Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

sightlessscribbles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 510 posts

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#161

Post by unsupp0rted »

People are judging OP and/or judging Karen. A lot is being lost in translation.

When you get a certain drone with a certain way of speaking down to you ("this is the system obviously, you faceless person who is just as dumb as all the other faceless people"), then it's infuriating and I can see why OP went to bureaucratic war.

At the same time, give the drone a break. She's doing what she's been trained to do, in the framework she's permitted to operate in, and she's got bigger problems than you.

When I was younger, I went to similar bureaucratic wars to prove a point... to whom? What for?

It's not helping anybody.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#162

Post by undeveloper »

speedgoose wrote: post #34

I don’t like the AI writing style anymore. It’s very readable and it has great words, but it’s lacking imperfections. Like a raytraced 3D render of mathematically perfect shapes.

https://www.pangram.com/history/964171e9-7cc9-45c9-9da0-f6b0...

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#163

Post by 0x3f »

tokai wrote: post #135
apexalpha wrote: post #130

The problem in the UK, and many other countries, is that they refuse to split Disabilities in "objectively measurable disabilities" and "not objectively measurable disabilities." Obviously, you can just objectively measure if someone is fully blind. Sure you can pretend, but that's very hard. On the other hand there's disabilities like anxiety, where the only option is to ask the patient questions that the patient ma…

>you can just objectively measure if someone is fully blind No not really. Blindness is a spectrum. https://www.cnib.ca/en/sight-loss-info/blindness/what-blindn... https://www.perkins.org/what-blindness-really-looks-like/

That's presumably what the word 'fully' is being employed for.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#164

Post by kerblang »

Under HIPAA requirements emailing personal medical info is a massive no-no. Admittedly, this is for the patient's protection, and of course being blind is not much of a secret... but it's completely understandable that email would be strongly discouraged. Nobody wants to get in trouble for breaking the rules.

Honestly, being able to accept a fax is great, although I would think any properly outfitted modern office that does accept fax would be able to route them straight to document storage rather than a printer. There are probably even internet services that can just act as a fax dumpster and hold PDF/image file for perusal at one's leisure. Yes even the govt can figure this sort of thing out.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#167

Post by cucumber3732842 »

renewiltord wrote: post #67
recursivedoubts wrote: post #33

Karen woke up this morning in her run down, rented flat. She briefly looks at the collections letter that showed up yesterday due to an unaffordable repair she had to pay for on her credit card. Another letter from her ex-partner's lawyer. As she rushes out the door (she spilled coffee on her one nice sweater, her favorite) her mom flashes through her mind... "What about mum?". She arrives at the office. It is an opp…

The lesson is obviously to have an ablative layer of suffering people strapped to the front of your organization. No one can fight you without hurting them so you are invincible. It’s commonly practiced and we can see why.

The people saying "how dare you hurt that ablative layer" are no less evil than those implementing it IMO.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#168

Post by 0x3f »

apexalpha wrote: post #130

The problem in the UK, and many other countries, is that they refuse to split Disabilities in "objectively measurable disabilities" and "not objectively measurable disabilities." Obviously, you can just objectively measure if someone is fully blind. Sure you can pretend, but that's very hard. On the other hand there's disabilities like anxiety, where the only option is to ask the patient questions that the patient ma…

They're overly cautious about creating inadvertent structural forms of discrimination. Although perhaps they're not actually paranoid, given some recent court rulings.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#169

Post by cucumber3732842 »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #123
Permit wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because they create an instant exploit where the machine can be as bad as it wants as long as it hides behind the cogs. The exploit is already there whether or not you blame the cogs. Did blaming the cogs in this instance solve anything? Are disability benefits reformed in any way?

Cogs receiving abuse (which in this case is a scary word for "feedback from the public who is paying you and is unhappy with your process") _do_ cause the system to change. It's really not that much different from writing angry letters to Congressmen: One letter "doesn't do anything", but a surprisingly small number of letters does. And the one Congressmen "can't do anything", but usually a small number of Congressme…

> _do_ cause the system to change

And saying it doesn't is like saying "my one piece of litter won't make the park dirty". Just because you can't see the effect one instance has doesn't mean that it isn't meaningful when added all up.

Re: The 'paperwork flood': How I drowned a bureaucrat before dinner

#170

Post by unsupp0rted »

tyingq wrote: post #18

Sounds like it's not real but... It reads like an indictment of the government employee personally, rather than the rules and constraints that employee is forced to use. Probably fair to comment on the interaction, whether the person was rude, and so on. But blaming them for not accepting email is kind of silly. They are not empowered to do that kind of thing.

It is and should be an indictment of the employee personally only in the sense that the employee's tone and manner likely conveyed to OP that she thinks of him as a pothole or a buzzing fly: something you have to deal with, rather than someone who needs to be helped.

Not that she has any power to help him really. I would guess OP is more upset by the dehumanization in her tone, rather than the dehumanization of the system she works within.

Post reply on HN