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.
> I wonder what level of compartmentalisation inside DHS means they didn't see this as having sufficient downsides?
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."
There are many problems going on right now, but in terms of cuts this is one of the most problematic: everything is secret, with no oversight or deliberation. It's indistinguishable from corrupt malice because it's not done with open thoughtfulness.
I just can't believe your take on this. The White House press secretary has directly said, multiple times, "this is the most transparent administration ever". /s
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.
I can't tell what argument you're making within the context of my post?
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 is clear from context that the original comment is using "indiscriminately" in a sense of "without due care; thoughtlessly". Your first reply comes across as simply contradicting it, i.e. asserting that actually these cuts were made with an appropriate level of thoughtfulness. Your point that there are criteria which are being applied is a useful contribution, but you should have expanded on this in your original comment, as it was not clear that you were reframing the discussion in this way.
Respectfully, I took the word at face value and made what I thought was a fair, albeit half-jokingly correction. Certainly, I understood the context of the original post and I expected that this community would understand my follow up comment which is using correctly applied English. For whatever it's worth, I see no synonyms for indiscriminately that would fall under "without due care; thoughtlessly" on Merriam-Webster. Even if I understood what the OP was saying, it was not technically the correct verbiage to use. I would have thought I'd receive a similar level of "allowable nuance" in my comment that the OP was afforded.
He came in quite hot and has made no acknowledgements of my rebuttal. To be honest, taking a deep breath and giving me a more sensible response than what I got could have gone a lot way.
We're allowed, and should be encouraged, to write with a small amount of nuance and creativity.
My intent was to argue by counterexample. That grant being cut merely because of containing the prefix homo is an example of indiscriminate cutting, in my opinion. Actually effectively cutting grants that only related to homosexuality or something would've been discriminate.
However, I might still be misunderstanding you, pardon me.
> That grant being cut merely because of containing the prefix homo is an example of indiscriminate cutting, in my opinion.
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.
Most of the general population can’t read above something like a fifth grade level. Here on HN it’s higher, but I wouldn’t say it’s safe to assume you can just engage in even mild word play without risking being misinterpreted, unfortunately.
Written word play, especially in such a short sentence, will be hit or miss with even capable readers because one's interpretation will be devoid of interpersonal context (including nonverbal signals) and heavy on other context such as expecting some in this community to continue to defend Elon/DOGE because we've seen it plenty on HN to date.
Indiscriminate means at random or without judgement. The comment you're arguing with clearly (and cleverly) said the cuts are not random. As one data point, I did not read the comment as contradicting anything, but as agreeing and expanding.
You have got to stop engaging with the idea of “woke” as a specific ideology to stand against. It’s like you purposefully intend to misunderstand common shared meanings of words.
Afaik there's never been a DEI initiative (or similar, I'm not American) that I've ever heard of to hire more gay people specifically. Most of us would hate to be hired for our sexuality rather than our skills.
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.
You misinterpreted that comment, which was sarcastically pointing out a study which was purportedly cut simply because it had the word part “homo” in it.
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.
That’s exactly what it is, and they said as much repeatedly while campaigning. Voters, in their zealotry against the perceived status quo, failed to realize how much of what we have right now you don’t want to cut recklessly, as well as just how reckless the people that they were choosing to do that job were.
wunderkind is a loanword, it's one of those cases of a German word being used but being odd in English since it's so similar.
Like kindergarten which is often speller as "garden".
You stated Endgegner was not used lightly in Germany when it was. You seemed to think Wunderwaffe was used lightly in English when it was not. And searching for Endgegner and Endlösung found our comments and a few opinions they sound similar. No evidence or claims of origin. I conclude Endgegner does not originate from Endlösung probably.
Certainly, so we have to critically look at the terms and check which have been used by the Nazis to promote their ideology. It is a call to make in each case.
Absolutely not. They are not broadly experts, and they are not making these decisions after careful consideration, as evidenced by their continual acts of stupidity and basic errors and cutting things despite having no idea what it is they are cutting. Musk got in an argument with someone who said DOGE cut funding for a cancer treatment program, and Musk was calling the person a liar, and the person provided evidence and Musk admitted it was an accident. They are a clown car of idiots who vastly overestimate their own knowledge and underestimate how much good the government actually does. They think they can just slash and burn and there will be no negative consequences because they think the government is worthless.
She was an Objectivist. She considered social security to be "legalized plunder". Then when she needed it, she decided to take it.
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.
It takes strong and complex social glue to create a place where millions can safely follow their own self-interest.
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.
>It takes strong and complex social glue to create a place where millions can safely follow their own self-interest.
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.
Also, even if you don't need it yourself, it's far nicer to live in a society where people's basic needs can be met otherwise we end up living in some kind of Mad Max apocalyptic wasteland where people with nothing and nothing to lose roam the country looking for targets.
I don't see altruism as being outside of my own self-interest. I think that you get what you give, so having to give up some money to the public good is OK (usually not awesome, but OK).
> 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.
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.
What's funny, and it might be because of the translation, but I first thought her book where all entrepreneurs are hidden away in a sort of parallel country was a dystopian satire and a joke about some people sense of self importance. Then I learned about her (and when the book was written too) and realised her book was to be read as it was written, 'seriously'. Which makes it silly, but a funny story.
They've done their degrees and masters in Computer Science, and many of them dropped out. But they focused on AI, so I'm assuming this makes them great at statistics, but does this mean they are great at security? Given the way they've gone through a variety of departments, I'd say they aren't.
The DOGE crew are incompetent. Witness their firing of all the people who look after the nuclear stockpile and Ebola research.
Hang out around here for a while and you will realize quickly that us tech bros mostly just know tech stuff. Our perceived intelligence in topics which we don't spend our time on is called hubris and we are swimming in it at all times.
Vampire capitalism. They want civilization to break down so they can offer a solution for profit. The enemies of all people and life on the planet are a tiny group of oligarchs and their supplicants.
I agree, given the right definition of “capitalism”.
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.)
Hah. I’ve been hearing this No-True-Scotsman for Capitalism for decades now. It’s what we’ve got and is widely understood as capitalism. I won’t repeat your last sentence but the sentiment is similar.
It's no different from what apologists for Communism and any number of other -isms will tell you. "B...b...but it's never really been tried." Capitalists are as entitled to that excuse as anyone else.
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.
As if laws have any meaning to this administration, and anyone expecting this will only last four years instead of turning into one of those countries so much admired by the captain at the helm, is fooling themselves.
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™".
"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"
> 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.
This sort of thing is happening across the federal government. There is no rhyme or reason. DOGE has been given an unrealistic target for cuts and they're desperately cutting whatever they can get their hands on. If you look at the federal budget it's nearly impossible for DOGE to hit their stated goals without touching benefits like medicare and social security (which are off limits so far) so the only option is deep, deep cuts into the narrow slice of the federal budget that excludes those protected categories.
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.
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".
> 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.
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).
You are ignoring that trump rode to power explicitly by enabling the shittest of Republicans that already exist. To try and let republicans off the hook for supporting him, especially a 2nd time? Is hilarious
There are extremely superficial similarities here, but they're just that: extremely superficial. Along the same axis but in totally different orders of magnitude, and orders of magnitude make a difference.
Obamacare and communism are along the same axis too, but the Republicans who claimed they were the same thing were obviously wrong.
I'm upvoting you because you make a coherent argument, and votes here should be for that, not whether I agree with you or 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".
> 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.
Populism is not an agenda it's a style. Also the majority of poor people voted Democrat, the majority of people with low education levels voted for Trump (which is not the same thing as dumb, although voting for Trump is dumb regardless of PhD or lack of HS diploma). There's overlap between low levels of education and income but if you define class by income then low income people mostly voted Dem
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.
This pencil was proudly advertised as being comprised of the remains of all that was decent in humanity. The fact that it wrote in blood was gleefully touted and cheered.
This is exactly the attitude Putin tries to encourage in his population. If enough people don't pay attention or don't think what they do matters, it's easier to subjugate a population.
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.
You are a pencil company director. A CEO candidate promised to cut expenses by 30% by eliminating waste. People who do this stuff for a living countered wood and graphite exceed 70% of your expenses. The CEO candidate proposed to increase graphite spending. Do you wonder what the CEO would do if hired?
Something different like gay people, women, immigrants all suffering while they laugh. Who's laughing now? From an outsiders perspective, I sincerely hope that Republicans get to feel a fraction of what these usually marginalised groups feel every day.
You'd think that lessons would incite learning but that has never seemed to be the case throughout history.
Remember, DOGE has nothing to do with money or "efficiency". It's a pure ideological dismantling of the Federal government aimed at eliminating oversight, regulations, assistance and entitlements as envisioned by ultra-conservatives for decades.
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.
> The U.S. system of government relies on established norms as much as it does law.
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.
> This sort of thing is happening across the federal government. There is no rhyme or reason. DOGE has been given an unrealistic target for cuts and they're desperately cutting whatever they can get their hands on
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.
I'd say that the rhyme and reason are quite clear [0]. They published a playbook, and they are implementing it at a record pace.
> 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.
They have to find some gumbah to head the security dept,because the best one they had,left in a hurry. Heard he went to Denmark. ( I am really really kidding )
The ryme is Humpty Dumpty, had a great fall. Now China and Russian security forces step up their relentless attacks. Let's hope the white house falls first.
> 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.
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?
They are breaking down the federal government intentionally. DOGE was never going to hit their goals, they were impossible to hit. The goals were just cover to take full control over anything they can get their hands on.
> 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.
> DOGE has been about fighting corruption and reducing wasteful spending
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?
Also ~12K IRS workers (7x per head ROI) and inspectors general (who actually get results and are fully accountable) have been cut. And our already bloated military budget is increasing to $1 trillion without an eye being batted. DOGE is theatre.
"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
> "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
I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but let's not take things out of context, he clearly seems to mean it in a "I want everyone" sense here, rather than just the poorly educated specifically.
His statements were of inclusion into a set of suckers, he was only cheering of the relative sizes of those that vote for him. I understand what you are saying, and this isn't it.
I see at least three obvious reasons for the cuts:
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.
> I wonder what level of compartmentalisation inside DHS means they didn't see this as having sufficient downsides?
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.
Also there has been funding cuts to all agencies where Musk is currently under investigation. NHTSA is getting cut so they can't get in the way of Tesla.
No one analyzed it most likely. It’s possible on of the college students working for Doge doesn’t understand security because they are a child with no real world experience that Elon brought in to slash costs.
Your words don't make any sense in this environment. The idea that any person at an agency could stand up to or convince the DOGE team of anything is preposterous.
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 words don't make any sense in this environment. The idea that any person at an agency could stand up to or convince the DOGE team of anything is preposterous.
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.
No, it's definitely DOGE doing all of this. Each one of these young fools need to be named and shamed. The level of damage they have done is unprecedented. They will, in their later years, hopefully look back at this time in their life with a great deal of shame and embarrassment.
I have the feeling that there will be no redemption arc for those ones and the repenting would be for show before a court of public opinion.
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.
I'm an Australian. We have a guy called Clive Palmer, who has formed a party called (no joke) the "Trumpet of Patriots". It's certain nobody will vote for him. The opposition leader married himself to MAGA (and close to Trump) and now it appears like this will prevent him from winning.
It needs to be the "shame and embarrassment" Nazis felt at the end of WWII and not the traditional shame and embarrassment they are used to feeling after losing the civil war and Jim Crow laws. It will just happen again in a generation otherwise.
Nazi did not felt shame and embarrassment. They felt loss. They felt to be weak. Nazi and Germans felt sorry for themselves after the WWII. The feeling of sorry for stuff they have done to others is something Germany found a bit later, largely due to Nuremberg and general policies not allowing it to stay hidden.
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.
You don't think they are carrying out Trump's goals? They are just working independently? The great similarity between their actions and Trump's goals and methods is coincidental?
Why are you protecting Trump, the President, from responsibility?
No, blaming "someone inside DHS" is what makes no sense. It 100% makes sense to blame DOGE and actual perpetrators. You can stop them only if you start to blame those who do the stuff you dont like instead of blaming everyone else except them.
DOGE is doing this, it's not a "scapegoat", and Trump is not going to negotiate anything here, that's ridiculous.
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 is doing this, it's not a "scapegoat", and Trump is not going to negotiate anything here, that's ridiculous.
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?
> Isn't the US supposed to be the birthplace of modern democracy?
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.
It's just not practical to organize a rally to save a niche cybersecurity program. People are busy protesting to protect Medicaid and keep themselves out of foreign gulags, they can't divert the attention to CVE.
> You need to make it in Trump's interest to keep the CVE program.
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.
I don't think there's any reason to believe that Trump is mentally competent to understand what's happening here or engage in any kind of meaningful negotiation.
I'm curious by what means you think Trump can be bargained with.
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?
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?
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.
I think it's more of a principle: if it looks like someone could charge money for it, they think that would make the country stronger, because all they understand is first-order profit. Trump's ethics is "get away with whatever you can".
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.
I love Hanlon's razor. Super-helpful in certain contexts: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
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 )
Hanlon's razor is utter trash. In most contexts that people bring it up, sufficient stupidity IS malice, because at a certain level of resources and responsibility, you do not have an excuse to be that stupid
You can only get into such a position if you've ignored smart people telling you "No". That's malice.
Hanlon's Razor is susceptible to pathological inputs, causing unbounded runtime.
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.
Stupidity rarely has a consistent destructive track record. You score occasional wins. Only malice allows every decision to do damage. (The other razor, essentially - Occam)
If you made this careful analysis, you'd hear "CRISSAKE WE NEED THIS DONT TOUCH IT" for almost everything (and it likely would be right for a significant portion but not everything).
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.
You forget that their stated policy (and I don't doubt their commitment) is that whoever complains the loudest were probably scamming. That "honest people don't complain"
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.