Heh, yeah, hope the social security numbers don't leak.
On the serious side, there's definitely data I don't want leaked through an accidentally unsecured S3 bucket... but from an accountability/auditability side of things, we cannot underestimate how much the Feds couldn't do. And, honestly, projects to 'share' data across systems and depts ... tens of $B in consulting contracts without any real prospect of being able to do it.
Ok... about the whole DOGE thing. I don't know where to begin. As a process guy, I absolutely abhor this complete end-around the entire process. Seriously, it's bad and I condemn it thrice.
BUT, as a tech guy who has (on and off) worked with the Feds on their Data Management projects, the prospect of Musk and a few techies with cots deploying COTS (Commercial off-the-shelf) software to solve simple data management issues that have plagued (and plague here is too soft of a disease metaphor) the entire Federal Government? Well, I'm laughing like the Joker. I'll laugh harder with the upcoming data-breach, but that's a different sort of laugh.
No, I'm not concerned about the PII stuff people are hyperventilating about...
But still, you have no idea how funny it is to see the data silos integrated -- there are right now thousands, nay, tens of thousands of consultants watching this with mouths ajar... the fact that the GSA is one of the institutions being 'integrated' -- off the charts irony.
Agreed... from the reporting I've read from Trace there are two observable outcomes:
1. The total number of certified applicants is lower than it should be owing to the screening process. This has impacted staffing levels nationwide... with the various 'reputable' reporting agencies noting 90% of all airfields are under-capacity.
2. On account of #1 over-screening on non-relevant metrics, the overall quality of certified applicants is lower - that is the % of actual qualifying Certs are of one level and not the higher level.
What isn't being alleged from 'serious people' is that any of the ATC people weren't qualified to be certified or ATC workers. If anything, the issue is that the bottleneck created a pipeline problem that has led to understaffing and, perhaps relevant to this case, an ATC having to cover too many processes while on the job.
Yes, I'm just pointing out that the process iterates.
But I'm not sure I agree that 'nothing happens' is a valid interpretive framework. If a political party can achieve successful policy objectives and can't make sure that they get 'credit' for them... then either a) the successful policies aren't popular b) they weren't actually successful policies, or c) the political party is underperforming on a key metric... capitalizing on popular successful policies.
I'd agree that it's too early to definitively say how it will shake out, but as I note above, it's my opinion that *right now* TeamR is trending towards overplaying their hand.
Heh, right... I mean, I could conjure a situation around 'dumping' that could possibly constitute a tariff emergency where you'd need to act immediately to prevent businesses from going bankrupt. But yes, most tariff policy works around long-term geo-political/economic goals.
Now, I could see Congress deciding that a country (or region) was not negotiating in good faith and delegating the Executive who also has delegated Trade Negotiation powers the ability to threaten and level Tariffs as part of that objective... but a little like declaring war, I'd rather Congress delegate for a specific purpose for a specific time.
Possibly; it's not something I've studied much, but I think there's long-term concerns that ISI's success becomes itself a kind of drag on productivity one the protections outlive their initial objectives.
Which is just to say that using different policy tools always carry the risk of creating constituencies that rely on the status quo even when the status quo should be trimmed to account for success.
Agreed, curious to see what the actual negotiations will yield.
Could be symbolic nonsense
Could be symbolic but successful interdiction
Could be significant collaborative interdiction
Could be General Pershing crossing the border chasing Pancho Villa...
Heh, well I'm not a Market Fundamentalist (tm) and see tariffs (properly) as a tool to manage foreign affairs including trade.
Tariffs can and do affect trade, they can and do raise prices, those prices are (mostly) paid by the consumers, they will alter consumer choices, and reveal new consumer preferences... all of those things are more or less accurate, but simply become part of the cost/benefit calculation of what you get by enacting the tariff. That is, it literally doesn't matter what the theoretical economic impact might be to a 'perfectly functioning free market'.
What's the point of the tariff? Do the benefits outweigh the costs... that's the only useful conversation. Have you properly calculated the risks? The gains? The counter-moves? Future iterations?
And, if you *threaten* a tariff and get what you wanted without any cost? Well, possibly we're undervaluing the trade benefits we're providing to our partners.
Right... will have to see what the actual outcome is; BUT, better to manage the response to the outcomes than hyperventilate about theoretical outcomes.
Plus, see also Panama 'caving' and stepping back from China Belt-and-Road agreement from 2017.
The current Republican party is not managing it's 'success' very well... and that's before it has generated any actual success.
I don't think Hogg was nominated to reach disaffected Males from what I've read... the challenge for TeamR is to actually execute on delivering policy wins that disaffected males will feel... and delivering policy wins that are better for more than *just* disaffected males.
And, after executing successful policies, TeamR has to message around those policies.
None of the above are a given for TeamR... if TeamR screws up... it doesn't matter who the Assistant Vice Chair at the DNC might be.
Quick hits:
1. Process... 'emergency' tariffs seem like a silly thing to delegate, but delegated they've been. I suppose a future president can simply not veto Congress pulling that 'imperial' power back.
2. Goals... Whelp, I suppose officially it's drug interdiction and border control.
3. Outcome(s)... drug interdictions and border control? Some increased prices? Recession? Sky fallls?
4. Prudence... seems low.
Recommended path: Offer better solutions for ostensible goals; suggest poor outcomes to watch for; judge actual outcomes; make political gains off of bad outcomes; or acknowledge political outcomes did not match priors and adjust political rhetoric and future solutions for new or similar goals accordingly.
Personally I'd avoid adopting Free Market Fundamentalism on the Left in a reactionary(!) response to Trumpian stuff.
I'm in the same rut... fire-up Total Warhammer, nah nothing new here; POE1 is basically dead - no update since August and they just announced that all Devs are working on POE2 and no update until maybe April?, POE2 sucks; Last Epoch's next update is in April; Diablo IV is so bleh.
30-yrs ago I played Civ1... Civ7 releases in two weeks. I'll buy it, of course, but I'm not sure I've enjoyed it since Civ3 and the evolution into an ultra-micro-management game; the irony of the early games is that the technology constraints gave it depth but only so much depth. Well, unlimited compute hasn't really made the game better even if it's made it visually lovely.
Nevertheless, I'm sure I'll be playing it two Saturdays from now... but I'm not likely going to pop for the 5-day early access. Hopefully it's awesome and it carries me into April and can become the ultimate, 'I've got nothing to play, let's fire-up Civ and see what the first 30 moves reveal...
If the reporting on this is correct, the 'shocking' takeaway will be that it constricted applicants in a demand heavy field.
That is, whatever good it thought to have been achieving was so horribly executed that it did harm to the common good -- without reference to race, diversity or equity.
I think the critiques I'm seeing from the front row Lib Normies is that the Centrist economic policies, were horribly impeded by requirements added by 'the groups' such that it wasn't good enough to build more broadband or EV chargers, you had to build them with the proper intentions and deference to theoretical concerns not relevant to broadband or EV chargers...
A theoretical 'healthy' Biden might have objected to having his signature legislation undermined by omnicause goals orthogonal to the objectives.
I actually supported aspects of his foreign policy... but just taking Afghanistan withdrawal -- his popularity tanked after that -- unfairly I think. BUT, as I said at the time, he never held the Military accountable for poor execution. Also at the time I chalked it up to his excessive Washington Establishmentarianism ... but it's possible that his decline prevented him from acting more forcefully (but that's just speculation, I go either way on that one).
On the Trans stuff... yes, that's also a losing proposition, especially as it's framed by 'the groups'
As far as I can tell, he'd have to get Bluesky to do the restricting...
There's a billion $ start-up for the people who invent the app that combines all the various feeds into one space.... so you can comment and link to other people's bad ideas. Like old-twitter.
I said long before the Biden implosion that we never really got to see what a Biden Presidency would look like; the best Biden could've done for the Dems was make the avuncular pivot to a 'normie' liberal position... but he didn't. I think a lot of folks who voted for him wanted this kind of normalcy, but for various reasons, Biden didn't deliver, and Harris couldn't distance... To be honest, I'm not sure they were being 'insincere' just that they were proverbial frogs in the pot who didn't notice that they were no longer in the Normie Lib space.
MattY kinda buries his more controversial take on 'the groups' in the link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/16/opinion/democrats-interest-groups-majority.html
Biden's the bait for putting it back on the table.
But yes, in general, the Impeachment Power is quiescent during this era of Presidential EO governance and Omnibus Reconciliation Legislation Congresses.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
Heh, yeah, hope the social security numbers don't leak.
On the serious side, there's definitely data I don't want leaked through an accidentally unsecured S3 bucket... but from an accountability/auditability side of things, we cannot underestimate how much the Feds couldn't do. And, honestly, projects to 'share' data across systems and depts ... tens of $B in consulting contracts without any real prospect of being able to do it.
"
As for an article looking at Tariffs without making the mistake of Market Fundamentalism? Oren Cass has a decent one.
https://www.understandingamerica.co/p/o-canada-time-to-talk-tariffs
"
Ok... about the whole DOGE thing. I don't know where to begin. As a process guy, I absolutely abhor this complete end-around the entire process. Seriously, it's bad and I condemn it thrice.
BUT, as a tech guy who has (on and off) worked with the Feds on their Data Management projects, the prospect of Musk and a few techies with cots deploying COTS (Commercial off-the-shelf) software to solve simple data management issues that have plagued (and plague here is too soft of a disease metaphor) the entire Federal Government? Well, I'm laughing like the Joker. I'll laugh harder with the upcoming data-breach, but that's a different sort of laugh.
No, I'm not concerned about the PII stuff people are hyperventilating about...
But still, you have no idea how funny it is to see the data silos integrated -- there are right now thousands, nay, tens of thousands of consultants watching this with mouths ajar... the fact that the GSA is one of the institutions being 'integrated' -- off the charts irony.
https://archive.is/2025.02.01-235221/https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-lackeys-general-services-administration/
"
Heh, now this is funny... it's like watching toddlers play soccer, everyone just chasing the ball with no idea what the game is.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
Agreed... from the reporting I've read from Trace there are two observable outcomes:
1. The total number of certified applicants is lower than it should be owing to the screening process. This has impacted staffing levels nationwide... with the various 'reputable' reporting agencies noting 90% of all airfields are under-capacity.
2. On account of #1 over-screening on non-relevant metrics, the overall quality of certified applicants is lower - that is the % of actual qualifying Certs are of one level and not the higher level.
What isn't being alleged from 'serious people' is that any of the ATC people weren't qualified to be certified or ATC workers. If anything, the issue is that the bottleneck created a pipeline problem that has led to understaffing and, perhaps relevant to this case, an ATC having to cover too many processes while on the job.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
Yes, I'm just pointing out that the process iterates.
But I'm not sure I agree that 'nothing happens' is a valid interpretive framework. If a political party can achieve successful policy objectives and can't make sure that they get 'credit' for them... then either a) the successful policies aren't popular b) they weren't actually successful policies, or c) the political party is underperforming on a key metric... capitalizing on popular successful policies.
I'd agree that it's too early to definitively say how it will shake out, but as I note above, it's my opinion that *right now* TeamR is trending towards overplaying their hand.
"
Heh, right... I mean, I could conjure a situation around 'dumping' that could possibly constitute a tariff emergency where you'd need to act immediately to prevent businesses from going bankrupt. But yes, most tariff policy works around long-term geo-political/economic goals.
Now, I could see Congress deciding that a country (or region) was not negotiating in good faith and delegating the Executive who also has delegated Trade Negotiation powers the ability to threaten and level Tariffs as part of that objective... but a little like declaring war, I'd rather Congress delegate for a specific purpose for a specific time.
"
Possibly; it's not something I've studied much, but I think there's long-term concerns that ISI's success becomes itself a kind of drag on productivity one the protections outlive their initial objectives.
Which is just to say that using different policy tools always carry the risk of creating constituencies that rely on the status quo even when the status quo should be trimmed to account for success.
"
Agreed, curious to see what the actual negotiations will yield.
Could be symbolic nonsense
Could be symbolic but successful interdiction
Could be significant collaborative interdiction
Could be General Pershing crossing the border chasing Pancho Villa...
...hard to say, really.
"
Heh, well I'm not a Market Fundamentalist (tm) and see tariffs (properly) as a tool to manage foreign affairs including trade.
Tariffs can and do affect trade, they can and do raise prices, those prices are (mostly) paid by the consumers, they will alter consumer choices, and reveal new consumer preferences... all of those things are more or less accurate, but simply become part of the cost/benefit calculation of what you get by enacting the tariff. That is, it literally doesn't matter what the theoretical economic impact might be to a 'perfectly functioning free market'.
What's the point of the tariff? Do the benefits outweigh the costs... that's the only useful conversation. Have you properly calculated the risks? The gains? The counter-moves? Future iterations?
And, if you *threaten* a tariff and get what you wanted without any cost? Well, possibly we're undervaluing the trade benefits we're providing to our partners.
"
Right... will have to see what the actual outcome is; BUT, better to manage the response to the outcomes than hyperventilate about theoretical outcomes.
Plus, see also Panama 'caving' and stepping back from China Belt-and-Road agreement from 2017.
"
The current Republican party is not managing it's 'success' very well... and that's before it has generated any actual success.
I don't think Hogg was nominated to reach disaffected Males from what I've read... the challenge for TeamR is to actually execute on delivering policy wins that disaffected males will feel... and delivering policy wins that are better for more than *just* disaffected males.
And, after executing successful policies, TeamR has to message around those policies.
None of the above are a given for TeamR... if TeamR screws up... it doesn't matter who the Assistant Vice Chair at the DNC might be.
"
But for the Republican party, this would seem like a less than optimal choice.
"
Kinda thought we'd have a main page Tariff Talk... but absent that:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/
Quick hits:
1. Process... 'emergency' tariffs seem like a silly thing to delegate, but delegated they've been. I suppose a future president can simply not veto Congress pulling that 'imperial' power back.
2. Goals... Whelp, I suppose officially it's drug interdiction and border control.
3. Outcome(s)... drug interdictions and border control? Some increased prices? Recession? Sky fallls?
4. Prudence... seems low.
Recommended path: Offer better solutions for ostensible goals; suggest poor outcomes to watch for; judge actual outcomes; make political gains off of bad outcomes; or acknowledge political outcomes did not match priors and adjust political rhetoric and future solutions for new or similar goals accordingly.
Personally I'd avoid adopting Free Market Fundamentalism on the Left in a reactionary(!) response to Trumpian stuff.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Just looking for something *FUN*”
I'm in the same rut... fire-up Total Warhammer, nah nothing new here; POE1 is basically dead - no update since August and they just announced that all Devs are working on POE2 and no update until maybe April?, POE2 sucks; Last Epoch's next update is in April; Diablo IV is so bleh.
30-yrs ago I played Civ1... Civ7 releases in two weeks. I'll buy it, of course, but I'm not sure I've enjoyed it since Civ3 and the evolution into an ultra-micro-management game; the irony of the early games is that the technology constraints gave it depth but only so much depth. Well, unlimited compute hasn't really made the game better even if it's made it visually lovely.
Nevertheless, I'm sure I'll be playing it two Saturdays from now... but I'm not likely going to pop for the 5-day early access. Hopefully it's awesome and it carries me into April and can become the ultimate, 'I've got nothing to play, let's fire-up Civ and see what the first 30 moves reveal...
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
Agreed; there are some layers here to unpack.
"
If the reporting on this is correct, the 'shocking' takeaway will be that it constricted applicants in a demand heavy field.
That is, whatever good it thought to have been achieving was so horribly executed that it did harm to the common good -- without reference to race, diversity or equity.
"
I think the critiques I'm seeing from the front row Lib Normies is that the Centrist economic policies, were horribly impeded by requirements added by 'the groups' such that it wasn't good enough to build more broadband or EV chargers, you had to build them with the proper intentions and deference to theoretical concerns not relevant to broadband or EV chargers...
A theoretical 'healthy' Biden might have objected to having his signature legislation undermined by omnicause goals orthogonal to the objectives.
I actually supported aspects of his foreign policy... but just taking Afghanistan withdrawal -- his popularity tanked after that -- unfairly I think. BUT, as I said at the time, he never held the Military accountable for poor execution. Also at the time I chalked it up to his excessive Washington Establishmentarianism ... but it's possible that his decline prevented him from acting more forcefully (but that's just speculation, I go either way on that one).
On the Trans stuff... yes, that's also a losing proposition, especially as it's framed by 'the groups'
"
Iceberg <--> Tip
"
Nightmare fuel.
On “Email Blast: White House Offers Federal Workers “Deferred Resignation””
Pretty awesome for those folks who were planning to exit in the next 8-months.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
As far as I can tell, he'd have to get Bluesky to do the restricting...
There's a billion $ start-up for the people who invent the app that combines all the various feeds into one space.... so you can comment and link to other people's bad ideas. Like old-twitter.
"
I said long before the Biden implosion that we never really got to see what a Biden Presidency would look like; the best Biden could've done for the Dems was make the avuncular pivot to a 'normie' liberal position... but he didn't. I think a lot of folks who voted for him wanted this kind of normalcy, but for various reasons, Biden didn't deliver, and Harris couldn't distance... To be honest, I'm not sure they were being 'insincere' just that they were proverbial frogs in the pot who didn't notice that they were no longer in the Normie Lib space.
MattY kinda buries his more controversial take on 'the groups' in the link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/16/opinion/democrats-interest-groups-majority.html
"
Think of it as an agency restoring act for Congress. A therapeutic impeachment.
"
Biden's the bait for putting it back on the table.
But yes, in general, the Impeachment Power is quiescent during this era of Presidential EO governance and Omnibus Reconciliation Legislation Congresses.