The “Department of Government Efficiency” isn’t a real government office and as such has no actual power. Musk and Ramaswamy won’t be able to do anything, and the budget is controlled by congress, not the executive.
The executive requests the budget. Congress approves it.
The key thing here is the "Due Care Clause." The administration is required to implement our laws with "due care." If there's a law on the books the administration is required to enforce it. The means and expected effectiveness of that enforcement are often not specified.
The House creates the budget, the Senate votes on it, and the president then signs it into law. Usually, the executive branch will come up with a dream budget that can be considered their starting position in budget negotiations.
The Administration creates the budget and submits it to congress. This is why the Administrative office of "Management and Budget" exists. This happens every year and has for as long as I've been alive.
I believe you're referencing "budget resolutions" which are not law and have a more complicated relationship to the process.
The Administration creates the budget and submits it to congress.
... who promptly pronounces it "dead on arrival".
Which isn't actually true. They still use the executive branch proposal as a baseline. They, too, are supposed to authorize payment for the programs that they've passed laws to create. Usually, there's somebody in the room whose constituents benefit, and they can insist that it continue to be funded.
And of course this time around, the President will have a Congress who is controlled by his own party, so the relationship will be less hostile. In all likelihood they will end up putting back some programs instead.
As President, Trump paid no price for shutting down the government because the budget was too small/didn’t include some inefficient spending he said Mexico would pay for. His next will be his fourth shutdown.
this congress will be an extension of the executive, and you know this administration and his legislative and judicial allies don't care about the rules and norms anyways. they feel like their agenda was obstructed last time, they've got a mandate now, and so they're just gonna steamroll anybody standing in their way this time around.
You don’t go against Trump: you infight against someone in government who can’t defend their inefficiency. An Alaskan Senator secures $4m earmark for a small town. Why can’t she support Donald Trump’s vision and the futuristic leadership of the DOGE?
The truly hilarious thing is that the Tokyo subway system actually suffered a terrorist attack in 95, and still they publish the locations of all 200+ exits from Shinjuku station.
They mean var vs local vs from-a-resource. There are some places you can’t use some types of variables. It can be annoying but it’s not really a huge problem if you design your approach with that in mind.
The worst part is that the Terraform team at Hashicorp often excuse not fixing these design issues as “safety measures” which isn’t entirely untrue but when over half of your users want something, sometimes you should get over yourself.
For what it’s worth, OpenTofu is fixing many of these sorts of things that cause people pain.
But my advice is to learn to use the tool. Terraform has such great benefits (in the right use cases). If you’re struggling, either you are missing something or you chose the wrong tool for your particular job. Either way, don’t gripe that this specialized tool for infra management doesn’t work exactly like every other general purpose programming language.
That’s only the case if you spend all day rerunning deployments. If your task is more frequently to transition the cluster config from A -> B then the distinction blurs and you go from a 10:1 delta ratio of the different classes of state to maybe 3:2, at which point it feels like splitting hairs.
Especially if the locals vary between prod and pre-prod, and worse if dev sandboxes end up with per-user instances, which for us was mercifully only needed for people working on the TF scripts, so we could run our tests locally.
We have multiple separate environments per application. For environment specific inputs we use variables.
The distinction is very clear in our team. Locals are used as const (like an application name), variables are for more dynamic user/environment inputs and data is to fetch dynamic information from other resources.
Zero problems. If a local becomes more environment specific a quick refactor fixes that. You can also have locals that use variable or data values if necessary.
One big win we also have is that we stopped using modules except for one big main module. We noticed from previous projects that as soon as we implemented modules everything became a big problem. Modules that are version pinned still required a lot of maintenance to upgrade. Modules that weren't version pinned caused more destruction than we planned. Modules outputs and inputs caused a lot of cycle problems,... Modules always seem too deep or too shallow.
The pandemic response, the Muslim ban, family separation at the southern boarder, repealing roe v wade, ending DACA.
This doesn’t even take into account the policies he wants to enact like mass deportations.
What is the problem with deporting people who are there illegally? As someone who doesn’t live on the border of the United States do you know how incredibly hard it is to legally immigrate there? I don’t see why other people should be allowed to jump the line. There’s a legal way to get in, follow it like everyone else.
- Forcibly separating children from parents, with no plan to reunite them. There are still children missing, who were spirited off $deity-knows-where. If criminals do it, we call it kidnapping and people-trafficking, but this was official government policy
- Let's focus on those kids, who were locked up in prisons, had any medication they were on confiscated, and we're not just talking teenagers here, some of those kids were under 5.
- The conditions they were held in would make a grown man weep, held in iron cages, kids defecating and vomiting in the heat. Staff wouldn't help small children, it was left to other children to try and keep the infants well.
- Routine use of pyschotropic drugs to act as "chemical straitjackets" on older children, so they would be usefully docile while being caged like animals
- Sexual assault on these unresisting, drugged children. That's rape. Of children - usually girls but not always. Under government supervision.
Personally I don't support the rape of children, but more than half the voting public seem to be "just fine" with it.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? Nothing what you said addresses illegal immigration. Are you saying illegal immigration is something good and if you’re against it you’re for child rape?
Everything they listed was the result of the Trump administration's immigration policies. Do you think human beings should be subjected to these things just because they're living somewhere illegally?
> Personally I don't support the rape of children, but more than half the voting public seem to be "just fine" with it.
They're not just saying they're "just fine" with it. They are enthusiastically voting for it.
We have to come to terms with the fact that very clear, consistent campaign themes of cruelty and selfishness won over a majority of voters. Deep, country-wide introspection is needed.
I think that people really like violence, but no-one will publicly admit it. People want others to suffer. Nobody really cares about making the world a better place, or saving the climate or whatever. People just want a better life. But they have no perspective of getting a better life, so they will settle for everyone else to get worse.
It's the only way it all makes sense. I don't think that all those voters who vote for Trump and Putin and Erdogan and all the other autocrats think they'll have a better life. But they know that all those other people are going to suffer, and it makes them feel a bit better.
The most dangerous man (or woman) is someone who thinks they have nothing to lose.
People feel dispair, and therefore they vote for people who will make others suffer.
Having gone through the legal immigration gauntlet, which took decades of sacrifice, I have no sympathy for illegal immigration either. But the other problem is that the economy is not so much about money as who does the work, and I suspect that cohort does a disproportionate amount of it and would crash the economy if actually deported. I predict the same thing will happen with Trump's deportation threat as has happened with the wall and Mexico paying for it.
“Family separation at the border” started with Obama and the Democrats weaponized it to attack Trump. What did Trump do poorly during the pandemic? Operation Lightspeed was a success that the Democrats were happy to capitalize on. He correctly pointed to WIV as the like source of the outbreak, and despite the Democrats attempt to censor this in the media and online, it’s now the widely accepted view among the academics who don’t put politics above science.
Repealing Roe v Wade is a great thing, not a terrible thing. Highly contentious issues absolutely should be left to the states to decide, not forced upon them at a federal level.
Only in the sense that slave-owners tried to take away the rights of other states to not participate and assist in slavery, and then wrote their own constitution which forced every state to have slavery forever no matter what.
... But in the conventional sense of increasing state autonomy, no. :p
> Highly contentious issues absolutely should be left to the states to decide
Alas, if/when the Republican party gathers enough power to finally pass a federal abortion ban (or an indirect Fugitive Pregnancy Act) that "principle" will vanish into the memory-hole with all the rest. The minority who sincerely held the belief will be sidelined, again.
Another manifestation would be if state personnel and courts get conscripted into enforcing federal immigration policies.
Probably because a half million a year is a rounding error in global mortality. It sounds like a lot but the daily global mortality rate, when last I checked, was something like 170,000 per day.
Achieving the equivalent of "What if no one died for three days?" every year is a massive achievement on the same scale of the wildest dreams of most of the people on this site.
This isn’t true in any way we could reasonably reach. The world has an insane amount of potential food output. A huge portion of the food the US produces goes directly in the trash instead of being used.
Do you have numbers ? There used to be famines. And countries still fight over water. what is the carrying capacity in terms of food production on earth ? 10 billion, 100 billion ? At a trillion, the world would be at Singapore’s population density I think.
The limit is ultimately set by thermodynamics and the need to dissipate waste heat to space. This limit is around 1 trillion people, but this likely requires food be artificially synthesized. Using conventional agriculture, a global limit of 150 billion was set (in a 1979 study referenced in the 1985 book "The Global Possible", page 217), or 47 billion with a US-like diet. Nitrous oxide emission from agriculture is likely to be a long term concern, as this powerful greenhouse gas accumulates.
As always, please do not interpret these statements as advocacy of these outcomes.
It's because I have constantly seen that misinterpretation. People seem to think that if I say "X is true" or "X is possible" then I'm saying "I find X desirable". This is a weird non sequitur and seems to be closely related to wishful thinking, that is the non sequitur of thinking that something is true because its truth would be desirable.
Cancer kills over 9 million people per year, or 18x strep A. Tuberculosis kills nearly 1.5 million people per year, or 3x. Over 9 million people die from hunger related causes, which while not a disease is 18x strep A. It's not to demean the people who die from strep A, because to each of their families it's a tragedy, but the scale and the fact that it can be treated with common antibiotics means that we can put the effort and resources that would be spent on a vaccine to better use elsewhere.
"Cancer" isn't one disease though, it's hundreds, and many of them require completely different approaches to treat.
> Tuberculosis kills nearly 1.5 million people per year, or 3x
So in other words, yes, it would be "worth it" to develop a vaccine for strep A. It would also be worth it to develop a vaccine for tuberculosis. Let's do both.
> Over 9 million people die from hunger related causes, which while not a disease is 18x strep A
Not really relevant. The people who have expertise in developing vaccines and the people who have expertise in "fixing hunger" are not the same people.
> the scale and the fact that it can be treated with common antibiotics means that we can put the effort and resources that would be spent on a vaccine to better use elsewhere
That's not a good way to evaluate where to put resources. To borrow your example, maybe it will take 10x more time and 5x the cost to develop a vaccine for tuberculosis vs. strep A. Then working on strep A sounds like a good allocation of resources.
Just offering that as an example; I of course don't know the relative resource requirements here. But things are not so simple. (Though going back to your cancer example: I feel pretty safe in guessing it would take way more than 18x the resources and effort to cure all forms of cancer than to develop a strep A vaccine.)
And regardless, resources are usually not allocated in the most simple, efficient way. People work on things because they want to, and can find someone to fund them. Funders might want to fund something because they have a personal connection to the thing they're funding. Certainly government grants are given with a bit more rigor than that, but there's a lot of disease-fighting out there that comes from a variety of sources. And that's ok.
Nearly all hunger-related deaths are due to the political environment they live in (including wars). Of course such environments also disproportionately include those who cannot gain access to antibiotics as well.
You could argue that vaccines would be hampered by the same environmental issues, but the window of stability necessary to vaccinate a person for life is much smaller and easier than the repeated stability moments required to gain access to antibiotics in a timely fashion for those infected with Strep A.
The question of prioritization of resources is not merely dependent upon the number of those affected, the creation of an effective vaccine is unpredictable. You're better off taking a broad approach in order to maximize the likelihood of success.
Considering that strep A deaths are probably 100x easier to prevent than cancer deaths, this means that’s we should focus on Strep A at least as much as on cancer.
We shouldnt be trying to erradicate diseases which keep population numbers in check. The world will run out of food fast and there will be widespread famine and starvation like the world has never seen before.
Your comments there have no connection to reality. The major population issue facing the world going forward is intractable decline in birth rates leading to population collapse.
And yet a half million people still get it and die. Doesn't sound "solved" to me ("technically" or otherwise). I'm not sure if mass vaccination campaigns would be more effective than hoping people see a doctor when they get sick (seems like a lot don't) and hoping they are able to pay for a full course of antibiotics (seems like a lot can't), and hoping they actually stick with it and take the full course (many people in general don't).
At least with vaccinations, it's usually one shot every $DECENTLY_NOT_SHORT_INTERVAL, and that's it.
Granted, crazy stupid antivax sentiment is on the rise...
This looks interesting, but is there a reason the kardinal-cli deploys kardinal-manager into the default namespace rather than taking a --namespace argument (for example)? Personally I never run anything in the default namespace but I am probably an outlier.
