I don’t think anyone who “likes” this solution thinks “it’s a great solution”
I reckon approximately 100% of those people would prefer 18F stay how it is
17,990 karma · joined March 9, 2013
I reckon approximately 100% of those people would prefer 18F stay how it is
Meh, feel free to disagree. How many MAGA voters do you talk to on a daily basis?
The goal is to convince other people, not to rah-rah the already-believers.
Trivially: these websites go back up in a few days, is that more convincingly malice or just “these people don’t know how to operate a government?”
The sheer incompetence of it all is disqualifying by itself.
In my experiences arguing with MAGA, the incompetence argument lands a lot more convincingly than the evil argument.
Seems extremely wishful to think this particular contract isn’t being reviewed by someone with SpaceX equity (I.e. someone who is conflicted) alongside every other contract, but… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1: https://fedscoop.com/faa-aviation-safety-system-doge-notam/
“Conflict of interest” is not the same as “corrupt.” A person can have conflicted interests and still make totally valid, non-corrupt decisions. Even making a self-beneficial decision while having conflicted interests isn’t necessarily corrupt/bad.
“Conflict of interest” refers to the interests themselves, which are very obviously unambiguously conflicted here.
Government interests: spend as little money as possible for capability X
Starlink interests: capture as much money as possible for capability X
That’s a conflict regardless of what decision anyone makes and whether it was the right one.
And sure, we don’t know this change is corrupt. We do know that there is a very clear conflict of interest though, so people are reasonably demanding more transparency.
I don't think general vibes and challenges with winning billion dollar government contracts suffices as evidence for: "I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition."
> I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition.
Do you have evidence for these claims? Legitimately curious. Government contracting is often very broken but you state this with a pretty extreme degree of confidence even in light of this.
We got rid of the spoils system because it fucking sucked.
Your point is that Trump cares about decorum. My point is that Trump cares about power, and he would seize on whatever little thing he could to try to gain more power over our wartime ally. The suit is obviously a red herring.
You think when bullies make fun of a kid’s shoes they actually care about fashion? Duh: no.
When someone calls out a bully for making fun of someone’s shoes, is it because they give a fuck about their fashion choices? Duh: no.
That’s all that’s going on here.
It is heroic to volunteer oneself into a clinical trial.
In fact, if you feel so strongly about it: you can go do so literally right now. I'm happy to help facilitate.
Curious!
> I agree that most of cost of living is housing-related, but rent price increases are a function of population increasing faster than housing. That's the thing to address.
Yes we should build a whole lot more and it will slow residential price growth, but no, in general this will not actually reduce the cost of living. For example, this doesn't address the increased competition (i.e. increased prices) for commercial spaces, which gets baked into every coffee, garment, or meal you purchase.
We could arrest pretty much all cost of living growth if all renters (both businesses and individuals) just decided not to continuously agree to pay higher prices for the same land/apartments/buildings.