Comment by patio11
20 days ago
The thing which is beyond intellectually serious dispute is industrial-scaled fraud.
You keep wanting to make me "own" the CCAP's estimate. I will not reciprocally try to make you "own" $5 million, because I am charitable and because history has been unkind to the officials who made it.
I do ask you to own: "Minnesota HAS NOT suffered industrial-scale fraud across several social programs." Otherwise this is judging a high school debate competition, and I've had better.
Of course Minnesota has suffered industrial-scale fraud. FoF alone clears that bar. I've never said otherwise.
But your essay doesn't just claim fraud exists: it presents the 50% figure as the evidence that "staggers the imagination" and makes the case "beyond intellectually serious dispute." That's not parenthetical color. The paragraph is load-bearing on that number.
You charitably won't make me own $5M. I never claimed it. I've said in every reply the real number is likely substantially higher. My point has been the same throughout: you presented a disputed estimate as settled, from a report that explicitly could not settle it - in which the IG rejected it, DHS leadership called it not credible, the OLA said it "cannot offer a reliable estimate.", and the source themself named their lack of a standard beyond a vibe.
The essay is 5,000 words on why epistemic standards matter in fraud investigation. The critique is the essay's own standard, applied to the essay. You should apologize for the high school debate comment.
The essay reads to me as 5000 words on why epistemic standards should be lowered for effective fraud investigation. Requiring retrospective evidence - the highest epistemic standard - is too slow and expensive, so the government needs to copy the private sector's epistemic standards where a collection of solid heuristics and smart observations is sufficient to preemptively block payment.
It's an insightful point, but it seems consistent with those epistemic standards that it's unimportant whether the 50% figure is valid in retrospect. The observation of "industrial-scale fraud" is sufficient to act, it doesn't need a retrospectively validated 50% figure and he would like you to get all the way off his back about it.
The charged language (“get all the way off his back”) is unnecessary. You are responding as if I am attacking him personally or the post in general.
I am not. I am repeatedly enthused about it. You are in fact, parroting positive things I am saying about it.
I am on Hacker News, responding to him responding to a critic on a particular point.
2 replies →
This is genuinely pathetic, Patrick. You want to say it so bad but can’t!
No notes on the fraudsters pardoned by this current admin of course.
Fraudsters pardoned by the current administration don't make public service and welfare fraud in Minnesota any less grave or important, and it's super weird that people across this thread keep implying otherwise.
I frequently follow Patrick's tweets. He hasn't said a single goddamn thing about this corrupt administration but keeps talking about Gavin Newsome's vaccine policy that was in effect for 2 months in 2021
3 replies →
The political sidecars attached are unnecessary.