the_optimist

Quite oddly in the context of all these varied comments, this key claim is demonstrated as false.

What’s the situation where this is useful? Seems like ‘replace your remote duckDB instance—used to replace a DB server—with duckDB instance + a flight server (or a bunch of them!)’. Who has a problem for which this is the solution?

How? The Discover network will be substantially better positioned to influence visa mastercard and amex, which are each expensive and oligopolistic. You know anything about this, or just spitballing here?

Cool. Great company, more competition among the payment networks should result in better and less expensive products. Maybe Discover will finally achieve its potential.

Reddit mgmt itself has significant concerns, according to anonymous sources. You heard it here first.

The article does not define or discuss the authority of DOGE.

I appreciate the question. The most obvious is that this is an “audit the auditors” exercise, and they do not want to leak information toward a likely adversarial counterpart. If they have the authority to so, then they do. An adjacent complaint about “not following Treasury policy is similar.” If these systems exist, there is a governing authority structure, and that does not begin at the level contemplated in this document.

For those genuine actors here: this theoretical outrage assumes the premise of something immoral or illegal, and completely ignores the authority structure. This looks and smells like an info operation.

Explain please.

Agree with the overall perspective, but the union thing is marginal at best. Do you think swearing alliance and allegiance to a different org, delegating authority to it, and funding it is a guaranteed success? The game theory of this is tipped to iterate to failure.

Just plug in to something you like, do your best, and recognize it for what it is. You should have neither an adversarial nor misrepresented relationship. If you have it, you by definition support it.

Okay. Let’s say you have a compelling and coherent argument. Where can I go to read more about each of the things you write of, and share community with like-minded people?

Genuinely, thanks for your response.

Do you anticipate that someone is going to tell you, specifically, that they do not support rabid DEI, some of the highest tax rates in the world, widespread and severe drugs, poverty, and homelessness, endless war, vote dilution through importation of new voters, calling a random sample of political nemeses rapists and racists, and now, painting Swastikas on vehicles? Do you truly both believe that is disconnected from reality, and that someone would reveal this in a conversation with you?

This is not a grounded critique. It is unbalanced and lacking in insight.

I think it’s safe to say that there is severe overfitting and pattern matching behavior involved. When I come across someone who says something so broadly judgmental and unfounded, I become immediately intrigued as to how this person is either exploiting or exploited, one of which is assured. I hope you are doing okay.

You speak oddly of people like they are monolithic and lacking perceptive nuance (more like animals than any people I know). In the US, of all places, there is tremendous heterogeneity. What are the key elements that you know of “they”?

You have remarkable authority on this. Can you tell us more about it?

You’re looking for the logical argument here, not the statistical one. You sampled from snakes and said there is a 100% correlation with being a snake (notwithstanding the counterarg in an adjacent comment about scale-free snakes).

I am noting that the logical argument does not hold in the provided definition. If “some” attributes hold in a definition, you are expanding the definitional set, not reducing it, and thus creating a low-res definition. That is why I said: ‘this is a poor definition.’

The story itself is a marketing piece.

So you're saying this is a marketing piece.

It’s a poor definition. The same “subsidization and directive influence” applies to all of Krugman’s Nobel-wining domestic champion, emerging market development leaders, in virtually all ‘successful’ economies. It also applies in the context of badly run, failed and failing economies. Safe to say this factor is only somewhat correlated. Broad assertions are going to be factually wrong.

"If they really wanted to know how to use technology to build a more efficient country, they would ask us."

What a powerful statement.

Safely and securely share information that the public deserves to know. Together, we can shine a light on hidden truths and foster a more informed and engaged society. Stand for transparency, stand for truth.

I didn’t. It’s just a giant security scam to let doge access systems. Didn’t you read the article? The USAID people said they don’t trust the doge people so we shouldn’t either.

This should be very illegal. It’s a huge security risk to let Federal government employees access Federal government systems.

He said he did not.

Perhaps review “The Poverty of Historicism,” which if read carefully, is similar to being slapped with a fish.

Perhaps revisit your premise prior to asserting malicious intent.

This whole topic is basura enfuego. Same pack of maroons careening around society for years clamoring for censorship now imagining that Aaron Schwartz is their hero and that they want to menace people. Kids, don’t be like the grasping fools in these threads, philosophically unfounded and desperately glancing sideways, hoping the cumulative feels and gossip will sum to life meaning.

Can you tell us about the multi-generational involvement of George Soros? David Geffen? We’ve been here a long time, and I’m curious if you’ve developed a longer-term perspective.

Notably, each item you cite involves some manner of prior government-centralized policy decision. Each forms the basis for a gross economic distortion.