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

441–450 of 510 posts

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

#441

Post by hunterpayne »

metalliqaz wrote: post #391
observationist wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People given a tiny amount of power with no consequences for misusing it, inflicting their power on people for no better reason than that they can. Government is parasitic, with no market feedback, so people that would normally get weeded out for being awful humans, for incompetence, for psychopathy of various flavors - they all end up with a long, well paid career and no consequences. I find the story unlikely, read…

> with no market feedback It's amazing how many people seem to have learned their civics from conservative talk shows. government employees work for elected officials, who hear often from angry "customers" and are constantly at risk of losing their jobs following scheduled "performance reviews"

I have to fill out paperwork for the government on a regular basis. I can tell you from first hand experience, the government's main problems are completely their own fault. They are easily 25 years out of date in technology. They can't accept encrypted files, they can't accept credit cards, they can't seem to even do the most basic things that even my dentist's office with 2 total employees can seem to do.

Its so bad that I can't help but think its because the contracts to support government workers are handed out in questionable ways. While I don't think much of the people who work in government offices, I do think they could accept emails if their bosses wanted them to and their contractors provided the tech. They aren't any more or less capable than the dentist's office workers. They just have to work with terrible tech that was clearly chosen for the wrong reasons.

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

#442

Post by hunterpayne »

something765478 wrote: post #422
nickff wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this justification many times, but it's highly questionable. Imagine someone works for an organization, and 'the rules and constraints' require them to murder (without legal consequence) innocent people on a regular basis; is this morally justifiable? What if their 'job description' does not include 'murder', but they do indeed have to murder an innocent person each month because of the 'rules and constrai…

Following your organization's data security practices is not immoral. To me, refusing to accept a PDF is no different than running a cash only store and refusing to accept credit cards as payment.

And how long would that store stay open with such a policy? That's the problem. The government has less competency than small businesses with 5 employees. And not just a bit less, a lot less. Its hard to believe it is just the bureaucrats. I think the leaders of those parts of the government didn't get their posts from merit. And they have no idea just how bad they are at their jobs. It also is probably a bit of too many cooks in the kitchen too.

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

#443

Post by hunterpayne »

sl-1 wrote: post #418
create_accounts wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate it when bureaucrats ask me to send e-mails because they are not encrypted. Specially my ID. It's a security risk, indeed

Not end to end encrypted? I'd wager most email traffic is encrypted while in transit, but of course that depends on the service providers. And it does sit unencrypted when stored.

If you are emailing from a Yahoo address to a GMail address, I would bet it is. If it is going to some .gov address, who knows...maybe...maybe not???

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

#444

Post by testing22321 »

nickff wrote: post #324
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.

I've heard this justification many times, but it's highly questionable. Imagine someone works for an organization, and 'the rules and constraints' require them to murder (without legal consequence) innocent people on a regular basis; is this morally justifiable? What if their 'job description' does not include 'murder', but they do indeed have to murder an innocent person each month because of the 'rules and constrai…

Wait, I know this one.

They work for United Healthcare!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/21/unitedhealth...

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

#445

Post by phyzome »

speedgoose wrote: post #303
phyzome wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this author uses LLMs. I follow them online and they hate generative AI.

I guess I don’t like their style then. My bad. Sorry about that.

I've misattributed a similar writing style to AI a couple times now, which I also feel bad about.

But yeah, this is essentially the writing style that LLMs are mimicking.

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

#446

Post by DrammBA »

kakacik wrote: post #406
DrammBA wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Relevant to this story Is it? The Author mentions he has degenerated optical nerves from birth, I don't think laser fixes that.

Yeah, but don't expect this level of fine granularity from government, any government, thats ridiculous expectations. Heck, I wouldn't expect it neither from any private company as a default state.

I wouldn't expect it from any goverment either, but I would expect it from someone who allegedly read the story and is trying to share relevant information.

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

#447

Post by handoflixue »

lbarrow wrote: post #225
raincole wrote: post #126

> It is a letter that arrives every few years from the government, asking a question that is medically absurd and philosophically insulting: "Are you still disabled?" It... doesn't sound like an absurd practice at all. There are curable disabilities. And what's curable changes along with the advance of technology. It sounds about right to review the situation every a few years.

Yea, this sounds like a completely reasonable process to me. They should obviously update their system to accept the electronic submission of evidence, but the process itself is fine.

The concept behind the process might be fine.

The demand that poor blind people acquire and submit records through an obscure technology, at their own personal expenses, on short deadline, is obviously absurd.

In particular, the requirement to re-prove basic facts suggests a fundamentally hostile design - you could just ask them to send a simple email asserting that yes, they are still disabled; or have them check a box and return a form.

Is there's truly an epidemic of people staying on welfare after their lifelong disability was cured?

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

#448

Post by adammarples »

handoflixue wrote: post #447
lbarrow wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, this sounds like a completely reasonable process to me. They should obviously update their system to accept the electronic submission of evidence, but the process itself is fine.

The concept behind the process might be fine. The demand that poor blind people acquire and submit records through an obscure technology, at their own personal expenses, on short deadline, is obviously absurd. In particular, the requirement to re-prove basic facts suggests a fundamentally hostile design - you could just ask them to send a simple email asserting that yes, they are still disabled; or have them check a…

Who else is supposed to aquire and submit the records? If I'm getting free money for five years and all that's required is a fax every five years, I wouldn't consider that particularly burdensome. I have to fill in a timesheet every week.

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

#449

Post by squigz »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #265
raincole wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say there is no compliance hurdles or the benefits are supposed to be easy to get. I said that the author insinuates the woman is actively, even personally trying to stop him from getting the benefits, instead of following a rulebook. Which is quite surprising to me, as my experience tells me most employees don't care about saving money for their employers unless they're very strongly motivated to do so. > S…

They're motivated financially to do so. There's bonuses.

Government employees get bonuses for denying people benefits they're entitled to?

Source, please?

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

#450

Post by dqv »

nojvek wrote: post #342

Oh boy. I’m dealing with IRS right now to get an EIN for an LLC. They won’t give an EIN over online form. Must be faxed or physically mailed. They say 3-5 days. Been weeks. I pay $5/week to hold onto a fax number. So Trump spending hundreds of billions on blowing up kids’ schools in Iran and cutting funding from IRS. Why does it take weeks to start a business in 2026 and get a bank account. Just absurd.

Hmm the online EIN form will give you an EIN instantly unless you don't have an ITIN or you are incorporated outside the US, in which case you would have to do it offline. https://sa.www4.irs.gov/applyein/

I remember using it and worrying about losing the EIN at the last step, so I saved the document several times and printed it several times too.

Post reply on HN