[arunabha]

From the article

> In 2016, I canvassed for Bernie Sanders. I spent my first day in Nevada > walking door-to-door in the desert heat with a dying phone battery and a stack > of printed papers delineating potential voters, thinking "there really should > be an app for this." There, I ended up writing some Google Apps code for > caucus result reporting. > > This was a chance to do something bigger.

The original motivations as stated seem to be good. Essentially, he wanted to leverage technology to deliver positive impact, a sentiment that most of the HN audience will resonate with.

I'm wondering if the author evaluated his initial convictions with the ongoing actual negative impact DOGE was causing just a few days in. Sure, it's hard to leave a paying job if your mortgage depends on it, but in the DOGE case pay was minimal if it even existed. If this was a move of conviction, then there were plenty of signs that the stated purpose of DOGE was not being followed. Yet, I can't fail but notice that the author stuck around with DOGE till he was unceremoniously fired.

[Aurornis]

I think he did have good intentions. For someone who took the administration at their word this must have felt like a once in a lifetime opportunity to be part of something that changed government operations for the better.

His mentions about improving efficiency and turnaround times are exactly what everyone wanted DOGE to be.

But you can tell he’s realized that DOGE is deeply unpopular. Even much of the right is realizing that DOGE was dishonest, inaccurate, and completely failed to deliver on their promises.

The way this article invokes Obama’s name before Trump or Musk (in an attempt at the “Obama created DOGE, actually” meme) is telling. The way he speaks about his passion for Bernie Sanders while only mentioning Trump and Elon is passing is also significant.

Being unceremoniously discarded by Elon Musk after trying to do a good job, all while watching DOGE cement itself as an historically unprecedented mistake for the country has to feel devastating. I can’t imagine trying to do something good and finding yourself very publicly associated with a deeply unpopular program and then also finding yourself evicted by that very program.

Honestly the best thing he could do for his own personal brand is to come out against DOGE, however lightly. He could just say that DOGE’s execution was not what he wanted. Instead he’s trying to pretend it was a good thing and that it wasn’t to blame for cuts, when we all clearly saw the e-mails, the threats, the public claims. He could have had a pass by claiming that he went in with high expectations, but trying to double down on them on the way out is just asking to be pegged to the wrong side of history.

[joshstrange]

> For someone who took the administration at their word

Anyone who did that should really not be in charge of anything more important than a popsicle stand, even that might be too much. Come on, how ignorant do you have to be to think you could trust this admin?

> Honestly the best thing he could do for his own personal brand is to come out against DOGE, however lightly.

Yep, and he couldn't even manage to do that, even in passing. I won't be using them but all the semi-slurs (like "beta" but worse) that the right likes to hurl at people seem to actually fit this person. To be so passive about losing a job for a non-reason, especially when they styled themselves as the second coming of jesus to come and clear away all the government waste, is mind-bending.