Let's talk about Elon Musk

[michigancat]

Like the US attorneys office used to be. It doesn’t pay very well at all, and neither do federal judicial clerkships. They are stop over points for clout and experience that yield huge rewards later…. Or so goes the theory.

I agree that there are multiple factors that determine where smartest people decide to work.

[michigancat]

What incentive do oligarchs have to hire smart people? They only need to hire people that will do what they're told.

which is really the most logical reason for hiring kids who can pass a coding test (and have racist social media posts)

[CHONGS]

Like, we all agree that reducing waste is probably a good thing, but I don't think pointing at a number at the end and saying "look I reduced waste" necessarily justifies whatever actions led to that number.


And that's even in the case that the actions did lead to net reduction waste, which I believe in this case is also quite debatable.

[chum1]

At least some of the DOGE people are motivated by good, old fashioned white supremacy.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I get that it’s edgy and fashionable to discredit the DOGE team, but I bet the average standardized test score of the DOGE team is 95th to 99th percentile. No shortage of raw intellectual horsepower. If they have supervisor(s) that have the accumulated wisdom enough to direct a young talented team, then that’s basically the recipe for all global process and IT consulting, but with better raw talent.

Their motives and the motives of the leadership are a separate matter.

I've spent a fair amount of time around people with incredibly high standardized scores and Ivy League degrees. I've not seen any consistent correlation between those credentials and actual work performance.

yes. 99th percentile test scores is not special in the workplace. 95th percentile scores will actually get you rejected from a good number of state schools these days

I've tried to get this point through to Pete many ways, but tech oligarchs and their people are not typically exceptionally smart, they have just caught lighting in a bottle in some way, shape or form. Don't get me wrong, there are very many smart people (just as there are outside of Silicon Valley or Wall Street), but they aren't mind-blowingly smart. They were mostly just in the right place at the right time.

I’m not alleging that the oligarchs are smart, I’m alleging that the oligarchs have the resources to go get the smartest people.

I was talking about their "people" as well. I'm alleging the tech oligarchs don't necessarily get the smartest people (however you want to define it)

Well, in this country, the best players go to the teams with the best paychecks.

I'm guessing these people were chosen specifically because they are young and dumb enough to not understand that they are performing work that could easily land them in prison.

[cfbandyman]

I get that it’s edgy and fashionable to discredit the DOGE team, but I bet the average standardized test score of the DOGE team is 95th to 99th percentile. No shortage of raw intellectual horsepower. If they have supervisor(s) that have the accumulated wisdom enough to direct a young talented team, then that’s basically the recipe for all global process and IT consulting, but with better raw talent.

Their motives and the motives of the leadership are a separate matter.

I've spent a fair amount of time around people with incredibly high standardized scores and Ivy League degrees. I've not seen any consistent correlation between those credentials and actual work performance.

yes. 99th percentile test scores is not special in the workplace. 95th percentile scores will actually get you rejected from a good number of state schools these days

I've tried to get this point through to Pete many ways, but tech oligarchs and their people are not typically exceptionally smart, they have just caught lighting in a bottle in some way, shape or form. Don't get me wrong, there are very many smart people (just as there are outside of Silicon Valley or Wall Street), but they aren't mind-blowingly smart. They were mostly just in the right place at the right time.

I’m not alleging that the oligarchs are smart, I’m alleging that the oligarchs have the resources to go get the smartest people.

I was talking about their "people" as well. I'm alleging the tech oligarchs don't necessarily get the smartest people (however you want to define it)

Well, in this country, the best players go to the teams with the best paychecks.

I'm guessing these people were chosen specifically because they are young and dumb enough to not understand that they are performing work that could easily land them in prison.

Yup, and basically unpaid interns

https://thehill.com/business/4990829-musk-doge-will-be-tedious-work-with-zero-compensation/

https://fortune.com/2025/02/12/elon-musk-doge-doubles-budget-government-spending-cuts/

[Pete]

Justify? Clearly no, I just said that.

That’s not at all what you said. You referred to the ends, and made no mention of intent. What makes a good act a good act in your opinion?

Maybe I didn't understand you then. You asked:

Do you believe that good intentions justify any horrible outcome?

The end is what the intent wants to reach.  The means are how to get there.  Good intentions are perhaps seeking good ends, but a good end doesn't justify any process to get there.

We’re definitely wrestling with stuff here that humans have been wrestling with for an awful long time.

My personal preference is rule based utilitarianism. We set up a framework that tries to maximize aggregate net benefit, and where resources allow we indulge in case by case examination. But, it’s an awful big damn country.

[CHONGS]

Justify? Clearly no, I just said that.

That’s not at all what you said. You referred to the ends, and made no mention of intent. What makes a good act a good act in your opinion?

Maybe I didn't understand you then. You asked:

Do you believe that good intentions justify any horrible outcome?

The end is what the intent wants to reach.  The means are how to get there.  Good intentions are perhaps seeking good ends, but a good end doesn't justify any process to get there.

We’re definitely wrestling with stuff here that humans have been wrestling with for an awful long time.

My personal preference is rule based utilitarian. We set up a framework that tries to maximize aggregate net benefit, and where resources allow we indulge in case by case examination. But, it’s an awful big damn country.

I suspected that you were a utilitarian. I have pretty big issues with utilitarianism and it's ability (IMO) to justify pretty horrendous atrocities. In fact I think all of the great atrocities I can think of were probably justified by the perpetrators as creating a net good for the world.

CS Lewis has a pretty great quote for this I like:

I can imagine no man who will look with more horror on the End than a conscientious revolutionary who has, in a sense sincerely, been justifying cruelties and injustices inflicted on millions of his contemporaries by the benefits which he hopes to confer on future generations.

[Pete]

Look at the bright side here guys. the standard is that the winner of the presidential contest gets the spoils.  Obama really got this motherfuckering Pandora’s box of presidential power rolling launching Obama care and host of other executive orders that I cheered. I loved Obamacare (and still do), but I didn’t think it went far enough. I would have supported Obama go even further and trampling on our system of government to enact universal healthcare.

It would be pretty hypocritical of someone like me to get Ben out of shape about Trump doing the same type of crap that Obama did. I think Trump’s taking it farther, but I have no doubt that the next left leaning president will take it even farther than Trump.

When the tides turn again, left leaning initiatives will come sweeping through.

[Pete]

Justify? Clearly no, I just said that.

That’s not at all what you said. You referred to the ends, and made no mention of intent. What makes a good act a good act in your opinion?

Maybe I didn't understand you then. You asked:

Do you believe that good intentions justify any horrible outcome?

The end is what the intent wants to reach.  The means are how to get there.  Good intentions are perhaps seeking good ends, but a good end doesn't justify any process to get there.

We’re definitely wrestling with stuff here that humans have been wrestling with for an awful long time.

My personal preference is rule based utilitarian. We set up a framework that tries to maximize aggregate net benefit, and where resources allow we indulge in case by case examination. But, it’s an awful big damn country.

I suspected that you were a utilitarian. I have pretty big issues with utilitarianism and it's ability (IMO) to justify pretty horrendous atrocities. In fact I think all of the great atrocities I can think of were probably justified by the perpetrators as creating a net good for the world.

CS Lewis has a pretty great quote for this I like:

I can imagine no man who will look with more horror on the End than a conscientious revolutionary who has, in a sense sincerely, been justifying cruelties and injustices inflicted on millions of his contemporaries by the benefits which he hopes to confer on future generations.

Well, good luck, implementing your case by case analysis system on a global scale.

[CHONGS]

The answer isn't that binary, but I'll try my best to be the best person I can.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Look at the bright side here guys. the standard is that the winner of the presidential contest gets the spoils.  Obama really got this motherfuckering Pandora’s box of presidential power rolling launching Obama care and host of other executive orders that I cheered. I loved Obamacare (and still do), but I didn’t think it went far enough. I would have supported Obama go even further and trampling on our system of government to enact universal healthcare.

It would be pretty hypocritical of someone like me to get Ben out of shape about Trump doing the same type of crap that Obama did. I think Trump’s taking it farther, but I have no doubt that the next left leaning president will take it even farther than Trump.

When the tides turn again, left leaning initiatives will come sweeping through.

That would be every bit as terrible as this is.

[Pete]

Look at the bright side here guys. the standard is that the winner of the presidential contest gets the spoils.  Obama really got this motherfuckering Pandora’s box of presidential power rolling launching Obama care and host of other executive orders that I cheered. I loved Obamacare (and still do), but I didn’t think it went far enough. I would have supported Obama go even further and trampling on our system of government to enact universal healthcare.

It would be pretty hypocritical of someone like me to get Ben out of shape about Trump doing the same type of crap that Obama did. I think Trump’s taking it farther, but I have no doubt that the next left leaning president will take it even farther than Trump.

When the tides turn again, left leaning initiatives will come sweeping through.

That would be every bit as terrible as this is.

Well, I for one was not complaining during the implementation of Obamacare.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Look at the bright side here guys. the standard is that the winner of the presidential contest gets the spoils.  Obama really got this motherfuckering Pandora’s box of presidential power rolling launching Obama care and host of other executive orders that I cheered. I loved Obamacare (and still do), but I didn’t think it went far enough. I would have supported Obama go even further and trampling on our system of government to enact universal healthcare.

It would be pretty hypocritical of someone like me to get Ben out of shape about Trump doing the same type of crap that Obama did. I think Trump’s taking it farther, but I have no doubt that the next left leaning president will take it even farther than Trump.

When the tides turn again, left leaning initiatives will come sweeping through.

That would be every bit as terrible as this is.

Well, I for one was not complaining during the implementation of Obamacare.

Congress implemented Obamacare.

[Kat Kid]

I think there is a ton of evidence in on the people, the intent, the means, and the results and all are pretty bad.

gaining access to a databse and hitting ctrl + f for "transition" because you hate trans people and then cancelling a program for mentally disabled youth to transition them into independence and adulthood. All of it done with Musk acting like a smug bad person that was elected king of the world and everyone is his subject.

https://www.fxbgadvance.com/p/the-executive-order-project-education-960

What at all is appealing about this Pete? I think you should consider logging off.

[Pete]

The answer isn't that binary, but I'll try my best to be the best person I can.

Of course, and I agree with that and try to do the same. It’s just super duper complicated to apply personal ethical frameworks on massive complex systems of government.

[Pete]

Look at the bright side here guys. the standard is that the winner of the presidential contest gets the spoils.  Obama really got this motherfuckering Pandora’s box of presidential power rolling launching Obama care and host of other executive orders that I cheered. I loved Obamacare (and still do), but I didn’t think it went far enough. I would have supported Obama go even further and trampling on our system of government to enact universal healthcare.

It would be pretty hypocritical of someone like me to get Ben out of shape about Trump doing the same type of crap that Obama did. I think Trump’s taking it farther, but I have no doubt that the next left leaning president will take it even farther than Trump.

When the tides turn again, left leaning initiatives will come sweeping through.

That would be every bit as terrible as this is.

Well, I for one was not complaining during the implementation of Obamacare.

Congress implemented Obamacare.

He had a litany of executive orders that I agreed with that pissed off the right, and I apologize if I am misapplying that to Obamacare. Here’s an excerpt from a recent Wall Street journal editorial board piece

Mr. Trump is stretching laws to see what he can get away with, but so have other recent Presidents. Barack Obama touted his pen-and-a-phone strategy of ruling by decree. “So sue me,” he taunted House Republicans. The Supreme Court blocked his Clean Power Plan and DAPA, which protected millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation.
Joe Biden exceeded his power by canceling student loans, mandating vaccines and banning evictions, among other overreaches. After the Supreme Court blocked his first loan write-off, he declared “that didn’t stop me” and used other illegal means. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals last year rebuked his Administration for turning a lower-court injunction on his SAVE plan into a “nullity.”

[Pete]

I think there is a ton of evidence in on the people, the intent, the means, and the results and all are pretty bad.

gaining access to a databse and hitting ctrl + f for "transition" because you hate trans people and then cancelling a program for mentally disabled youth to transition them into independence and adulthood. All of it done with Musk acting like a smug bad person that was elected king of the world and everyone is his subject.

https://www.fxbgadvance.com/p/the-executive-order-project-education-960

What at all is appealing about this Pete? I think you should consider logging off.

Nothing is appealing about it. It’s merely an extension of the same thing we have seen from the left.

[Pete]

This is the American system we signed up for and cheered for when it was the left making the judgement calls and slamming stuff through.

And the incompetence of the Democratic Party has left us in this position and I am very angry about that.

[Pete]

The left pushed too hard on wedge issues and refused to make deals and compromises.

To his great credit, Obama did understand that social change takes time. 

In 2008, during his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama stated that he supported civil unions for same-sex couples but did not endorse same-sex marriage. He expressed this view in various interviews and during debates, citing personal and religious beliefs while also emphasizing equal rights.

However, his stance evolved over time. In May 2012, during an interview with ABC News, Obama publicly announced his support for same-sex marriage, making him the first sitting U.S. president to do so. He explained that his views had changed after conversations with friends, staff, and his daughters, who questioned why same-sex couples should be treated differently. This shift was seen as a significant moment in the movement toward marriage equality in the U.S.

What would have happened if Obama decided to die on the gay marriage hill in 2008? Would we have Obama care?

Similarly, what would have happened if the Democratic Party had not allowed itself to be dominated by voices calling for the most progressive trans rights to be immediately available?  Would doge exist today?

[Pete]

What would’ve happened if the Progressive liberals who voted for Nader had voted for Gore?

[Pete]

As I’ve said before, I have never ever voted for a Republican in an election, always voted for the democrat, and my voting days go back to voting for Clinton in 92.

I am done with voting the party line for Democrats. The Democratic party no longer deserves my support and I am taking some small pleasure in watching them see the consequences of their choices.

[Rage Against the McKee]

This is the American system we signed up for and cheered for when it was the left making the judgement calls and slamming stuff through.

And the incompetence of the Democratic Party has left us in this position and I am very angry about that.

It's not remotely the same, Pete. And there is no way you actually believe they are similar.

[Pete]

This is the American system we signed up for and cheered for when it was the left making the judgement calls and slamming stuff through.

And the incompetence of the Democratic Party has left us in this position and I am very angry about that.

It's not remotely the same, Pete. And there is no way you actually believe they are similar.

Are the mechanics not similar?  Every member of Democratic leadership knew this is precisely what would happen starting in April 2023, and a likely much before that.

[Rage Against the McKee]

This is the American system we signed up for and cheered for when it was the left making the judgement calls and slamming stuff through.

And the incompetence of the Democratic Party has left us in this position and I am very angry about that.

It's not remotely the same, Pete. And there is no way you actually believe they are similar.

Are the mechanics not similar?

No, they are not.