Re: [OT] How to live like a Doge

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 22:03:48 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Thu Feb 20 22:18:01 2025 Jeff Liebermann  wrote:

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:23:58 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:31:29 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 07:50:29 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:00:22 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:15:59 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:13:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 2/20/2025 8:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:

 
So far, Mr Musk, and others including Mr Zeldin, seem to have made good
progress. But the problem is many times larger than results to date.

>
Good progress? It's been chaotic in the extreme, most of it done with
little rational analysis other than "We can pull off cutting this," much
of it likely illegal, often generating "Oops, we didn't mean that," with
negative consequences sure to appear.

>
Nonsense. Why are you against getting rid of wasteful spending by the
federal government?

>
Perhaps it's because Musk and accomplices are looking in the wrong
places to cut government waste?  Oddly, the following report, which
has been released annually by senator Rand Paul (R-KY) isn't
mentioned:
>
"DOGE Subcommittee?s First Hearing Uncovers Billions Lost to Fraud and
Improper Payments, Launches "War on Waste""
<https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-doge-subcommittees-first-hearing-uncovers-billions-lost-to-fraud-and-improper-payments-launches-war-on-waste/>
"The Festivus Report 2024"
<https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/FESTIVUS-REPORT-2024.pdf>
>
I haven't found an up to date list of the "waste" that the Doge has so
far attacked but I suspect that none of the items listed in the 2024
report will be on the list.  Why?  Because they are all "sacred cows",
"pork barrel", payoffs for political favors, etc.
>
The 2024 list is itemized on Page 3 and 4 of the report.

>

I read the report and all of it was just a bunch of claims, not even a
tiny bit of data showing what, where, or why. Frankly it seemed very
reminiscent to one of Tom's posts.
Is there anywhere the details are published?

>
You'll find some pointers to details in the footnotes listed at the
end of the Fesivus Report 2024.
>
The report was not intended to be a detailed indictment of those
involved.  Such reports are written as an indication that something is
wrong and is worth investigating.  If someone accepts the task, they
will provide whatever facts they can find.  Eventually, we'll have a
formal investigation, probably by a congressional committee. 
>
There should be something on all the items on internet.  Starting from
the top:
"Ghost Towns on the Government's Dime: The federal government spent
$10 billion on maintaining, leasing, and furnishing almost entirely
empty buildings"
>
Under the first photos is "Source GAO-23-106200" which leads me to:
>
There are 3 footnotes for highlighted text at (i), (ii) and (iii)
which can be found among the footnotes at the end.  As an example,
I'll follow the beaten path in the first footnote:
>
(i) Marroni, David. "FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY Preliminary Results Show
Federal Buildings Remain Underutilized Due to Longstanding Challenges
and Increased Telework." Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives, July 2023.
>
That points to an official GAO (government accountability office)
report:
>
Federal Real Property: Preliminary Results Show Federal Buildings
Remain Underutilized Due to Longstanding Challenges and Increased
Telework  GAO-23-106200 Published: Jul 13, 2023. Publicly Released:
Jul 13, 2023.
<https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106200>
which seems quite real to me has considerable detail.
>
Is that sufficient?  All you need to do now is repeat the same process
for every item in the Festivus Report.  Eventually, you'll have the
start of an investigation.
>

>
Ah, thank you. I guess I should have gone all the way to the bottom
before bitching :(

 
Not a problem.  The footnotes were in unreadable tiny fonts and are
well hidden.  They all point to referring reports and not to the
actual government investigation reports.  One might suspect that the
sources and data were not intended to be read by the old and wise.
 

I'd still like to see more details but I suspect that they aren't
available. Or don't want to be made available.

 
"Data is free.  You have to pay (or work) to obtain information."
I contrived that aphorism perhaps 40 years ago.  It's quite
appropriate for most complaints about lack of data or information.
 

Re ships, I noted a long time ago that the cost of building ships in
the U.S. was multiple times greater then the cost in China. The
results is, of course, that China is the largest shipbuilder in the
world while the U.S. isn't even on the list.

 
Very true.  However, the Bureau of Equalization (borrowed from Atlas
Shrugged by Ayn Rand):
<https://www.cato.org/blog/national-equalization-opportunity-board>
is tirelessly working on making everything and everyone equal.  The
high and the mighty will inevitably fall from their lofty perches,
while the weak and powerless will replace them, uplifted by endless
subsidies, grants, programs, projects, etc.

>
>
>
>
I read "Atlas Shrugged" in the 6th grade.

In the 6th grade, you would have been 11 years old.  You were born in
1944, so that would have been in 1995.  The first edition of Atlas
Shrugged was printed 2 years later, in 1957.  Want to modify your
contrived boast of the day?

Unlike you, I was not impressed.

What makes you think I was impressed?  I thought it was absurdly long
at 1/2 million words and about 1,100 pages.  I think I was in High
Skool at the time.  I was probably about 15 years old in 1963.  The
book was not assigned reading.  I don't recall how I obtained it.  I
didn't read it cover to cover but rather skipped around as time
permitted.  I also don't recall why I was reading it.  Probably to
impress a teacher or hippie (intellectual of the day).

Apparently you quote people who were once considered quoteable.

Not exactly.  I like to quote people whom I think are useless to
demonstrate that they are useless.  Please note that I have quoted
your rubbish from rec.bicycles.tech numerous times, also to
demonstrate that you are useless. 

I also notice that you rarely provide sources.  Do you consider
quoting quotable people worst than not providing your sources of
misinformation?

You sure use Wikipedia a lot.

What do you mean by "use"?  I like researching the background behind
various topics which I consider to be a reasonable source for such
information.  For political topics, I go to the original source.  For
technical topics, I go to the experts in the field.  I sometimes
provide a link to the Wikipedia page so that readers can do the same.
If you bother to count them, I don't post very many Wikipedia links.

What WILL you do after Musk buys that site?

Download the site:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/whxmhc/ysk_you_can_freely_and_legally_download_the/>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia>
<https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaStatistics>
About 600 TBytes if you want everything in uncompressed form.  Or, if
you just want the text, it's about 24 GBytes.  I know several people
who have done that, typically so they can do research during an
airplane flight or in areas where wi-fi is not available.

Officially, Wikipedia is not for sale:
<https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaStatistics>
However, as history will surely remind us, everything has a price.


--
Jeff Liebermann                 jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272      http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann      AE6KS    831-336-2558