> because they make promises around goals with incomplete understanding and data and then recalibrate as more information becomes available.
Perhaps you should simply announce an investigation, then deliver findings of the investigation and recommendations.
They're starting with the end in mind - the dismantling of the administrative state - then making cuts. Then finding out what the impact might be, then continuing cuts.
There is no good faith here, and there is nothing in 'doubt' that someone should benefit from.
> I don't consider this to be a lie, per se, is because they make promises around goals with incomplete understanding
They didn't even try to formulate an understanding. All of their actions show willful and deliberate disregard for how the system works. That's not "incomplete understanding" or a good faith effort.
Trust is objectively bad for systems design and processes, especially without audit and oversight! Everything should be trustless whenever it can be. They have broken every best practice in the book.
Even if you believe that trust shouldn't be earned, it is inadvisable to believe anything that Elon Musk says is in good faith. How many more examples do you need after the Hyperloop debacle? Here's an expanding list: https://elonmusk.today
How many times do you need to be lied to by the exact same person before you realize that facts don't mean anything to them?
At this point, I'm surprised when I hear something from Musk that is verifiably true.
Wasn't that actually "if you agree to resign and leave next September we'll continue paying your salary until then and you wont have to RTO if you work remotely" rather that actually 8 months of severance?
> then recalibrate as more information becomes available.
So you are waiting until they will start actually lying when they have more information (instead of "just" being incompetent)?
Giving someone who has proven time and time again to be exceptionally dishonest (Trump but also arguably Musk) the benefit of the doubt seems unwise. Why would they suddenly stop lying?
The fact alone that they have promised a huge tax cut to high income earners will will inevitably outweigh any potential savings by DOGE means that any claims about reducing public debt are inherently dishonest.
[flagged]
> because they make promises around goals with incomplete understanding and data and then recalibrate as more information becomes available.
Perhaps you should simply announce an investigation, then deliver findings of the investigation and recommendations.
They're starting with the end in mind - the dismantling of the administrative state - then making cuts. Then finding out what the impact might be, then continuing cuts.
There is no good faith here, and there is nothing in 'doubt' that someone should benefit from.
> I don't consider this to be a lie, per se, is because they make promises around goals with incomplete understanding
They didn't even try to formulate an understanding. All of their actions show willful and deliberate disregard for how the system works. That's not "incomplete understanding" or a good faith effort.
Trust is objectively bad for systems design and processes, especially without audit and oversight! Everything should be trustless whenever it can be. They have broken every best practice in the book.
Even if you believe that trust shouldn't be earned, it is inadvisable to believe anything that Elon Musk says is in good faith. How many more examples do you need after the Hyperloop debacle? Here's an expanding list: https://elonmusk.today
How many times do you need to be lied to by the exact same person before you realize that facts don't mean anything to them?
At this point, I'm surprised when I hear something from Musk that is verifiably true.
>I've seen was an offer of 8 months
Wasn't that actually "if you agree to resign and leave next September we'll continue paying your salary until then and you wont have to RTO if you work remotely" rather that actually 8 months of severance?
> then recalibrate as more information becomes available.
So you are waiting until they will start actually lying when they have more information (instead of "just" being incompetent)?
Giving someone who has proven time and time again to be exceptionally dishonest (Trump but also arguably Musk) the benefit of the doubt seems unwise. Why would they suddenly stop lying?
The fact alone that they have promised a huge tax cut to high income earners will will inevitably outweigh any potential savings by DOGE means that any claims about reducing public debt are inherently dishonest.
>with unemployment benefits as well, perhaps that ends up getting close enough
It won't be, unemployment benefits are a fraction of what the severance benefits are. Its disingenuous to bundle them together due to that fact alone.