- Request for sensitive information
- Apparently trustworthy but unusual domain
- Manufactured urgency (of the highest level too)
The secondary goal is to test for what the low hanging fruit are for automation. The end-goal is total automation, but you won't see that for a few years.
The way I see it (and probably mostly wrong), is that you can't fund AGI with capitalism. Progress under capitalism is driven by consumer demand. But, at this point, most consumers already have everything they need. So, you need to fund progress a different way.
But, Gov spends trillions. All you have to do is direct some of that toward AI development and continuously show decreasing spending. And, as AI gets better, you save more, and you redirect more and more into AI. And, continue that cycle.
I'm guessing self-driving is lagging because of social friction. People really like to be in control - enough so that they're willing to risk death (something like 1 in 90 chance of death from driving). Even though automated driving currently is probably safer (and an order of magnitude safer if all vehicles were self-driving).
The Trumpian right is currently exhibiting the same kind of hubris that the previous ruling ideology showed and the same kind of contempt for their fellow countrymen.
* Clinton (D): +31% over 8 years
* Bush (R): +105% over 8 years
* Obama (D): +70% over 8 years
* Trump (R): +40% over 4 years
* Biden (D): +21% over 4 years
Simply untrue to suggest "one party spends way too much" or that the other's "slash and burn" is at all related to strengthening our financial situation.
It demonstrably has nothing to do with "belt tightening." If it did, the GOP wouldn't need a $4 trillion increase to the debt ceiling.
This whole millennium so far has been a tick-tock of popular illiberal authoritarianism, and this is what it looks like when it wins.
One extremist group says insane shit on TikTok, the other runs the FBI. The latter is totally a sensible response to the former.
And it wasn't just extremist groups saying insane shit on TikTok. People were getting harassed through GitHub, issues were being brigaded, tons of big FOSS projects had some big CoC kerfuffle, then there were the master/slave, git master branch, whitelist/blacklist naming things, demanding renaming of projects, demanding people be fired, etc. Some of these things were reasonable, some were unreasonable, but it's incredibly disingenuous to pretend that it was just "One extremist group says insane shit on TikTok". It was a lot of people effecting a lot of real changes. Notably in FOSS, it was a lot of outsiders coming into a space and telling the people in that space how they were supposed to do their jobs, despite the outsiders not contributing anything other than judgement and not having any stake in it.
I definitely see some parallels, even if they aren't equivalent.
All of these things you've mentioned were done by private citizens, members of the general public, exercising their free speech, not elected representatives or anyone in the government. You've made an argument against Twitter.
My point is these things existed and did have actual power. They had sway in private organizations, and even questioning them was enough in some situations to be fired. The current movement is reactionary, and was, like it or not, fueled by distaste for the previous push. A lot of people like to pretend like this came from nowhere, in reaction to nothing, and that's simply not true. People here are claiming that all of the current administration's claims are bald-faced lies, and that's also not true.
I'm a liberal. I've been complaining about the leftist authoritarian push for years, primarily because it was going to create fuel for a powerful right-wing reactionary movement. I'm pretty surprised by the force and extremity of the current situation, but I'm not at all surprised that it's happening.
It was really not long ago when "defund the police" was a contentious issue, and apologists were talking about how "no, they don't mean it literally, it's just to start a conversation", much like how Trump's handlers constantly have to twist his horrible words into something more palatable.
It's not disconnected, it's populism.
This is called the marketplace of ideas
Sometimes the marketplace lets stupid things get some sway, and it is up to the marketplace (not the state) to push those aside
> A lot of people like to pretend like this came from nowhere, in reaction to nothing, and that's simply not true
No, I think people are "pretending" like the use of state power is not an appropriate reaction to "overstepping" within the marketplace of ideas, which of course is true. The vast majority of left-leaning people find the blue hairs goofy at best, which is exactly why they do not hold political power. I don't think anyone on the left is "surprised" by what's going on right now, FWIW.
https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/10/inside-key-maga-l...
Like, I get how this might be terrifying if you’ve been coasting for a while but (disclaimer) as a person who tends to work at startups, I have zero sympathy
If you had more experience in large organizations with political dynamics other than the success of your as-of-yet unproven business (things change when people aren’t worried about going out of business if they play hardball with some other part of the organization - most startup people know they can’t afford to shoot holes in the boat), you’d understand the traction: for example, if you worked at a Fortune 500 and some McKinsey consultant sent out an email demanding you explain what you work on, most people would correctly interpret that as “senior management wants to fire as many of you as possible”.
How would you feel if your startup got bought by a new PE firm and they decided if you stayed or went based on "justify your existence in a text message no longer than 200 characters"?
It would be far more humane to do this how corporations do it, which is tell departments "you need to cut by X% - go do it". I've never seen or heard of the new CEO deciding on an individual case-by-case basis, depending on what each person puts into a status update email"
It is likely being used as a filter to identify possible candidates to look into further.
> How would you feel if your startup got bought by a new PE firm and they decided if you stayed or went based on "justify your existence in a text message no longer than 200 characters"?
Who cares how I feel? I wouldn't feel great about it, but it frankly wouldn't shock me. People make questionable decisions all the time based on poor data. Ironically, I might use an AI to help squeeze my response into 200 characters...
> I've never seen or heard of the new CEO deciding on an individual case-by-case basis, depending on what each person puts into a status update email
I wouldn't be surprised if Steve Jobs pulled something like this at some point, based on the anecdotes about him randomly quizzing employees about what they do
How do you know? Do you think past decisions to halt contracts based on simple keyword searches or fire people only to ask them to come back hours later supports the theory that they’ll just “look further”?
Speaking as a new dad currently looking for a "lower key" job due to the extreme stress of raising my toddler, I completely get that. I mean, that's the whole stereotype of "government work". But it also smacks of... a lack of initiative.
> devalued by people who have contributed virtually nothing to society
Who exactly are we speaking of, here? The guy who started 3 successful world-changing companies, or...?
> Who exactly are we speaking of, here? The guy who started 3 successful world-changing companies, or...?
The sycophants attracted to the chance to work for the guy who started 3 successful world-changing companies no matter what he's asking them to do.
I like to consider myself a high value employee - my pay check certainly thinks I am.
If whoever was in charge started pulling shit like this, I would quit immediately and start working for the competition.
You might think twice on that if the mega corp had the legal authority to arrest you and put you to death for going to “work for the competition”
I have never heard of this approach. I’ve heard of new management coming in with a strong opinion and firing people, or new management spending some time understanding the situation up close.
Also: Corporations don’t have a mandate to serve the public writ large. A corporation imploding itself through dramatic reinvention every 4 years is perfectly fine. A government doing this type of purge every 4 years is obviously fucking insane, though I assume you’re operating under the assumption that the other side can’t/won’t/shouldn’t conduct ideological purges when they get into power?
Most administrations know there are people with varying levels of ideological commitment to their causes and they accept this friction because relative operational stability is a feature of a democratic government, not a bug.
This exact crap made the news repeatedly when Musk was pulling it at Twitter. It was considered heavy-handed, authoritarian, and intentionally traumatizing.
This is the point. Musk is stealing headlines away from all the ways he and Trump are giving handouts to the private sector and buddying up to other fascist governments around the world.
That has been true of everything Trump and Musk have ever done so why would this be any different?
If you don't understand ghost payrolling then you don't understand government. This happens at almost all levels from city to federal to varying degrees. I've seen flagrant more subtle abuses over the years. Try to understand the USGOV is the largest employer in America and unlike the private sector, it's unable to rely on its "board" (Congress) for effective oversight or reform. You're witnessing an attempt at a "turnaround" with all ugliness that comes with it.
Trump, like or hate him, is determined to put a dent in the fiscal nightmare this dysfunction has created for America. Hopefully everyone understands the problem isn't going to be fixed, but if he can achieve a substantive reduction in expense it will either give the next administration momentum to continue rationalizing government, or it could just as well provide cover that "enough/too-much was done" and its time to expand and spend again, into oblivion.
Furthermore, I would expect statistics to be done before "if you do not answer this you're fired", this just feels like a lazy attempt to say "we're reducing budget expenses" when in reality it's making life and work impossible or very hard for a part of the government workforce. And this attitude is something you don't want because you'll have less motivated workers, less efficient gov agencies, and will have to spend more to obtain the same result as before
I also couldn't find data on ghost payrolls in public sector in us, i'm not american but the only result i get are about discussing the posting of ghost jobs on the side of private companies
This, to me, seems like an effective way to get rid of effective talent.
Oh, wow, talk about not understanding ghost payrolling.
Providing bullshit filler tasks for ghost employees is ghost payrolling 101. Anyone who actually has ghost payroll "employees" working under them can answer that email with bullshit ten-point bullet lists in a matter of minutes. The farther whoever's evaluating the bullet list from the actual list, the better, because the farther they are, the less likely they are to figure out if the list is bullshit.
Bulk audits are literally what enables ghost payrolling in the first place. The bulkier, the better.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
https://usafacts.org/articles/this-chart-tells-you-everythin...
Even if you reduced the federal payroll to $0 tomorrow, you'd still be running deficit.