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

The young, inexperienced engineers aiding DOGE

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: The young, inexperienced engineers aiding DOGE

#161

Post by archagon »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #37
medler wrote: post #3

I don’t know how this will shake out, but I do worry that these 19-24 year olds, some of whom are known to HN for other achievements, are putting themselves in real legal jeopardy. Edit: by the way, this post isn’t off-topic. It is about the activities of the US Digital Service (now known as Doge), and the exploits of young hackers who came up through top tech companies. It has implications for information systems se…

[flagged]

I don't necessarily approve of this action, but... a key to a peaceful life is to not piss off too many people at once. If you decide spit on a hundred million people, you're not gonna like it when a fraction of them spit back. Break the social contract at your own peril.

Re: The young, inexperienced engineers aiding DOGE

#162

Post by electriclove »

Shekelphile wrote: post #30
TrackerFF wrote: post #11

If they're engaged in doing illegal stuff, at the federal level, I fully expect Trump to just pardon everyone involved. Maybe they're too deep in the Yarvin / Thield / Musk (Kool-Aid) sauce, but they should know better. This stuff will follow them for life.

They're directly attacking government infrastructure, including our intelligence apparatuses. Even if they escape legal consequences they could become targeted for extrajudicial killings by intelligence agencies of the US and allies.

What attack?? They are working for our government.

Re: The young, inexperienced engineers aiding DOGE

#163

Post by jacobjjacob »

jimmydddd wrote: post #113
xnx wrote: post #73

Are such drastic action appropriate given the current state of the US? The US probably hasn't been this economically dominant since after WWII. Feels like Chesterton fences are getting torn up left and right by people too young and incurious to possibly understand why those fences might be there.

US National Debt Adds $1 Trillion Every 100 Days.

If a balanced budget led to a flat or negative GDP, reduced the USA’s power and influence globally, and/or lowered standards of living, then would it still be desirable? What exactly is the argument against a deficit besides that it might be giving some groups leverage over the USA, which is dubious?

Re: The young, inexperienced engineers aiding DOGE

#164

Post by watwut »

xnx wrote: post #73

Are such drastic action appropriate given the current state of the US? The US probably hasn't been this economically dominant since after WWII. Feels like Chesterton fences are getting torn up left and right by people too young and incurious to possibly understand why those fences might be there.

It does not matter. If republican party voters cared about appropriateness, they would not picked up Trump and Musk. They picked them because they wanted to see maximal harm and they see lack of ethics/morals as strength.

Re: The young, inexperienced engineers aiding DOGE

#165

Post by immibis »

derangedHorse wrote: post #142
xnx wrote: post #73

Are such drastic action appropriate given the current state of the US? The US probably hasn't been this economically dominant since after WWII. Feels like Chesterton fences are getting torn up left and right by people too young and incurious to possibly understand why those fences might be there.

By what metric do you think the U.S. is as “economically dominant” as it was in the period after WWII?

Most of the world's currency is backed by the currency they print? The USA has to spend a few cents to gain a hundred dollar bill, but any other country has to exchange a hundred dollars of actual goods and services (to the USA!). Losing this privilege would be devastating.

Re: The young, inexperienced engineers aiding DOGE

#166

Post by wahnfrieden »

nomel wrote: post #135
xnx wrote: post #73

Are such drastic action appropriate given the current state of the US? The US probably hasn't been this economically dominant since after WWII. Feels like Chesterton fences are getting torn up left and right by people too young and incurious to possibly understand why those fences might be there.

> Are such drastic action appropriate given the current state of the US? With the debt ceiling ever increasing, approaching a trillion dollars in interest per year, nearing $6k/year per working individual, I would say the correct time to put any effort, whatsoever, into reducing spending, was 20 years ago. I think the fundamental problem is we lack adversarial systems within the government: it doesn't like to hurt it…

> Trying to cut jobs/waste/find fraud is political/career suicide for anyone in government

US Government Accountability Office already existed to do this, without it being career suicide for those involved (at least until Trump began attempting to end it despite being nonpartisan)

Re: The young, inexperienced engineers aiding DOGE

#168

Post by pessimizer »

afavour wrote: post #95
xnx wrote: post #73

Are such drastic action appropriate given the current state of the US? The US probably hasn't been this economically dominant since after WWII. Feels like Chesterton fences are getting torn up left and right by people too young and incurious to possibly understand why those fences might be there.

Never appropriate. The actions are entirely unconstitutional. If the US decided to disband USAID it would have to be an act of congress, unelected friends of the president don’t come close to being able to make that call.

[flagged]

Re: The young, inexperienced engineers aiding DOGE

#169

Post by bdangubic »

nomel wrote: post #135
xnx wrote: post #73

Are such drastic action appropriate given the current state of the US? The US probably hasn't been this economically dominant since after WWII. Feels like Chesterton fences are getting torn up left and right by people too young and incurious to possibly understand why those fences might be there.

> Are such drastic action appropriate given the current state of the US? With the debt ceiling ever increasing, approaching a trillion dollars in interest per year, nearing $6k/year per working individual, I would say the correct time to put any effort, whatsoever, into reducing spending, was 20 years ago. I think the fundamental problem is we lack adversarial systems within the government: it doesn't like to hurt it…

start with the “defense” budget first, cut that by 95% and go from there… oh wait, that money is going to… :)
Post reply on HN