I find it as yet another way to externalize costs: I spend 0 time thinking, I dump AI slop on you and ask you to review it or refute me with the nonsense that I just sent you.
Last time someone did this to me I sent them a few other answers by the same LLM to the same prompt, all different, with no commentary.
CamelCamelCamel records the prices over time of items in Amazon. It's helpful because they fluctuate quite a bit, so you can tell when you might be overpaying. In any case, that can be the database of record for the tariff effects if Amazon does not itemize the tariff costs.
My understanding is that Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for an agreement Wirth Russia to not be invaded? If that is the case and Russia invaded anyway, then what kind of compromise can you have with a country that breaks any agreement they sign?
I doubt many people want war, I know I don't. But once you have a warring nation going rouge, there aren't many options left on the table.
Maybe a bit of a chicken or egg problem? I don’t know enough about Joann, but I remember when borders closed and B&N went almost too. At the time, these stores had become a bore. Only peddling bill O’Reilly and Hillary Clinton’s books. But now bookstores are thriving too, and so is B&N in large part because each store is managed independently, and not driven by corporate and their large contracts with large publishers.
So maybe when you stop being customer centric and become corporate profit centric you end up losing customers first and profits later.
PE firms in these cases are just the bottom feeders that processes these corporate carcasses, not the cause of their deaths.
It’s different when PE firms go after resources that people need, like health care or elderly care. Here they are acting as sociopaths. They know people will pay as much as they have to, as the other options are death and suffering. Despicable.
> So maybe when you stop being customer centric and become corporate profit centric you end up losing customers first and profits later
You can be customer centric AND profit centric. The issue is when "customer centric" doesn't align with "profit".
Big box and chain retailers often try to own the property the store is located on, so they would essentially become a property speculation play.
Add to that the cost of managing inventory, which means you want to reduce the amount of SKUs offered in order to reduce management overhead, but as a customer that feels like an adverse customer experience. Yet unlike a local business, that chain retailer cannot optimize on customer service because of those thin margins needed to service real estate.
A key difference is that twitter has (had) users, and users can move to e.g. bluesky once twitter's CEO decides to wreck it. The US has citizens instead, not users, not customers, but citizens, and citizens can't move if they don't like what Elon is doing. There is no Bluesky equivalent of the USA, and citizenship is not a free market.
A country is not a private company in a free market. For some this is hard to understand.
> I'm also not convinced this is a "security breach." They're being allowed to do it. It's more like an unforced error, if anything. Not that it changes anything material about the situation.
From the perspective of the owners of this data, the US citizens and others that live in the country, this is very much a security breach; the data that was supposed to be secure is no longer secure.
That's what I'm saying though - DOGE claims it is secure and all of the data is still in the hands of those (in)directly appointed by Trump.
I do not disagree with your sentiment though, but a little pedantry is needed here. It's not necessary for this to be a security breach to be bad. Given how poorly this data is being handled even among those who are "supposed" to have it, it's likely there will be a legitimate security breach soon enough.
If DOGE is acting in an adversarial capacity to the US, there's no reason to put any stock in any claims they make regarding 'it is secure' or 'it is still in the hands of DOGE alone and definitely not being conveyed anywhere else, it has just been wrested from the grasp of the US Government'.
If they are adversarial enough to justify such wresting from the grasp of the US government, is that not already a problem, compounded by the fact that if they are already in an adversarial position there's no reason to assume they are acting alone in that position? Why believe any claim by them if they are already taking pains to take a position as an adversary?
It's taking their say-so that they are a domestic adversary rather than a foreign adversary, as if that made all the difference. I can't agree that it makes as much difference as they claim it makes.
Agreed, but part of the reason I think people are not aware of what’s going on is that we’re not calling things for what they are, in a weird and self-imposed Orwellian way. Like calling a rocket that blows up “unexpected rapid disassembly” or some other BS. The rocket blew up, the cars blow up, it’s a coup, they’re nazi sympathizers, etc…
> From the perspective of the owners of this data, the US citizens and others that live in the country
Did you say the cattle owns the ranch? Or you mean the cattle owns the feed?
No, the cattle owns nothing, you own nothing.
As for data being secure or not secure - how do you know any of this is true? Because journalists are good faith arbiters of truth without any conflicts of interest or personal bias?
I would argue that the same could be said that "from the perspective of the owners of this data, the US citizens and others that live in the country" it's evident that the government has been recklessly spending money. The reality is Americans voted this in, they wanted it. Both sides have made historical voting points for claiming to clean up corruption and cut the fat, none of them really did. This time it's being cut for everyone to see. They don't like it. People will fight it. Some good programs will be impacted. Once the dust settles we'll fix it, but for now I have yet to see any good arguments for some of the excess spending programs. I've seen little or no justification for billions going to foreign countries while Americans are in need of help.
1. Auto-coups don't exist
2. Coups require tanks on the street
3. Once a coup is started it will succeed.
This is a an auto-coup, where the president is trying to seize power that is not granted by elections, and trying to make the legal system irrelevant. All in the name of urgency and saving the country (we call them "salva patrias" in Spain for a reason). No one can vote for this. Voting a president does not make the president all powerful.
Also, this coup does not need to succeed. We saw this recently in South Korea. This will only succeed if people don't oppose it. Don't believe them when they make you feel like you already lost.
Finally, the game has changed for the supporters of democracy. This is no longer about writing stern worded letters, if you catch my drift.
(references: I was born in a dictatorship and I lived through a failed military coup)
To be fair, this is the modus operandi since early 2000 at least. Terrorism it was at that point. Broad surveillance and control policies were justified by a constant threat and there was always some threat and democracy had to take a backseat, even constitutional rights (I am not from the US, but developments were similar in my country).
Trump might behave more colorfully here, but I have to be honest that this isn't at all unfamiliar. I think a lot of Trumps current power stems from pretty weak defenders of democracy. Not referring to the previous government and instead of the common sentiment of 21st century politics. It doesn't lend itself to give a convincing picture.
Maybe that is a trap, but it just isn't that outrageous anymore in an overall outrageous context. Perhaps it is indeed worse, but I think a lot of damage was already done.
People aren’t opposing it. The legislation is letting Trump usurp their power. This is something that old school Republicans wouldn’t have let happen. But the Republican Party has been taking over by Trump.
Also, why would the majority oppose it? What he is doing is affecting illegal immigrants (who can’t vote), the poorest people who those just one level up think they are “only temporarily poor”, minorities, trans - you notice that he only removed the T from LGBT while he is taking down “wokeness”.
You also have to remember he has the evangelical Christian block in his pocket who literally believe he was sent by God to keep America from descending in hell fire. You can’t “reason” with devout religious people. Religion requires you to ignore logic and science (born and raised in the Bible Belt).
You notice he isn’t disrupting farmers in red states with immigration raids? Also because of gerrymandering and how the Senate is designed. The low population red states have much more power than their population calls for.
The Log Cabin Republicans serve as their shield that “they aren’t homophobic” just like they trot out Tim Scott as their token Black to show they aren’t racist. As a Black person, there is no way in the world I would be put on stage to shuck and jive for the modern Republican Party even if I did agree with some of their policies before 2016.
Besides plenty of Christians have had to come to terms with the fact that at least one person they care about is gay. Many fewer have someone they care about that is trans.
> You also have to remember he has the evangelical Christian block in his pocket who literally believe he was sent by God to keep America from descending in hell fire. You can’t “reason” with devout religious people.
No not true. only a few people believe that. Most do not. Stop grouping religious people into the few who interview on tv.
> Religion requires you to ignore logic and science (born and raised in the Bible Belt).
Also wildly not true and you’re extending an experience you had to a whole population, which is a biased opinion.
Many of us use science and logic daily, in conversations, and there are well received physicists who argue for an existence of a God using logic. The Bible says to use both wisdom and knowledge (logic and science).
Absolutely have to disagree on both counts. However, since you do at least sound reasonable, I'll prefer to just focus on the first claim, as we'd otherwise easily spend hours just debating basic philosophy in circles, and arguing about what even counts as valid logic.
We're already just engaging in anecdotes, but having lived all around the south from virginia to texas, I've found that almost "god-king" belief extremely common in southern baptists in particular and christians in general -- especially if you done it down ever so slightly to:
"Trump has God's favor, he was probably sent by God to save our country, which is God's favorite on Earth". I have, however, little experience with the north or the west -- almost only the traditional US south.
So, my questions for you would have to be, do you live in the south or elsewhere? Also, what would your analysis be in general about such people? (Regardless of if they are many or few)
> No not true. only a few people believe that. Most do not. Stop grouping religious people into the few who interview on tv.
60-72% of White Christians voted for Trump.
> Many of us use science and logic daily, in conversations, and there are well received physicists who argue for an existence of a God using logic. The Bible says to use both wisdom and knowledge (logic and science).
Context: you’re replying to someone who spent his entire elementary school education in a private Christian school and even through the first year of high school was part of a “leadership group” going to Bible bowls.
So tell me one line in Genesis or Exodus that makes sense scientifically? Do you think humans ever lived to be 900 years old? The Jews ever being in Egypt has never been backed up by any historical record. Do you believe any of the miracles have a scientific basis? Do you believe in creation or evolution? Noah’s ark?
Now let’s go to the New Testament. Do you believe that Jesus was born to a virgin? He arose from the dead?
You can not believe anything that the Bible said happened and be science based.
I’m not pasting the following link to “prove” anything. It is a better summation of my opinion that is better written than I would do
Pence is a "Dominionist" and wants to reinstate a theocracy. Last time we tried that was called the Dark Ages and we tortured people and burned them at the stake.
>I'll believe that many Christians do not see Trump as savior, though.
As a Christian that is certainly concerned about Christians supporting and voting for Trump, sadly I think many do (see him as a Savior and one who can do no wrong) but don't realize it. They excuse excuse excuse. What I see happening is history repeating itself. The Isrealites pleaded for a strong man king like the other countries even though God said they didn't need one as long as they lived by "following true Christian values". They still wanted one so God let them have one. Saul, being an insecure man, began oppressing them shortly after getting the throne.
The entire Christian Organization is corrupt. From the wide support of Trump by its leaders from the national and local level to systematic covering of child abuse in the Catholic Church.
If the abuses in the Catholic Church had happened anywhere else it would have come under RICO charges
I suppose many of them think God needs them to speed things up and usher in the antichrist. They certainly are letting their hearts turn cold. I wonder if they realize that they are the ones disobeying Jesus' commands to love others, our neighbors and our enemenies. To take care of the poor and those in need. To give the coat off our backs if asked. To offer the other cheek if struck. "Depart from me, I never knew you."...
People also seem to think that an autocratic takeover can't happen if the autocrat was elected. In fact, most autocratic takeovers begin with a democratic election.
The fog of propaganda is pretty deep to write those word to defend a man who did exactly that: tried to extend his power through illegal means. He failed last time, he is far more likely to succeed now. And yes his means are again illegal, we don’t elect kings, there are still rules to follow.
I think the point is not much that he's doing what he promised, but that he's doing it in two weeks and apparently without proper legal and democratic oversight.
This is just week two, there's 206 more to go.
What is undemocratic is suggesting that somehow the civil participation process just goes on hold between every election.
People are seeing a trajectory even worse than anticipated and sounding the alarm. The Trump administration is blasting off executive orders that many feel are unconstitutional, and the populace wants to pump the brakes.
It is just factually untrue that Democrats are the party of billionaires. The richest people in the world were sitting behind Trump at his inauguration. You are high on some serious right wing propaganda.
>a form of coup d'état in which a political leader, having come to power through legal means, stays in power through illegal means through the actions of themselves and/or their supporters.
So Trump trying to stay on in 2020 was an attempt at one. Trump delegating firing people to Musk isn't really. The current stuff doesn't seem illegal either - I think the US president is allowed to say find out who's unnecessary and fire them even if the people being fired shout 'coup', 'unfair' and the like. I'm not sure it's a good idea but that doesn't mean it's illegal.
Access to secure systems by people who have not been given access rights through proper channels is certainly problematic if not outright illegal.
Congress has Constitutional vetting power over Presidential appointments. It's part of the checks&balances. That has not happened. The purpose of a department has been altered by an appointee who has not been vetted. Again, incredibly problematic if not outright illegal.
preparational activities for criminal goals are often decidedly legal. same for coups. you hollow out the defense of your opponents by legal means before you go for the guts.
This is factually untrue. The constitution gives Congress the exclusive power of the purse. The president does not have the authority to withhold funds approved by Congress (search for Nixon and Impoundment if you want a history lesson on that).
There are sections of the budget that are discretionary spending that is controlled by the executive branch directly, but that is a small fraction of the federal budget.
They've been packing the court for decades now, a concerted push since the W Bush era. That's not even a discussion anymore.
remember not the debacle that was Kavanaugh boofing, and being gropey as hell in the past, and crying? or Amy Comey Barret's complete lack of qualification in any way?
Or how Chief Justice Roberts got appointed basically on the idea that he's going to approve and reinforce Hobby Lobby and Citizen's United?
Oh, the words are absolutely being used accurately. As a reminder, the president is an impeached felon and rapist who literally tried to steal the last election. His billionaire vizier gleefully used two Nazi salutes at the inauguration and backs far-right parties around the world. On day one, the administration announced that 30,000 migrants would be housed indefinitely at Gitmo, of all places. And now, our federal government is being infiltrated and ransacked by a rogue team with zero oversight or transparency.
Historians will be baffled by how some people missed even these signs. I guess critical thinking is in terribly scarce supply these days.
To add onto your point, America already had 4 years of Trump, and Trump was very clear on what he and the people aligned to him were going to do throughout his campaign. What is happening now is what America voted for and what they wanted.
But it was going to be violent. The to-be-deposed SK president had plans to use the SK Army to seize power, and even had Special Forces sent to the SK Parliament -- they just didn't really know what was going on, and weren't keen on shooting at their own Congress
And public protests can just be ignored. Tell me, if you had absolute control of the government and military and people didn’t like what you did and asked you to stop nicely with signs and kumbaya circles, would you stop?
I’m tired of people so resistant to fighting back they’d rather just get walked on.
The people who disagree with me have the full government and might of the US military and infinite money and resources. These aren’t equivalent things.
I'm under the impression that trump is doing exactly what at least 51% of the population want him to do. He campaigned on dismantling the wheels of established power in DC.
EDIT: To expand on that Idea there is the exact apposing view that Biden was doing the same thing by the people that voted Trump in. But as we all know the media prefers one candidate over the other. Trump is the grenade that is supposed to destroy the power structures (the so called Deep State or permanent bureaucracy) in DC.
If there is one thing about Trump everyone can agree on, it's that he is a devastatingly effective communicator.
And when I say that I don't mean good or correct or proper, I mean effective. He has an innate ability (and if you watch old clips always has) to pull the conversation where he wants it.
I think the issue is that this is not "dismantling the wheels of established power", so much as it is centralizing and increasing the power of the executive branch.
It's not getting rid of all these bureaucrats in DC and giving power back to the people. It's getting rid any sort of independence and removing the barriers to centralizing power under Trump so that he can grab even more power and control.
And just to be pedantic, Trump received 49% of the vote and Kamala receive 48%. And that's of people who voted. He received 77 million out 244 million of the voting-eligible population, or around 31%.
There may be a plurality of people who want the Executive branch under Trump to consolidate power, but it's not the majority.
I can see that, on the one hand he is removing what he thinks is bureaucratic fat while at the same time giving himself (or the position) powers to do so.
I personally believe the government of the USA is probably 10x the size it needs to be so i like seeing the cuts but I am well aware of the dangers you speak of.
The cuts in the federal government aren’t going to come from getting rid of the civilian workforce. It’s going to have to come from decreasing the military and cutting social security and Medicare. Do you think he would be willing to do either?
I wish I could find a link, but I remember a study that argued that large bureaucracies can actually impede authoritarian governments concentrating power.
The idea being that when there are so many levers to pull and a disjointed system managing them, it makes it effectively impossible for a small group to effectively wield power. It’s like a buffer against concentrating power into a single individual.
Not that I’m arguing for endless bloat to the US government, that comes with its own problems. I agree we need to rein it in.
But I think there is a freedom-centric argument for a slightly larger government bureaucracy than is strictly necessary.
Or thinking about it in reverse, the bureaucracy is currently preventing the executive branch from just doing whatever it wants. I know Congress and the Supreme Court should act as blocks, but to paraphrase Stalin how much infantry do they have?
A slow moving bureaucratic executive can act as a buffer against ineffective other branches.
Or for those that may support the current administration consolidating power, what if the tides turn? What if in 4 years whoever the liberal villain du jour is takes power? Are we making it so that AOC is the most powerful president in history?
You seem to assume that Trump will willingly give away his power in 4 years.
He most certainly remembers the January 6th failed coup and will likely spend the next 4 years making sure that he comes on top this time.
And yeah, if he fails, you better hope that the person which did succeed was liberal (and from I heard, AOC is not), because otherwise instead of putting back a system of checks and balances, they will just use the power that Trump concentrated to their own ends.
As you see in the replies a well-funded anti-tax movement has been radicalizing a lot of the country against their own government.
They love to see this dissolution of constitutional government.
While they claim smaller government is better for the economy, they really care most about ending constitutional government and couldn't care less about the impact to the economy.
Happens every administration. But someone from the opposition party always gets their nose out of joint and it makes news and it’s just the most horrible thing ever.
What happens every administration is that the high level managers are fired. Those are political appointees and it is normal and expected for them to be replaced.
What is not normal is going after the rank and file employees. Those are not political appointees.
Just how many actual “rank and file employees” have actually been targeted or fired so far?
If you are going to bring up the RTO directive, please don’t, those folks are in full control of their continued employment and prior to March of 2020 having to actually go to an office to work would not be viewed as “targeting” anyone.
Dozens of rank and file prosecutors have been fired from the DOJ, because they worked on cases against the January 6 defendants or on cases against Trump.
As others have asserted, this happens with every administration changeover. It is only more publicly viewable now (as in, people are reporting on it) due to the nature of the administration.
Now is a time for unity and joining together as Americans, not for divisiveness.
> If the President gets elected promising to fire executive branch employees, then his doing so is literally democratic.
But it may not be legal, which is determined by the Constitution and laws set by Congress. People who are also elected democratically. Behaving in a manner counter to those laws is also fundamentally undemocratic, the President and the Executive are bound by those laws set by the representatives of the people.
The President is not a monarch or autocrat, he is not a king or dictator with the authority to do whatever he wants. He is empowered to act, but constrained in his actions by law.
> But it may not be legal, which is determined by the Constitution and laws set by Congress. People who are also elected democratically. Behaving in a manner counter to those laws is also fundamentally undemocratic, the President and the Executive are bound by those laws set by the representatives of the people.
The word "may" is important here. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will interpret the laws and the Constitution and decide whether this Presidential action is legal or not. Until they do, its (il)legality a matter of possibility, opinion and conjecture, not established fact.
And, given the ideological leanings of the current SCOTUS majority, it is entirely possible that they'll uphold this Presidential action, and either interpret away any apparent statutory violations, or rule those statutes unconstitutional in this respect. In which case, the answer will ultimately be, that it was legal all along.
Even assuming that’s true, violating some employment action notice laws is far less “anti-democratic” than the federal workforce declaring Resistance to the agenda of the elected government.
Yes, the President is constrained by law. But hiring and firing executive branch employees is also at the core of his constitutional power. And the President is the only constitutional actor that can do this job—Congress or the courts can’t hire and fire people.
> Sorry, can you be more specific as to what law is being broken?
At least in the case of the IG firings, he failed to comply with the 30 day notice required by law.
My point is actually broader than just the firings and dismissals. The elected President is not an elected autocrat. He doesn't get to do what he wants because "his doing so is literally democratic". He gets to act in a way that complies with the democratically set laws.
The president has carte blanche to create laws through executive order, nullifying the legislative branch.
The president has carte blanche to pardon Federal crimes, nullifying the judicial branch.
The president has sole command of the military. Going through Congress is a formality at best. If he says we're at war with Greenland tomorrow, we're at war with Greenland tomorrow.
And per SCOTUS, nothing the president does while in office in their official duties can be prosecuted as a crime.
And none of that "balance of powers" stuff means anything when party loyalty and loyalty to one person transcends the boundaries of office.
The president not be a monarch in theory, but in practice power has been accumulating in the executive branch for decades. The American people fundamentally fear and mistrust government, but they worship celebrities. They want to be ruled, if not by a king, by a CEO in chief.
Not everyone agrees on that: "Great Britain is a republic with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king" (The Knoxville Journal, 9 February 1896)
You have to understand that phrase in the context of the tripartite system of government. We do not have a system of “legal supremacy,” where the lawyers overseeing compliance with the law are effectively a fourth branch of government above all the other branches. The framers were very concerned about the “who watches the watchers” situation.
> If the President gets elected promising to fire executive branch employees, then his doing so is literally democratic.
You seem to think the President can do whatever he wants, in constrained by laws. Which may be true in this case, but because the laws aren’t being followed, not because they don’t exist.
What I think is that electing the president is the only way the constitution provides for democratic control of what’s become the largest and most powerful branch. And ensuring democratic responsiveness of the executive—a civil service that will diligently execute the agenda of whomever is elected President—is of overriding importance to the health of democracy.
A country where the same people are in charge regardless of who wins the election isn’t a democracy. And I think this shouldn’t be a partisan point, because the federal bureaucracy in the aggregate is like the worst parts of the Obama and Bush administrations mushed together.
I don’t know you, but I’m embarrassed on your behalf that you seem to support the idea that federal employees should bring their own ideologies to the workplace to frustrate the duly elected executive. It’s openly advocating a soft coup.
I love the whole “my guy did a coup so I’m going to call everything I don’t like a coup to minimize what he did” thing you’ve got going on. Tres chic. And in this case, it’s… the idea that federal employees don’t completely change everything every 4 years to assuage the ego of a moron who thinks he’s king.
Turns out the job of the President is to faithfully execute the laws. And the laws have a hell of a lot to say about how things get done in the government. It is solidly settled constitutional law that those laws have to be obeyed.
The President also doesn't get to enforce traffic laws by random summary executions... which is where the idiotic "unitary executive" nonsense would land you if you, you know, actually thought about it for more than 15 seconds.
> The President also doesn't get to enforce traffic laws by random summary executions
- Congress has not passed laws against traffic violations (well, except in D.C., federal land, etc.).
- Even when they have, they have not designated the punishment to be execution.
- Even if the violators are federal employees, the executive doesn't have the power to summarily punish their violations by anything worse than firing the employee, even under the unitary executive theory. The executive can't levy any criminal punishment on their own. (They have since FDR been able to levy civil penalties in certain cases, but rulings like SEC v. Jarkesy are limiting that power.)
So your hypothetical makes no sense, even under the broadest interpretation of the "unitary executive" theory. What Trump, Musk, and DOGE want to do is to make it as easy to fire and discipline the federal workforce as it is for a company executive to do the same to a company. We'll see how far it goes I suppose. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a federal civil service reform bill introduced soon to at least allow the executive to put any civil service employee on indefinite paid leave - that would allow Congress to set conditions on federal employment that don't prevent the executive branch from implementing its agenda.
Meh, that seems like hyperbole to me. Doesn't a real coup involve the military going into federal buildings and rounding up congressmen from opposing parties and detaining them?
Forgive me for not viewing it the same way. The news is focusing on the airplane right now.
I wouldn't call it a coup, but I've seen something similar going on in some Europe countries in the past (including mine).
President or government acting like a mafia, replacing all key employees based solely on loyalty to them and not competence. And this is done at such a massive scale and speed that the whole country becomes a kleptocracy real quick. Pretty much what's unfolding in the US right now.
Last time someone did this to me I sent them a few other answers by the same LLM to the same prompt, all different, with no commentary.