41 pointsby hn_acker2 hours ago8 comments
  • kykat11 minutes ago
    I've always been confident in the ability of the US institutions to correct the mistakes being made, great to see an end to this ridiculous DOGE situation.
  • mothballed6 minutes ago
    DOGE made the mistake of not making a sham trial and court. There was a brutal deposition where they were asking a barely beyond teenager how he had the technical experience to determine if particular grants/projects were DEI, and it was clear he hadn't been properly informed of the magic phrases bureaucrats are to say to questions like these when confronted. Cops and other entrenched professionals always get the training to answer this properly by arguing they got the right training by the right bullshit artists with the right PhDs with the right expert witnesses to say "yuh, what he said." "consistent with my training and experience" yada yada, ask the expert witness who developed our process, who we have in our pocket....

    If DOGE had any foresight, they would have done what the rest of government does (including the DEI people) and create some bullshit academic program that pumps out "credentialed" bullshit artists that explain their PhD in anti-DEI qualifies them and then absolutely flood anyone contesting it with a pile of paperwork mumbo-jumbo of so many reasons they never will have the time to disprove them all .

  • saltcuredan hour ago
    Don't worry, they'll add a skill that says, "pretend I asked this question like a lawyer, and you are a paralegal who does all my work for me."
  • mnmnmn19 minutes ago
    Human trash
  • josefritzishere22 minutes ago
    Sometimes the dumbness can be more offensive than the crime itself.
  • hn_acker2 hours ago
    The original title is:

    > Court To DOGE Bros: Asking ChatGPT ‘Yo, Is This DEI?’ Is Not Proper Legal Process & Also A First Amendment Violation

  • 34 minutes ago
    undefined
  • tracker1an hour ago
    [flagged]
    • mint5an hour ago
      I too pine for the days when we could easily have fun by lighting the rivers on fire to pass the time.
      • tracker1an hour ago
        [flagged]
        • McGlockenshire34 minutes ago
          You should read the article and gain understanding of the thing that you think you're criticizing. Then you will understand the parent comment.

          Your argument is a non-sequitur.