by either the State dept, States themselves, or the market"
2) efficiency means "add new software and programs that streamline existing processes"
As usual, we should be doing both in a careful and considered way, and definitely should not be accusing the other side of either fascism or communism. "Efficiency" is not a decision on funding or not funding federal science research, and everyone using that word to mean that is being knowingly disingenuous.
There was a huge amount of bloat in USAID, and I'm sure there will be a huge amount of bloat in NYC, and I'm sure there was a lot of good in both. Unless you're willing to discuss specifics and tradeoffs with a calm head, you're not helping just by virtue of being upset.
I heard they invented the GIF
I'm just glad I don't live in New York.
We want more efficiency, not bloated tech teams spending more and more taxpayer dollars.
DOGE was heavy handed, but the cuts still needed to be made. It should have been done in a more precise manner.
given that DOGE took a chainsaw to legitimate medical research that was working on saving lives and conditions for people who have no other options ... no, they were beyond heavy handed. They were out for blood using DEI as a smokescreen. Stop. This crap isn't welcome in the industry.
Budget cuts that don't touch military spending aren't real budget cuts.
Entitlements and debt payments are ~60% of the budget and the entire defense expenditure is ~12%
Ok, did DOGE decrease those?
No, DOGE only recommended personnel and contract changes within various agencies. Trump promised not to touch entitlements and to increase military spending.
Note this was not the point of the original comment or my reply. You can in fact reduce spending without addressing defense spending: the majority of the federal budget is entitlements. No presidents (D or R) is even remotely hinting at doing this; it would be political suicide.
DOGE wasn't even looking in the same world as where the majority of actual fraud and waste takes place.
> the cuts still needed to be made.
Which ones? Because there are a lot of instances where genuinely good, productive and useful programs were cut.
[dead]
[dead]