This was not a carefully-weighed decision based on a cost-benefit analysis. This was a political order, consistent with the administration's policy of "cut everything, recklessly, indiscriminately."
https://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-...
One of her wonderful worldviews was to rejects altruism as a moral imperative, arguing that individuals should live for their own rational self-interest. Social security, based on the idea of supporting others, contradicts this principle.
Which means anyone whose wisdom matches their self-interest is going to understand that different things have very different efficiencies at different scales.
And some things happen to be dramatically more efficient/person and more effective, the larger the scale they can be coordinated at.
This exactly. All of these people who profess to believe in objectivism could easily move to a failed state and do anything they want to with zero government intervention. But they don't do that. They want all of the benefits of a working government with none of the things required to actually create a working government.
This position was already pointed out by Plato (in the Gorgias IIRC) as being inconsistent. Political systems are made up by people - if a society, in particular a democratic one, has certain systems in place, then this is probably because it was (at least believed to be) in the people's self interest.
The DOGE crew are incompetent. Witness their firing of all the people who look after the nuclear stockpile and Ebola research.
[0] https://www.404media.co/anyone-can-push-updates-to-the-doge-...
[1] https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/nx-s1-5355895/doge-musk-nlrb-...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-14/doge-staf...
“Wunderkind” mispronounced as “Wonder Kid” is a running joke in that show.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TedLasso/comments/132rw9v/what_the_...
Other example includes: Endgegner (final boss) or Endlösung (final solution)
I would suggest to avoid such terms.
I did not know about this, thanks for die Vorwarnung. In context, I'd assume "ultimate enemy" (Gegner=opponent) as "final boss" sounds videogame.
Either the philosophers or the mathematicians/physicists likely coined them.
The parallels to Nazi Germany's striking but impractical weapons seemed intended every time I heard or read Wunderwaffe in English.
Endgegner originates from Endlösung and while it indeed often is used without thought, the question if it should be used lightly.
Unfortunately “capitalism” has two quite different meanings. Which are rarely clarified in use.
Capitalism with a big C, a too common overarching ideology, gets bent to mean whatever the greedy, unethical and rich want it to mean so they can get more money.
But small c capitalism, evolving from both practical and ethical foundations, is a system so useful it has multiplied the benefits of civilization. But it is just one such system.
It can’t do everything, it needs other independent systems (justice, dispute resolution, rules of clarity, risk & trust limiting systems, for starters) to work, and extending it to places it doesn’t work causes great harm.
(Like when perversely applied to those enabling systems, in big C form, as is happening now.)
Indeed.
It's almost as if no economic, social, or political system known to mankind will stand up for long under a determined onslaught of corruption.
If I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt (which I hate), it's a shotgun approach; cut things relentlessly and see what falls apart. Chaos engineering applied to a country and / or the world.
Perceived, not actual, because spreading lies and misinformation is what makes the most money for the ad sellers that make up 90% of our industry.
Mostly discriminately, tbh.
Ah yes, like the woke DEI grants for “Homotopical macrocosm for higher category theory” for having the prefix homo-
Get a hold of yourself
The OP said indiscriminately, which means they're cutting uniformly across the board. I responded with "mostly discriminately" which means they're more selectively cutting based on prejudice. You then linked me a data point where you show they cut funding because it has the word "homo" in it and tell me to "get a hold of myself".. but your link would directly support what I've said?
It seems then that you could have acknowledged MiguelX413's comment without the feigned aloofness?
We're allowed, and should be encouraged, to write with a small amount of nuance and creativity.
However, I might still be misunderstanding you, pardon me.
I disagree. I think it would be considered "discriminate cutting".
> Actually effectively cutting grants that only related to homosexuality or something would've been discriminate.
I agree and that's the point I was making. They're just cutting grants with the word "homo" in them because it meets their criteria of interest for cutting. Whether they deal with homosexuality or not is not a discriminate vs indiscriminate topic, but a topic of DOGE's competency in actually executing on their discriminate cutting vision.
There's nothing "woke" about it and screaming woke woke woke isn't going to change the fact that we exist and you don't like it. I'd tell you what I really think of you but it would invoke Dang.
In reality, this entire process is insanity. We've had examples of government spending overhaul in the past - early(?) 90s - both sides worked together, cut lots of spending across programs, downsized tens of thousands of federal workers, and balanced a budget, to the point where we had a surplus. It was tough, took time, wasn't perfect, but was deliberated and debated and far far far more open and transparent than all this. But their goal was actually improving government (even if that meant reducing some areas). The current 'leadership' goal is to dismantle/destroy as much as possible, as this is led by people who think government in general should not exist.
When the citizens realise this, the structures to clamp down any revolution will be in place.
"CVE" is trademarked and emphasized (e.g. included in the shorthand notations, e.g. CVE-2014-0160), explicitly to prevent other groups from using "CVE" in a way that causes confusion in the marketplace. And yes, this is the same reason trademarks exist for commercial purposes.
But imagine if Microsoft could issue CVEs against Apple ... or OpenAI against Anthropic, etc.
The label "CVE" has to have a known authority to be useful. And the only way to ensure that is to trademark it. See also: "Linux™".
Most of vulns will go unaddressed because company like palantir will most likely want only really good vulns like 0-click RCE.
There is no rhyme or reason to what gets cut, other than someone under pressure to hit KPIs (dollars cut) was desperately searching for things that looked easy to cancel.
This is happening everywhere the federal government touches. Most people aren't aware of it until they come around and pull the rug on something that intersects with your own life.
Even my die-hard Republican distant relatives are suddenly shocked because programs they benefited from are being cut. They thought they voted for something different.
> The NSC [National Security Council] staff will need to consolidate the functions of both the NSC and the Homeland Security Council (HSC), incorporate the recently established Office of the National Cyber Director, and evaluate the required regional and functional directorates.
> Given the aforementioned prerequisites, the NSC should be properly resourced with sufficient policy professionals, and the NSA should prioritize staffing the vast majority of NSC directorates with aligned political appointees and trusted career officials. - Project 2025, pg 52.
> ... History shows that an unsupervised NSC staff can stray from its statutory role and adversely affect a President and his policies. Moreover, while the NSC should be fully incorporated into the White House, it should also be allowed to do its job without the impediment of dually hatted staff that report to other offices. - Project 2025, pg 53.
The goal is to build up a political organisation to use as a weapon, and to scrap the rest - as a legal excuse to say that the political appointments will be necessary.
> Even my die-hard Republican distant relatives are suddenly shocked because programs they benefited from are being cut. They thought they voted for something different.
They voted for others to be hurt and to lose benefits, not their “in group.” Surprise surprise, they are considered the waste by those they voted for.
Trump in Nevada: 'I Love the Poorly Educated' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0
Take DOGE cutting funding to the Mitr Gender Conversion Clinic in Hyderabad, India as an example. The haven't taken control of the clinic, they're not telling them what to do or not to do, they're simply not funding it anymore. If the clinic closes it's because nobody except the previous administration wanted it. There is no reason we should be forcing gender change clinics on people in India; if they want to support it, they should purchase the service themselves.
DOGE has been about fighting corruption and reducing wasteful spending, and that's what America voted for. "Taking control" would be using government funding to support pro-abortion political groups, undoing this control would be fighting corruption.
It absolutely staggers me that anyone can still say this with a straight face. I will ask this, though: as part of the DOGE fight against corruption and wasteful spending how many of Elon Musk's government contracts and subsidies have been cut?
The Moving Goal Posts in Musk’s DOGE Cuts: Why Elon Musk and his team have struggled to make the spending cuts they promised - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/14/us/politics/elon-musk-dog... | https://archive.today/GPDNY - April 14th, 2025
Elon Musk dramatically lowers his DOGE spending cut targets (again) - https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/elon-mus... - April 11th, 2025
See How Government Spending Is Up Even as Musk Touts Savings: Musk team’s $150 billion in savings barely dents $6.8 trillion in spending largely on autopilot, WSJ analysis finds - https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-doge-government-sp... | https://archive.today/DGGhX - April 11th, 2025
"A system’s function or purpose is not necessarily spoken, written, or expressed explicitly, except through the operation of the system. The best way to deduce the system’s purpose is to watch for a while to see how the system behaves. Purposes are deduced from behavior, not from rhetoric or stated goals.” —- Donella Meadows
The purpose of a system is what it does.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
1. Politically-motivated "purge the weak" Nazi stuff - Cutting Medicare, cutting Medicaid, cutting Social Security, cutting education, cutting anything that benefits people who are old, poor, queer, female, etc.
2. Privatization - NWS and NOAA are wonderful public services, and they'd rather profit from the data they produce. This is why taxes in the US are such a bitch to file, tax companies oppose any policy change that would make the paperwork easier for filers.
3. They might actually be Russian assets. Tearing down institutions that took generations to build makes space in the world for Russia to exert more influence. You can tell this is working because Europe is now wanting to re-arm.
It makes me sad. If I had a billion dollars I would still want to live in a better country. These guys only want a better world for themselves, and making everyone else into a permanent servant underclass only plays into that.
You make it sound like poor DOGE employees are being forced to do this on this kind of schedule, which definitely isn't the impression I got. They're all a bunch of incompetent overconfident weirdos who think they know better and what to do. Is there any pressure to do anything quickly?
And the US federal budget is quite easy to trim. E.g. remove an aircraft carrier from the planned construction pipeline and you've saved $15 billion with no actual ramifications.
Out of curiosity, which programs? And is this enough to change their opinion about Trump, or do they still think it'll be worth it?
Like what exactly? I mean the guy ran on cutting the budget by 2 trillion. In his last term he gave tax breaks yo the rich. Where did they think the cuts were coming from?
He ran very hard on raising tarrifs. Which demonstrably raise prices (thats literally their goal.) But now people claim "I didn't vote for this."
In truth they voted for him because he was the Republican on offer and they're die-hard Republican. The Republican party has made no secret of its agenda for decades.
I get it, people are good at cognitive dissonance. But this is the place for blunt truth. They voted for this. I'm not letting Republicans got off the hook here. They voted for this.
Just like to my Republican friends who are upset that CVE is cut. You voted for this. The general public benefit from CVE even though they dont know it exists. Just like you benefitted from dozens of other programs you didn't know existed, but have also been cut.
That's the problem with cuts. They ultimately end up hurting everyone.
Now clearly there's some fat that could be trimmed. Companies do it all the time. Done well its good. Swinging a hatchet in a crowded elevator does not seem like "Done well".
When someone hands you a pencil, you don't wonder what variety of tree the wood came from, or what paint chemistry was used for the coating. It's a pencil. You might have broad opinions on whether the one in your hand is comfortable to use, and sharp - but you leave the details to the pencil makers.
About 70% of the population engage with politics the same way: Leave the details to the people who do this stuff for a living.
Do they expect to be disappointed? Sure, but everyone who engages with politics expects to be disappointed.
> Do they expect to be disappointed?
Aurornis said their relatives were shocked.
If people in the US aren't starting to notice what Musk/Trump are doing it will bode very poorly for the future of the US.
This is actually simply not true. The Republican party before the Tea Party looked nothing at all like this. Trump won the presidency last year riding a wave of distinctly not-your-typical-Republican lower class voters. As he rose the old guard Republican establishment formed the anti-Trump wing of the party until they were forced out one by one.
To put some numbers to this: Bush won the upper income brackets by 5+ points in 2000, with a lead that widened as you went up the income ladder. Trump lost the equivalent brackets in 2024 by 5+ points, a 10 point swing away from what Bush won them by. The lower brackets are even more stark, with a whopping 18-point swing towards Trump in the $30k-$50k bracket (inflation adjusted to $15k-$30k).
These numbers show that Trump is not a Republican in the George W Bush sense and he's certainly not a Republican in the Ronald Reagan sense. He's a populist and won on a populist agenda by putting together a coalition of rabid social conservatives (who probably really did go Bush in 2000) and poor people (who largely did not).
I would agree he's not George Bush, much less Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless those who voted for Bush and Reagan also voted for Trump.
This has been "decades" in the making in the sense that since Obama was elected (in 2008), Republicans have embraced racism at the heart of their populist message. That swing rightward was made palatable to center republicans with a woman democratic candidate in 2016 (one not terribly well liked in democratic circles) and a black woman candidate in 2024.
While racism, and misogyny gather a bunch of votes, long-term distrust of institutions is sown, and fostered. Republican policy becomes protecting white guys, and especially old, rich, white guys.
Reagan was popular and competent, and worked for the good of America. Today's president is nothing like him, but wins because a bunch of people "vote Republican".
There's a component of that, but it's not the primary cause. A lot of former Republicans stopped voting Republican with Trump, including a lot of old rich white guys, and a lot of the current Republican voters didn't vote for Bush. He wins because of the new wave of voters that counterbalanced the flight of the educated core of the Republican establishment.
Starve the beast is older than the Tea Party.[1]
Obamacare and communism are along the same axis too, but the Republicans who claimed they were the same thing were obviously wrong.
They voted for the leopards to eat other people’s faces, not their’s.
This isn't speculation or hyperbole, it's specifically laid out in their published plans: By hobbling or outright eliminating federal agencies responsible for executing the laws passed by Congress, the administration can circumvent the democratic process and impose their extreme vision of limited government on the country, regardless of popular support.
The U.S. system of government relies on established norms as much as it does law. Conservatives realized that they can ignore precedent with impunity if they had an executive willing to do so. They then spelled out exactly how, and are now enacting that plan.
Then SCOTUS's decisions last summer turbo boosted their agenda. The ruling that only Congress can hold the President legally accountable essentially means executive power is unchecked if the legislature is unwilling or unable to Impeach and convict. The President can now confidently ignore the law and judicial orders with a veneer of legality. And this is what he's doing.
(The fact that all this just so happens to benefit Russia after their decade long campaign to destabilize their opponents in the West is a topic for speculation.)
DOGE is about permanently altering how our country works modeled on the right wing worldview, plain and simple. Since that's their overall goal, they're not concerned where they swing the wrecking ball - it's all going to get destroyed eventually.
And it's also happily breaking the law. The Executive doesn't legally have the power to allocate resources (or not), not to mention the power to arbitrarily suspend due process.
You'd think that lessons would incite learning but that has never seemed to be the case throughout history.
it might also be deliberate: that they actually don't think the government should be involved in this sort of thing. after all, someone could be making a profit on this, and that seems to be their highest value. if gov is involved, that makes it a communal effort, and you know what else starts with "commun-"?
yes, those reasons are stupid and ignorant AND intentional.
but is there any evidence against that interpretation?
(Leaving aside that there's plenty of evidence of malice here.)
But, having known about it for a dozen years now, I also find it inadequate alone as a razor without the following caveats/corollaries:
Hubbard's corollary to Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system". ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor#Exceptions )
Or (HN) Nerdponx's punchier simplification: "When money is at stake, never attribute to incompetence what could be attributed to greed." ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41066724 )
A large amount of things related to Trump fall into that category, and it's important to recognize when you need to instead treat it as a superposition: It is both malice and incompetence, unless the perpetrators decide to plead just one or the other.
You can only get into such a position if you've ignored smart people telling you "No". That's malice.
Yes, there are apparently various ways of profiting from vulnerabilities. The interesting question would be whether any of the regime insiders have a way to profit.
For instance, most people find healthcare middlemen (pharmacy benefit managers, etc) to be grotesque parasites. But to a laissez-faire fundamentalist, they're smart for finding a way to liberate some profit, even laudable.
Anything that weakens the US or puts our cybersecurity in a place that Russia can exfiltrate data will happen. This is not about the US needing anything and it's silly to think otherwise. See also the NLRB whistleblower and the security backdoors that DOGE demanded to allow data exfiltration and the subsequent death threats to the whistle blower.
You mindset is behind the times and needs to adjust to a, frankly, insane current reality.
Your comment embraces and spreads the powerlessness they want you to feel and spread.
Of course you can stop them - like any other negotiation in life, especially non-friendly ones, you need to make it in Trump's interest either by carrot or stick. Trump has interests; identify them and identify your power in those regards ('power and interest' is the term), and use it.
Also, stop helping them make DOGE the scapegoat. It's Trump.
What leverage do you have for the DOGE boys? What power? Resigning? Because on the Defense side of the government the best leverage that some teams have found is mass resignation, meaning that nothing happens.
There is no negotiating with bullies, it merely breeds more concessions.
DOGE follows Trump's direction and acts on his behalf, as you must know. They make a big deal out of DOGE so Trump's name is less attached to these actions. Then they can take much of the blame with them when they go away, with Trump and the GOP blaming them for 'excesses'.
> Trump is not going to negotiate anything here, that's ridiculous.
> What leverage do you have for the DOGE boys?
You don't understand how negotiations work. Everyone has interests, strengths and weaknesses, and power. You need to make it in Trump's interest to keep the CVE program.
Everyone saying they are helpless, and that anything else is ridiculous, are panicking. Very unfortunately - dangerously - many people legitimize the panic. It's so normalized that it's "ridiculous" not to panic.
Every day you continue this behavior, you fall further and further behind and lead others in that direction. Will you wake up in time?
The amount of disrespect you have shown for someone that is just telling you 99% of federal workers have absolutely no leverage says a lot.
I would not dare not mention the revolutions in England and in France. And before that some Greece city states, and definitely Rome. The US declaration of independence is just another point.
That's an assertion without any any argument. It means nothing.
> The amount of disrespect you have shown for someone that is just telling you 99% of federal workers have absolutely no leverage says a lot.
What does it say? Why is such a person somehow special?
This guy is ~80 years old and bragged about "person, woman, man, camera, TV." He recently got into a Tesler and exclaimed "everything's computer!" Have you seen the way his aids explain executive orders to him (like a child) before he signs them?
He doesn't have the foggiest notion of comprehension of what the CVE program is, or how it would benefit him. Unless you're greasing his wheels, it's not going to happen.
one it costs the us and is needed by everyone, so he thinks but paying it someone will pick it up and then the us will be the free loader.
second, he understands that helps he and his pals wash dirty money.
Do you mean things like handsfull of like-minded countries selling t-bonds? No one in the R party has any leverage, and it's not clear that even a few US billionaires could exert any influence.
Do you really think Trump has ever heard of "CVE" or could comprehend them?
I'm going to be to the point here, if you guys over there don't start to heavily push and organise, and I said it already, you're one Reichstag fire away from something very bad, and from my point of view, there is probably one kristallnacht pending in the mix.
This is not a hyperbole and if someone wonders why this has relevance to the discussions, in this case most of the people around here are blue team, and it does feel like the red team has already taken anything that wasn't attached and now taking the time to take what's bolted on...
I guess the silver lining of all this, is in their hubris, they forgot the bread and games motto, so they're might still be a chance to turn things around somewhat... But the window is closing at an impressive speed.
The rest of the world is mostly against Trump.
Forget about them feeling sorry for anyone but themselves. They will feel resentful and as if they were being treated unfairly even when actual clear criminal investigation happens.
Why are you protecting Trump, the President, from responsibility?
That's why the current approach seems to be to axe everything, listen to how much screaming there is, then reinstate only the projects where the screaming is really loud.
The "Musk algorithm" is described in detail, and can be summed up as a "reverse Chesterton's fence"
"If you are not forced to reinstitute 10% of the rules you slashed, you have not slashed enough".
What happens while the 10% are slashed is left as an exercise to the voter.
Hopefully, the cve db will be deemed part of the 10%.
"We are paying MITRE how much? Bigballs and co will write a better ststem in 1 week and have it integrated with xAI. How hard could it be? Send out a first draft of an xAI contract to our DHS contact"
All of this is criminal behavior on the the current regime.
The National Vulnerability Database has been unable to keep up with the flow of CVEs for over a year now:
- https://anchore.com/blog/national-vulnerability-database-opa...
- https://www.cyberreport.io/news/cve-backlog-update-the-nvd-s...
- https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/cve-backlog-update-nvd-st...
- and many, many, many others
It has been a complete disaster for months. At this point, perhaps the thinking is to radically change approaches?
If there had been a replacement or reform plan for even one single iota of the things this admin has cut, I might give them the benefit of the doubt. But there's not. It's just kill, kill, kill.
Come on, are you living under a rock right now? There are massive indiscriminate funding cuts to anything that Elon/Doge deems to be "fraud", and they explicitly do not care about the collateral damage.
This is not about the DHS or "compartmentalization". This is just a politician running amok and having real consequences.
I wonder what level of compartmentalisation inside DHS means they didn't see this as having sufficient downsides?
I ask this, because I don't think anyone in the subject matter specialist space would have made a strong case "kill it, we don't need this" and I am sure if asked would have made a strong case "CRISSAKE WE NEED THIS DONT TOUCH IT" -But I could believe senior finance would do their own research (tm) and mis-understand what they saw in how other people work with CVE, and who funds it.