OP, you're not getting a lot of nice words in the comments here — understandably, many are upset with DOGE — but I appreciate you taking the time to write this. It's a great insight into DOGE and the motivations of the people that chose to work there, which we have been missing. Thank you!
Doge Days
21–28 of 28 posts
Re: Doge Days
#22From the article > In 2016, I canvassed for Bernie Sanders. I spent my first day in Nevada > walking door-to-door in the desert heat with a dying phone battery and a stack > of printed papers delineating potential voters, thinking "there really should > be an app for this." There, I ended up writing some Google Apps code for > caucus result reporting. > > This was a chance to do something bigger. The original motivat…
I think he did have good intentions. For someone who took the administration at their word this must have felt like a once in a lifetime opportunity to be part of something that changed government operations for the better. His mentions about improving efficiency and turnaround times are exactly what everyone wanted DOGE to be. But you can tell he’s realized that DOGE is deeply unpopular. Even much of the right is re…
> For someone who took the administration at their word
Anyone who did that should really not be in charge of anything more important than a popsicle stand, even that might be too much. Come on, how ignorant do you have to be to think you could trust this admin?
> Honestly the best thing he could do for his own personal brand is to come out against DOGE, however lightly.
Yep, and he couldn't even manage to do that, even in passing. I won't be using them but all the semi-slurs (like "beta" but worse) that the right likes to hurl at people seem to actually fit this person. To be so passive about losing a job for a non-reason, especially when they styled themselves as the second coming of jesus to come and clear away all the government waste, is mind-bending.
Re: Doge Days
#23Sounds like someone who genuinely wants to make an impact, donated his time to do so, and wrote some stuff to potentially help while giving us a glimpse into the daily life of a high-profile group. I really appreciate this.
FYI this is Sahil Lavingia, who has a long history in the tech world and HN. He's definitely not a villain and has done some good things in the tech world over the years. However, he's also very good at PR and spinning things in his favor. He has a long history of going full hustle-culture on trends as they come along, including everything from NFTs to LLMs and now DOGE. He's very good at wiggling out of difficult si…
Willfully ignorant or villain, pick one.
This isn't ancient history, all of this /just/ (is) happened. We were all there. How is it that so many people took one look at DOGE (_before Trump took office even_) and saw it for what it is but this person with "long history in the tech world" couldn't see it? I don't care how many "good things" they've done in tech, they were a willful and active participant all of this.
> He's very good at wiggling out of difficult situations and rewriting history about himself, and this article is a good example of that.
Is it? It makes them look like an idiot. An idiot for not seeing what so many people saw before or an idiot for thinking we would buy this load of BS. In fact, I'm not even sure what this is supposed to accomplish, they do not come off looking smart or any positive trait I can think of.
Re: Doge Days
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no way of knowing if he's a villain or not, but this article sure makes it sound like he must either be that or dangerously deluded.
Which part is deluded? I don't really see it.
That part where he doesn't see how he materially contributed to seriously harming people.
Re: Doge Days
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which part is deluded? I don't really see it.
That part where he doesn't see how he materially contributed to seriously harming people.
> he materially contributed to seriously harming people.
There are 2 points:
1. Umm he wasn't an exec who had any power to decide whether to lay off somebody or not.
He built some prototypes and launched 1-2 improved UI. Was improving a website harming people?
2. Laying off unnecessary workforce isn't a net harmful to the society.
Are you saying we should never ever fire or stop hiring anybody ever?
Have you ever stop hiring someone in your life? A house cleaner. A babysitter? Stop going to a restaurant? Did you harm them when you stop paying for their services?
Re: Doge Days
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
That part where he doesn't see how he materially contributed to seriously harming people.
> he materially contributed to seriously harming people. There are 2 points: 1. Umm he wasn't an exec who had any power to decide whether to lay off somebody or not. He built some prototypes and launched 1-2 improved UI. Was improving a website harming people? 2. Laying off unnecessary workforce isn't a net harmful to the society. Are you saying we should never ever fire or stop hiring anybody ever? Have you ever sto…
[deleted]
Re: Doge Days
#27[deleted]
Re: Doge Days
#28OP, you're not getting a lot of nice words in the comments here — understandably, many are upset with DOGE — but I appreciate you taking the time to write this. It's a great insight into DOGE and the motivations of the people that chose to work there, which we have been missing. Thank you!
Here's some important context. https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-doge-veterans-affai...