Gary Marcus

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 62
3/22/2025, 8:15:36 AM
X
In reply to:
Casey Handmer, PhD
@CJHandmer
·
29d
@DanielleFong I don't think any DOGE opponents have been deported to El Salvador?

But of course in general the bureaucracy is entrenched, that's Conquest's second law.
Danielle Fong 🔆
@DanielleFong
·
29d
@CJHandmer even if i supported these aims, which i would, it's a stupid strategy doomed to create a determined resistance to go after the guardrails and watch dogs and judicial branch and all these essential services first. of course people are going to fight back -- they have to! and
Casey Handmer, PhD
@CJHandmer
·
29d
I can't believe how much hatred and vitriol is being directed at a handful of brave and talented patriots running at a tough problem everyone else gave up on.

You like government computer systems to work and inflation to be low? You should be cheering!
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
·
29d
Many all-star engineers are taking major pay cuts (sometimes to zero) and suffering from harassment, including death threats, to help the country with @DOGE, because they love America 🇺🇸

The conversation involves a discussion about the efforts of engineers working on a project related to DOGE, with references to government systems and resistance to certain strategies. The tone is critical and somewhat sarcastic, particularly in questioning the deportation of opponents. The discourse touches on public issues such as government efficiency and resistance to bureaucratic changes.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but uses sarcasm to critique the situation.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy but uses a dismissive tone that could be seen as undermining dignity. [-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in critique but does not foster constructive dialogue, leaning towards sarcasm. [-1]