DOGE Said It Cut $232M from Social Security. It Was Only About Half a Mil
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
/s in case it's not obvious.
(In before someone replied with the famous Obama quote “you didn’t build that”)
He said he was going to do huge, groundbreaking things and actually delivered on them?
Elon is clearly capable but I get it, people disagree with his politics so they pretend he not credible at all?
(And “capable” often translates poorly between dissimilar domains, while a history of lying like a rug is more transferrable.)
How many huge, groundbreaking things that he promised has he _not_ delivered on?
And how many of those groundbreaking things have been accomplished by abusing people -- employees, customers, or even rescue divers?
That's a non-sequitur.
> Elon is clearly capable but I get it, people disagree with his politics so they pretend he not credible at all?
Exactly wrong, and I'd turn that around and say that people tolerate his nonsense because they agree with his politics, and defend him beyond reason.
All I'm saying is people should be judged on what they say and do and the relationship between the two. They shouldn't be excused from lying, abuse and dissembling just because they're successful in business.
It's not based on the comment I replied to.
Musk is making a claim about DOGE - the savings. Comment is saying he's not credible.
I'm saying Musk made claims about Tesla (creating a successful e-car company), Starlink (creating a constellation of satellites for internet globally), SpaceX (land a massive booster). And these were not small claims, they had a high probability of failure and I'd argue most people thought he would fail.
Yet he delivered on all of them. Delivering on one would be amazing, yet alone three massive advances in technology.
So Musk makes a claim about an agency he's helping run and the comment I replied to says "why isn't the default to assume Musk is not credible or constructive"?
I think you can see the ridiculousness in that comment and how my argument is not a non-sequitur.
You're loading up my comment with things I did not say or reference.
Just look at the plain meaning of the words I'm using. They refer to what comes out of his mouth, that's all.
If what you are saying is - "my comment did not accurately reflect what I was trying to say" then ok, but I can only go by what you write. I can't read your mind.
Each of these are neat.
Each of these has had complete bullshit claims attached. Mars mission by 2016; “full self driving” and robotaxis and summoning the car from LA to NYC.
He’s a fabulist. Sometimes that’s good. Often it isn’t.
Starlink is a project within SpaceX, which Musk co-founded, but the development of its satellite internet network has been carried out by SpaceX engineers and scientists. The technology and execution come from a large team.
Reusable Rockets – The success of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy reusability was achieved through the efforts of SpaceX’s engineers, especially Tom Mueller, who led the development of the Merlin engines.
Unlike a private company, where a CEO can make unilateral decisions and push employees to extreme workloads, the government requires collaboration, compromise, and stability. Federal agencies rely on institutional knowledge and long-term strategy, not impulsive shake-ups and mass firings.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-loses-4-top-execut...
But what I’m getting at is that he’s successful. Unless you believe all his amazing successes are due to luck, you have to admit that he’s very, very effective as a leader. Even if we can’t understand why, he’s still affective.
Also, his behavior smacks of arrogance that his past successes mean he’ll always be right.
Watched the Maryland Governor on Trump and his team. He called them dickheads. Not literally, he is very diplomatic, but again, between the lines.
Watch any seasoned person on it and it is the same.
They are dickheads running (SIC) your country to boost their ego, interests and familiar wealth. It's fucked.
It boggles my mind that anyone with more than 2 brain cells doesn't see they're dickheads.
Related: Stock markets have caught up now and are spooked. There will probably be a recession.
Not that anyone gives a shit what I think, but it seems like there should just be a filter for politics on this site. That way the people who want to talk about it can, and the people that don't can ignore it. Clearly the upvotes suggests people are interested in these topics, not to mention the actual debates in comment sections about how they're being moderated.
For instance AI speculation threads are really, really tiresome. It's easy to get tricked into reading such threads because the discussion is often off topic to the linked article.
I'm pointing out that multiple times a day a political post gets bounced off the front page, and it's frustrating that the conversations are being quashed. I'd just like to be able to talk about the stuff we know people want to talk about (upvotes are the simplest metric we have for this). And there's a very simple binary filter we can apply that costs very little overhead in terms of UX and engineering.
If I wanted to go somewhere else I would. I'm suggesting how we make this site better for users, or at least a sizable amount of them. And it would make almost no difference to the users who'd like to just ignore it. You can even have it off by default so only logged in members are able to see political posts and even then only opt-in.
I have zero expectation of this ever happening.
I know, I was just floating an idea.
> it's frustrating that the conversations are being quashed
I'm very much right there with you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42993029
The small mistake you make is assuming the users doing the flagging merely want to ignore it. They don't want anyone participating in it. The very topic is persona non grata. The guideline itself is written in newspeak.