Re:A DOGE staffer appears to be posting DOGE work on his pub...
by jmull on Saturday March 01, 2025 @02:04PM
(#43222480)
Hardly "a lot of hyperbole", especially since the following sentence clarifies (you might understand that it's specifically quoted for a reason).
To me it doesn't seem worthwhile to respond from the perspective of misinterpreting a comment, especially when being pedantic. One would hope the same level of precision could be applied to the writing as to the reading?
Re:A DOGE staffer appears to be posting DOGE work on his pub...
by zamadatix on Saturday March 01, 2025 @03:04PM
(#43223098)
If breckenedge had corrected the department's name or used more accurate rounding or something of that ilk I'd probably agree with you. Whether programs are cancelled vs have funded decreased some (+ other information from the linked article) is, to me, a substantial difference in understanding what negative impacts might be occurring as a result of actions of the DOGE.
E.g. if your coworker comes into work and says "Wow, you guys wouldn't believe it - I was passed by this maniac doing at least 140 mph on the way in to work today. What a crazy speeder!" then you see on the news the police arrested the driver for driving up to 95 mph. You might say "140 mph sounds like hyperbole, it looks like it was significantly less". If they respond "what's the hyperbole, you don't think he was speeding? You're irrational!" you might be a bit confused as, leaving the unnecessary bit at the end aside, the hyperbole was the clear and excessive exaggeration of the rate of speed, not an implication the individual was driving safely this morning.
In the above the hyperbole was "they canceled invasive species control programs for the Great Lakes". Well no, they are risking it being ineffective and causing great harm due to a personnel cut somewhere on the order of 15%-20%. The exaggeration here is the amount it was cut. At no point was it claimed the exaggeration was there could be some level of a negative impact as a result.