this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
1650 points (98.9% liked)

Enough Musk Spam

2505 readers
789 users here now

For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.

No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.

Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.

Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.

Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Also a lot of people between 110 and 150, so I'm sure there is a larger answer.

However, Social Security cuts off at 115, and they supposedly found like 10 million people older than that. Considering there are only ~50m people on Social Security, and the database they were searching wasn't even about current recipients, most people would conclude that there is likely an error in data, rather than immediately jump to fraud. Of course, ketamine is a hell of a drug and Elon is not most people.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's definitely still concerning if the database has a large number of errors. But systematic fraud would be much worse ofc.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

the database doesn't have to necessarily be accurate if there's other checks - a flag for test data, a system that checks the person is real against another database before dispersing funds etc

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 23 hours ago

It's really funny to me that everyone thinks every database is always 100% correct. What a magical world it would be!

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 hours ago

A minor grammar point: in this context, the word is actually "disbursing," from the same root as "bursar," a job title you may have encountered in school administrations. "Disbursing" means "paying out from a fund." "Dispersing" means "scattering" or "causing to dissipate." So the old system was disbursing funds. The new system will be dispersing funds.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's true. Would be better if it was though.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Fixing an archival dataset that doesn't even pertain to people actively receiving benefits is so far down the list of priorities as to be a criminal misuse if resources.

[–] Lyrl@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Someone with the skills and knowledge to clean up 150-year old typographical errors in one particular table in the Social Security database system would probably provide more benefit to the taxpayers covering their salary by doing some other task.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

How would you clean up that data? If they didn’t have the correct data in the first place, where do you expect to find it decades later?

Sometime real life is just bad data and that’s not necessarily a problem. All of the business logic and agency process around not spending money for those situations is probably one of the difficult areas blocking modernization or shrinkage. Bad data is reality. How you handle it shows how experienced you are

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It might be better to move to a new database at this point rather than trying to fix the existing one. It won't give immediate benefits but could be helpful down the line.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or it could cost a fortune and fuck a lot of other processes up.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago
[–] SabinStargem@lemmings.world 2 points 1 day ago

I am hoping California ditches SSN and other identifiers from the US Treasury. That information is no longer safe, so we need a fresh database that is secure from DOGE fuckery, among many other hostile actors.