Yes. That's what AI actually adds - plausible deniability.

I mean, what do they have to lose? Just a little wasted time subpoenaing some CEOs and acting flabbergasted while they blatantly lie about not knowing what was going on.

And then politicians using the insane logic of, "if you didn't know this would fuck everyone, then why'd you let us buy it to fuck people???"

Oh shit sorry though you were talking about a different post. Yikes, sorry again

Oh shit sorry, my bad! Thought you were replying to about a different post. Yikes, sorry again

Is there is a list of employees of DOGE? I would like to write them letters.

Imagine a junior dev called "Big Balls" starting up Claude Code and telling it "Hey I need you to make this app great, remove all unnecessary code" and then just accepting whatever it proposes. This is an app with no unit tests, no dev environment, running in production, and if it crashes people die in concentration camps.

Literally vibe coding a country.

The People Carrying Out Musk’s Plans at DOGE

I think several of them have quit by now, but I'm sure they would still appreciate your helpful feedback.

There's one who's dad is a professor at a university. You could write to the university about it. They would like that a lot I think.

I think we could do better than letters. maybe a few packages.

This is reminding me of those pc optimizer tools like CCleaner that promised to find a bunch of things to uninstall and redundant/trash files to delete and make your pc 3000x faster, but ended up breaking your system.

Of course they are, the tool is the excuse and the "unforeseen consequences" are the goal.

🤨 CCleaner never failed me. Even ran it on non-critical servers to see if it would break shit. Not one time did it introduce a breaking change. Maybe it's different now?

Because DOGE is still running on Elon Musk's strategy of "move fast, break things, and don't fix anything until shit's on fire". People won't be dying in concentration camps because of DOGE, they'll just be homeless and probably half-dead of starvation (because of the repeal of the PFDA).

Maybe ccleaner was fine, there were a bunch of these tools and ccleaner is the one i remembered the name. Wasnt really trying to criticize ccleaner specifically

CCleaner actually worked as intended for a long time until it enshittified. It's also less relevant in the age of fast as fuck SSDs over HDDs to need to clean up temp files and stuff to make the PC faster. Also Disk Clean Up is essentially what CCleaner did already built into Windows.

.

Fuck them all, I hope they get cancer and die a slow, agonizing death.

Or target them.

Absolutely the second. Once something has been destroyed, it takes years or decades to get it back. They're purposely banking on going overboard, knowing full well it will collapse all the institutions and that repairing that can't occur at the same pace.

Anyone who says “regulation is bad” is attacking the problem with too blunt an instrument.

I agree.

The urge to get rid of regulations is either driven by corrupt profiteering or by an ideology that’s too crude for the real world.

It might also be driven by the feeling that it hits your enemy more than it hits you, but that was back then. Now it doesn't, because the enemy has converted their regulations into real-world power and can scrap them all and still have it.

BTW, I agree about "too crude", actually ancap as it is itself doesn't pretend to be anything else. That's why I like it very much - most cases of marxism etc are directed at some imagined and idealized real world, or a miraculous solution allowing to introduce them in the wild and let them work. Ancap (just like left anarchism) explored mechanisms which can never be made 100% pure in reality, but benefit everyone when created. It's more about designing new social systems than about ruining existing ones.

Which is why I don't like people making an association between ancap and Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand is a fan of monopolies and hereditary oligarchy. Ancap in its pure form has no levers for an oligarchy to maintain itself. It defines finite non-human-created resources as common, so its treatment of oligarchy is no different than left anarchism's treatment of oligarchy.

Getting back to regulations, I've recently had a wonderfully simple idea which doesn't even seem that crappy. Separate all law into the constitutional part (and maybe some intermediate kind requiring longevity and not too complex) and the usual part, and scrap the latter and start anew with a bunch of referendums every 10 years. One can devise a system where representatives are elected into councils (ranked choice voting, proportional system), a few dozens of them with a few hundreds people in each, and each council decides on its own part of the laws (of course, using advice of invited lawyers and such), and then a referendum approves or rejects those projects. Where those are rejected, the process is repeated until there's an acceptable variant.

To make the laws used in daily life simpler and more democratic. Right now malicious parties can slowly skew laws in their favor over many decades. In such a system only the popular perception and shared knowledge will survive those many decades, while the actual law will be decided upon democratically. Thus a solution to one time's problem won't become a problem for another time. And the legal corpus will be compact, similar to that of western countries in 1950s.

A lot of today's problems is just legal legacy and sneakery. This way stuff that's obsolete and stuff that has been sneaked in won't have any effect on modern application of rights.