Live data from Hacker News

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

sightlessscribbles.com

481–490 of 510 posts

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

#481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, writing to your Congressional rep is probably the way to solve this. They usually offer "casework" services where a staffer will facilitate their constituent's interactions with federal agencies. This would probably help get the OP's specific issue solved AND make the legislators aware of the problem more generally. My impression is that agencies are often pretty responsive to these things: nobody wants to b…

>They usually offer "casework" services where a staffer will facilitate their constituent's interactions with federal agencies. This would probably help get the OP's specific issue solved That's almost worse because what it creates is a system that abuses everyone by default and only when someone cries to their politician does it shape up.

I guess this depends on whether you think the system was deliberately designed to be “abusive” or has evolved some blind spots/legacy issues.

In this case, I’d guess “fax in your documents” was, long ago, meant to be an improvement over having to mail them in. It wasn’t chosen to be intentionally inconvenient. The system—or perhaps the laws it operates under—could certainly be modernized and your rep is well-positioned to nudge that along.

Likewise, I doubt the rudeness was a matter of policy. At a business, you’d ask to speak with the manager. Here, YOU via your rep are the manager and this is how you get your say.

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

#482

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…

>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. While I agree that the market feedback is a problem with gov jobs, I've worked corporate and small company jobs with all these negative tropes and the same result, you build a hi…

You have the same phenomena in mega coorps. They would for a internal promotion point place the externalities cost of half an hour of work on all of mankind.

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

#483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"

> government employees work for elected officials This is not correct and we have recent examples to counter this claim: 1. There are government employees directly employed by various branches of the government (ex: USDS was under the executive allowing them to be retasked by EO into DOGE) 2. There are government employees appointed into office who cannot fired after appointment (ex: Fed Reserve Chair) 3. There are a…

Do you think the President isn't an elected official?

the fact that the public is stupid does not mean there is no feedback

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

#484

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…

> "She said it with a challenge in her tone. She knew who she was talking to. She was talking to a blind man living below the poverty line. She assumed that "fax it" was an impossible hurdle. She assumed I would have to find a ride to a library, pay twenty cents a page, and struggle with a physical machine I couldn't read. She was counting on the friction of the physical world to make me give up."

Seems like a lot of non-instantiated claims. It's easy to mark a faceless bureaucrat that we are allowed to hate and project out frustration onto it. It's a good writing trope that works, because it's so easy to relate.

The OP's point was that the "faceless" bureaucrat may be helpless and the smug emotion the original author implied may not be unfounded. I can see a valid point for both.

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

#485

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…

A few thoughts about the world this situation exists in: 1. Whenever I am dealing with a problem, I always try to say to the person helping me "I know you are not the person responsible for my issue." My goal is to help them not feel that my frustration is directed at them. 2. Government is a special area, especially when it comes to benefits, because a lot of regulations are in place because some random politician g…

> I always try to say to the person helping me "I know you are not the person responsible for my issue."

This simple sentence that shows empathy to the person on the other side of the line is so profound. In a single breath you let the other person be heard, be seen, and appreciated. At the worst, it makes you stand out amongst all the abusive asshats they interact with day to day. It makes them want to help you. I've used this line every time I had to deal with a customer service agent and the voice always softened after that. A simple "thank you", or "take your time" seem to mark you as a person, rather than a case to close.

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

#486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The government has less competency than small businesses with 5 employees. And not just a bit less, a lot less.

The US government manages a more diverse array of problems (critical, life and death problems) than any other US organization (and probably more than any other org in the world). Amazon has only a tiny fraction of the competence of the US government and is not nearly as reliable. Remember the last time a significant portion of the social security system went down? I can't, but I can remember the last time AWS went down.

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

#488
post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, some people thrive on talking to a lot of people. For everyone else, it can be exhausting. It's hard to navigate social differences talking to 15+ strangers every hour for 8 hours. Each person has a unique expectation about how to relate to them. It's hard knowing, for example, who wants to be interrupted and who doesn't [0]. Some people talk in vagueries with exp…

>Yes, some people thrive on talking to a lot of people. For everyone else, it can be exhausting. It's hard to navigate social differences talking to 15+ strangers every hour for 8 hours a day. Okay. It's a job. I know choices are slim, but "its hard for my mental state" has never been a satisfactory excuse to further displease customers. >So either I would have to lie and say "wow, that must be so frustrating", which…

This is missing the forest for the trees. You are ignoring the wider corpus of the individual's experiences in favor of a single negative interaction, and then using that single interaction, isolated from all their other experiences, to judge the entirety of their character.

> Okay. It's a job. I know choices are slim, but "its hard for my mental state" has never been a satisfactory excuse to further displease customers.

The chemical reality of the the frontal lobe getting exhausted is not an "excuse". It still misses the forest for the trees: if your frontal lobe (the part of the brain responsible for social understanding, reasoning, executive function, and information recall [0]) is taxed, you are way less likely to even understand that you're displeasing the customer! The ultimate irony here is the tool needed to understand how to not do that thing anymore is also the frontal lobe.

> Sometimes a little white lie is easier than a cold hard truth. Just ask any salesman.

That's a nice way to soften it, but pretending to empathize with someone who you're not actually empathizing with sounds psychopathic. I don't want to model my behavior nor do I want anyone else to model their behavior after an industry that is known for dark triad personalities [1]. A lie is still a lie and lying about something so intimate as feeling their experiences doesn't sit right with me at all. You should read the link I posted in my earlier comment which discusses surface acting and how it is very taxing on the individual.

> Given the author is blind, I imagine he's better than average at reading the tone of voice. He could have interpreted it wrong, but I'm sure this dismissive tone isn't new to him.

Reading a stranger's tone is a guess and negativity bias affects our perception of a stranger's intent [2]. The sum of their total negative experiences absolutely can make them interpret someone else's tone as having "dismissive" intent even though it's just as likely to be what I already described: braced speech in anticipation for a person responding to something they don't want to hear.

And there you can see negativity bias on both sides! The difference is that the representative gets no post-call time to consider what happened before they have to take the next call and they have the issue of not really having the foresight to actively introspect and keep a strong sense of understanding the situation the customer is going through. (As a reminder, both foresight and introspection require some level of functioning frontal lobe, which is already getting juiced for the next social interaction that's about to happen).

> Probably not. But I'm not sure what you want me to say. I don't want to be the same as Karen and say "suck it up, it's a job. But this is such a commin feeling on modern society. If we aren't going to collectively rise against its, we're bearing the flood alone.

I'm not sure what you mean, you effectively said "suck it up, it's a job" at the beginning of your comment when you said "Okay. It's a job". Of course no one wants to be the same as Karen, Karen doesn't want to be the same as Karen, but as I've already explained, is incapable of extricating herself from the dysfunction! Her frontal lobe is shot!

But the author? He does have that capability after the interaction. He is an author, with time to introspect. He chose to be an ass hole instead. Of course, his growth over the years has been stunted by the way he has been treated. I am not in the business of dredging up someone's life experiences and putting them on display, but he has painful experiences beyond being blind in a society not built for blind people.

But I have the privilege of being able to see all that and take it into consideration. Karen does not. She doesn't have the hint about his upbringing that I do. She probably doesn't have the time or mental capacity to introspect, and consider, if what she's doing makes people feel bad.

I can fault neither of these people for being ass holes, because that would amount to faulting them for their upbringing, faulting them for the situation they're in.

> But I'm not sure what you want me to say.

I don't want you to say anything, I want you to think about what empathy really means beyond the surface level. That this isn't a situation where anyone should be trying to say "who has experienced the most hardship" so we can pick who wins empathy and who gets labelled an ass hole for perpetuity.

I want people to stop doing the thing where they only empathize with the person most like them and instead try to feel what it's like to be like the person who is least like them. Sometimes that's not intuitive. Just because the dude is blind doesn't mean he isn't more like you than the person who isn't.

[0]: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/24501-frontal-lob... [1]: https://www.fastcompany.com/90775564/the-dark-side-of-the-sa... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias#Attribution_of...

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

#489
post #413

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 th…

> Under HIPAA requirements emailing personal medical info is a massive no-no. Doesn’t that only apply to covered entities, which the internet is telling me does not include the Social Security Administration.

And it also doesn't really apply here... If YOU the individual (who owns your own medical records) agree that the transmission method is safe then HIPAA doesn't apply. HIPAA applies when the OTHER party sends it:

This is called "Individual Right of Access". If you ask a doctor to email your records to your personal Gmail, the doctor must comply. However, they are required to briefly warn you that email is unencrypted and insecure. Once you say, "I understand the risk, send it anyway," the doctor is no longer liable for any breach that happens during transmission.

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

#490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per the story, the protagonist DoSed the fax machine. Fax machines are dumb, and employees often don't know how to operate them outside of the most common flow.

Yes. But I understand that you don't literally need to print every fax request immediately, right? That's the dumbest part of this situation. This sounds like an 80 movies trope, but here we are decades later.

The only fax machine I saw at a place I worked did automatically print whatever was sent to it.
Post reply on HN