News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Microsoft is a national security threat: ex-White House c... by acdha on Sunday April 21, 2024 @02:32PM (#40108034)
> Nice strawman. It is harder to fire govt employees than to fire private employees. Disagree?

Let’s see, so it’s not a straw man when you say government employees are “essentially unfirable” but it is when someone corrects you?

Re:Microsoft is a national security threat: ex-White House c... by ripjaygn on Sunday April 21, 2024 @02:48PM (#40108157)
Lets ignore the personal back and forth, and get back to the argument.

It is harder to fire govt employees than to fire private employees. Disagree?

At-will employment law doesn't apply to government entities.

A very consequential law is different for private vs govt employees.

> The managers you think can’t direct civil servants directly aren’t magically more capable of selecting and overseeing contracts, either.

Never said in my comment they cannot direct civil servants. They just don't have enough incentive because it's very hard to fire them, unlike managers in the private sector.

Re:Microsoft is a national security threat: ex-White House c... by ahahahahah on Sunday April 21, 2024 @04:41PM (#40109044)
That's like the farthest I've seen goalposts move within a span of two comments. You went from "essentially unfirable" to simply "harder to fire" and continues to act like you're so right. Like it's almost pointless to discuss something with someone who pretends those are even close to the same.
Re:Microsoft is a national security threat: ex-White House c... by ripjaygn on Sunday April 21, 2024 @09:06PM (#40110655)
That's three comments where folks are attacking me instead of addressing the topic because they know they lost the argument. Sad to see that happen. And also look up the meaning of the word essentially.
Re:Microsoft is a national security threat: ex-White House c... by paulmd on Sunday April 21, 2024 @07:24PM (#40110081)
> Lets ignore the personal back and forth, and get back to the argument.

I mean, were you not attempting to make an argument when you said that government employees were “essentially unfirable”? Your argument just sucked/was factually incorrect and you want to steer away from the “interpersonal” aspect of someone pointing that out.

It’s gauche to point this out on HN but you aren’t engaging in good faith here - wnd when someone else engages you in actual good-faith you fall back to juvenile debate-club attempts to frame them as the wrongdoer.

That’s highly rude and a bad attitude and approach to bring to this community. Act better and take some accountability for your own misbehavior.

Re:Microsoft is a national security threat: ex-White House c... by ripjaygn on Sunday April 21, 2024 @09:03PM (#40110637)
I had two options, either continue the personal back and forth by debating that you folks don't understand the meaning of the word 'essentially', or take the high ground and debate the topic.

Sad that both you and the other poster lost the argument so hard that you have to resort to ad hominems and make it about me instead of the topic. Thats very telling. And also look up the meaning of the word essentially.