I used to think DOGE was merely grossly technically incompetent. I’m now of the opinion that it was partly an intentional data grab. This just being one example that happened to be uncovered.

> a political advocacy group contacted two members of the DOGE Social Security team, asking for an analysis of state voter rolls the advocacy group obtained. The group was not identified in the court filing, but the Justice Department said the group’s goal was “to find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain states. One of the DOGE employees signed an agreement with the advocacy group

> I’m now of the opinion that it was partly an intentional data grab.

It is not an opinion. It is a fact.

If you analyze what DOGE did and who benefited from it, it is clear it was intentional.

I think the only thing that would generate enough public momentum to stop Trump would be a US stock market crash.

The sad reality is Americans really don't care about foreign policy -- the only thing that could actually lead to major strikes or protests large enough to move the needle would be if large numbers of American soldiers were dying (i.e., Vietnam).

Plus, I just saw a little segment on Fox News where it was portraying this whole Greenland deal as a way to "help Greenlanders boost their economy, each person will get X cash, blah blah". So anyone only watching Fox is probably convinced we're doing Greenland a favor, liberating them from Danish oppression, just like we recently liberated Venezuela from oppression (in case you didn't know!).

Yes, such tactics have existed forever.

But the scale and speed are much different. Which is why social media is not "just more of the same".

Considering that published findings are fairly damning when it comes to the impact of social media on society (and especially teenagers), the conclusion I draw from this is that the situation may be even worse than we think.

go find it and analyze it and publish your findings

until then, you can read the papers of scientists who have analyzed it and published their findings

Wow, a shocking amount of climate change denialism in this thread. Honestly what I expected from HN readership.

Denialism is not the majority position of the readership as a whole in my experience.

It's more that such titles attract the denialists and edgelords like bees to sucrose.

Lack of significant action is more a majority position, and that's unsuprising given many people struggle with how to make meaningful change as individuals or accept greater risk and reduced returns as C-suits of corporations.

Just came back to this and realized I had forgotten a “not”. Meant to say “not what I expected…” and I was quite surprised.

How to Avoid a Climate Disaster has a pretty good summary of the challenges and solutions.

There is developing real practical solutions, and then there there is the willingness of governments, big corporations, and the general population, to implement real practical solutions. The latter is much much harder than the former.

All this Greenland stupidity could be an ongoing distraction from the Epstein files, Wag the Dog style. The attack on Venezuela coincidentally was the day that the DOJ was supposed to explain their redactions to Congress, which they didn't do and there hasn't been a peep since. I don't know what's in those files but I do know that Trump fought tooth and nail against Congress voting to release them, and he wouldn't have done that if they weren't damming.

For those who think the US is too big to fail, the U.K. in 1900 was the leading economy in the world with an empire on which the sun never set.

Don't you see how this kind of thinking is the problem? The UK was in 1900, and remains today, a prosperous country where almost all citizens can live happy and fulfilling lives. That's what makes a country great, not territorial claims or everyone else in the world doing worse. The people who support Trump wrecking the world order are doing so precisely because they aren't willing to accept that.

What kind of thinking do you mean?

> The UK was in 1900, and remains today, a prosperous country where almost all citizens can live happy and fulfilling lives.

I would not at all categorize the UK like that. But I do agree that what makes a country "great" is not territorial claims.