Hacker News Reader

Comment by friend_Fernando | Hacker News Reader

This article is indirectly saying something critical about a certain someone with a wide following of non-digital and digital beings, so I wouldn't expect it to stay up very long.

View on HN

Applying the logic of the article to itself, what existing vendor with cozy arrangements would want to let someone with Extensive Monetary assets anywhere near the prize?

The article makes a good point about healthy skepticism; let that be omnidirectional.

There are absolutely vested interests that would want to stop any new players from entering and would try to stop that from happening. One benefit of existing processes is that there is usually at least some degree of visibility or accountability in the legacy procurement processes that would make their efforts visible. A non-department “department” like DOGE has no such transparency, as is obvious by the fact that there’s been no vetting of its current operations, not even the suggestion of congressional oversight, and no mention of the fact that it’s run by government suppliers with obvious conflicts of interest.

The plain conflict of interest of current suppliers is obvious.

> One benefit of existing processes is that there is usually at least some degree of visibility or accountability in the legacy procurement processes that would make their efforts visible.

"...at least some..." is a fine fig leaf for covering the naughty bits, yes.

As Jonah Goldberg noted: "Complexity is a subsidy".

One can only hope it a coincidence that a common synanthrope belongs to the family Muscidae

Reply on news.ycombinator.com