I've always been confident in the ability of the US institutions to correct the mistakes being made, great to see an end to this ridiculous DOGE situation.
DOGE made the mistake of not making a sham trial and court. There was a brutal deposition where they were asking a barely beyond teenager how he had the technical experience to determine if particular grants/projects were DEI, and it was clear he hadn't been properly informed of the magic phrases bureaucrats are to say to questions like these when confronted. Cops and other entrenched professionals always get the training to answer this properly by arguing they got the right training by the right bullshit artists with the right PhDs with the right expert witnesses to say "yuh, what he said." "consistent with my training and experience" yada yada, ask the expert witness who developed our process, who we have in our pocket....
If DOGE had any foresight, they would have done what the rest of government does (including the DEI people) and create some bullshit academic program that pumps out "credentialed" bullshit artists that explain their PhD in anti-DEI qualifies them and then absolutely flood anyone contesting it with a pile of paperwork mumbo-jumbo of so many reasons they never will have the time to disprove them all .
No, I don't think that was it. How many cops have been able to bullshit Ouija (drug) dogs as PC while just deferring to the "experts" to bullshit how they're trained and how a dog that barely works better than a coin flip is a legally valid process for establishing PC? As long as they have some document that shows they followed the process vetted by some expert witness that has had 5 years of practice on creating so much bullshit artistry you can never disprove it all without going bankrupt, then they usually get away with.
There's endless armies of people (immigration 'judges' are a big one) that do totally fraudulent process but because it's dressed up in all the right deflective language and credentialism it gets a pass. DOGE was new enough they didn't brief their employees on all the magic mumbo jumbo phrases to say yet. Given a few more years and you'd have people doing the exact same damn thing except answering depositions with the right magic deflections that they'd get away with it. Given more time, they'd have their DEI legal equivalent of a drug dog.
DOGE was absolute nonsense from top to bottom. I was convinced it was purely a scam, but some exit interviews seem to indicate they really believed their own hype. Musk saying they'd find $1-2T in savings just by looking at stuff with AI was preposterous. And they brought in a squad of pathologically optimistic kids who believed him. They were so grossly inexperienced and irrational that they really thought they could put budgets into a spreadsheet type "Find the fraud" into ChatGPT and find anything useful and were surprised when they didn't. Then they repeatedly lied about their progress. You can't expect any level of operational sophistication or political savvy from a team that inept.
Yes my comment was a bit of a knee jerk reaction to seeing a statement, but take a pause and consider what caused it.
It shouldn’t be surprising that a call for shrinking government after the doge fiasco raises counter examples, especially in response to an article on doge.
And since your statement was so broad and generalized, it doesn’t really lend itself to constructive debate.
But yes this site strives for more quality discussion.
It seems we both agree though, but have different views on where to set the scale.
We agree on the fundamental yeah? Can we agree that while regulation and enforcement, aka big government, is annoying and costly, yet at the same time a good number of regulations are or were necessary due to being written in literal blood.
We agree on that right? That neither of us want melamine poisoning the milk small kids drink nor do we want our kitchen counter tops to be priced in terms of lung chunks of workers. But also acknowledge that regulations hurt small businesses and need balance.
Don't worry, they'll add a skill that says, "pretend I asked this question like a lawyer, and you are a paralegal who does all my work for me."
I've always been confident in the ability of the US institutions to correct the mistakes being made, great to see an end to this ridiculous DOGE situation.
Courts are extremely reluctant to turn back a lot of government decisions. There'll be some minimal restitution and a promise to never do it again.
And then the Trump administration will use Claude next time.
Human trash
Sometimes the dumbness can be more offensive than the crime itself.
The original title is:
> Court To DOGE Bros: Asking ChatGPT ‘Yo, Is This DEI?’ Is Not Proper Legal Process & Also A First Amendment Violation
DOGE made the mistake of not making a sham trial and court. There was a brutal deposition where they were asking a barely beyond teenager how he had the technical experience to determine if particular grants/projects were DEI, and it was clear he hadn't been properly informed of the magic phrases bureaucrats are to say to questions like these when confronted. Cops and other entrenched professionals always get the training to answer this properly by arguing they got the right training by the right bullshit artists with the right PhDs with the right expert witnesses to say "yuh, what he said." "consistent with my training and experience" yada yada, ask the expert witness who developed our process, who we have in our pocket....
If DOGE had any foresight, they would have done what the rest of government does (including the DEI people) and create some bullshit academic program that pumps out "credentialed" bullshit artists that explain their PhD in anti-DEI qualifies them and then absolutely flood anyone contesting it with a pile of paperwork mumbo-jumbo of so many reasons they never will have the time to disprove them all .
DOGE made the mistake to put people without proper knowledge in positions that require knowledge.
How is the COBOL port to Java going?
No, I don't think that was it. How many cops have been able to bullshit Ouija (drug) dogs as PC while just deferring to the "experts" to bullshit how they're trained and how a dog that barely works better than a coin flip is a legally valid process for establishing PC? As long as they have some document that shows they followed the process vetted by some expert witness that has had 5 years of practice on creating so much bullshit artistry you can never disprove it all without going bankrupt, then they usually get away with.
There's endless armies of people (immigration 'judges' are a big one) that do totally fraudulent process but because it's dressed up in all the right deflective language and credentialism it gets a pass. DOGE was new enough they didn't brief their employees on all the magic mumbo jumbo phrases to say yet. Given a few more years and you'd have people doing the exact same damn thing except answering depositions with the right magic deflections that they'd get away with it. Given more time, they'd have their DEI legal equivalent of a drug dog.
DOGE was absolute nonsense from top to bottom. I was convinced it was purely a scam, but some exit interviews seem to indicate they really believed their own hype. Musk saying they'd find $1-2T in savings just by looking at stuff with AI was preposterous. And they brought in a squad of pathologically optimistic kids who believed him. They were so grossly inexperienced and irrational that they really thought they could put budgets into a spreadsheet type "Find the fraud" into ChatGPT and find anything useful and were surprised when they didn't. Then they repeatedly lied about their progress. You can't expect any level of operational sophistication or political savvy from a team that inept.
[flagged]
I too pine for the days when we could easily have fun by lighting the rivers on fire to pass the time.
Your extrapolation makes absolutely no sense. I didn't say no government or laws, or advocate for any such thing. Try reading slower.
Yes my comment was a bit of a knee jerk reaction to seeing a statement, but take a pause and consider what caused it.
It shouldn’t be surprising that a call for shrinking government after the doge fiasco raises counter examples, especially in response to an article on doge.
And since your statement was so broad and generalized, it doesn’t really lend itself to constructive debate.
But yes this site strives for more quality discussion.
It seems we both agree though, but have different views on where to set the scale.
We agree on the fundamental yeah? Can we agree that while regulation and enforcement, aka big government, is annoying and costly, yet at the same time a good number of regulations are or were necessary due to being written in literal blood.
We agree on that right? That neither of us want melamine poisoning the milk small kids drink nor do we want our kitchen counter tops to be priced in terms of lung chunks of workers. But also acknowledge that regulations hurt small businesses and need balance.
You should read the article and gain understanding of the thing that you think you're criticizing. Then you will understand the parent comment.
Your argument is a non-sequitur.
Too bad they left out the review part. Maybe because you have to know the subject to actually review it
Every single time a bunch of people come into power and think they can "fix the system" and the system cuts off their balls...