Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
401 points by stephenheron 1d ago 573 comments
Ask HN: Is there a temp phone number like temp email?
8 points by piratesAndSons 16h ago 11 comments
Stop squashing your commits. You're squashing your AI too
4 points by jannesblobel 1d ago 8 comments
Ask HN: Best codebases to study to learn software design?
100 points by pixelworm 3d ago 89 comments
Ask HN: Are AI filters becoming stricter than society itself?
29 points by tsevis 3d ago 16 comments
Whistleblower says DOGE officials copied Social Security numbers
67 blueridge 30 8/27/2025, 5:50:24 AM npr.org ↗
The coming of the "digital caste" society powered by "social credit" scores seems to be the end game. This is a battle of the rich and powerful against the average citizen and they want to reduce all of us back into fiefdom. We can no longer trust a large federal or even state government with these tools.
First is Hanlon’s Razor; “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. It appears to be especially applicable here.
Second is that this kind of information (with far richer data) is already accessible to and used by corporations at scale; think credit bureaus, background checkers, etc.
What exactly is the problem?
> According to Andrea Meza, an attorney with the Government Accountability Project who represents Borges, the cloud environment appeared to be set up for DOGE-affiliated Social Security staffers, but it "lacks independent security, monitoring and oversight." She said Borges "has serious concerns about the vulnerability it causes for nearly every American's data."
Not all applications of "secure" are equal.
All previous administrations have failed too, in that they didn't tighten up the loopholes. Probably because they feared they could be used against them.
If your core argument about why you should govern is that government is the problem, is it any surprise that you sabotage any attempt at good governance?
Effective government is an existential risk for the GOP.
Remember even Hayek advocated for universal, government funded healthcare! Ayn Rand was on social security!
As a hypothetical, if the government took everyone's houses away and lotteried them back out out I'd say that was a terrible policy. I'd still be happy enough to move in to somewhere if I won a house though, because although the policy is appalling I'd rather be an owner than a renter and there aren't paths to owning.
Ditto, Ayn would probably have preferred that she wasn't taxed in the first place, but if they're going to give some of the money back she'd be stupid not to take it and there is no moral problem for her while taxes >= welfare receipts.
> There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... There can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.
Eg, that quote doesn't involve government covering medical costs for someone in their old age.
He might even have been excluding things like catching the flu, seeing the doctor and needing a week off work since he's talking about things people could not make adequate provisions for on their own.
The "genuinely insurable risks" and "few individuals can make adequate provision" comments he made in that quote are serious caveats on what he said. He clearly isn't advocating for what would be called universal state-funded healthcare in the modern context. He appears to be talking about a bare-bones public insurance scheme [0] for certain rare events where he didn't go into detail on what he thinks is reasonable to cover. I'd like it if everyone reverted to that sort of scheme, any English speaking country could get a tax break if they went back to that sort of system. The expectation would be that most people don't use it.
[0] Actual insurance, not this modern scheme of branding a welfare system as "insurance" to fake that it is financially responsible.
Assuming that integrity and hypocrisy don't play any part in judging a person.
The alternative position would be kinda crazy. It'd be pretty close to "The government has injured me and therefore I will make myself even worse off for no reason or gain to anyone!"
I don't think it's actually intended to be helpful and probably needs to go away.