- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 24,675
- Points
- 113
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
[Video] - The problem with Elon Musk's DOGE
- Thread starter UltimaOnline
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 65,054
- Points
- 113
This guy thinks he's smarter than Elon? 
https://x.com/i/grok/share/HGGdoIIYD2qXAP7pl58Q4493D
Elon Musk's demand for federal employees to respond with five things they accomplished last week appears to be a multi-layered strategy aimed at shaking up the federal workforce and advancing his broader goal of increasing government efficiency. Based on the context of his actions as part of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration, here’s an analysis of the likely strategy behind this move:
First, it’s a litmus test for accountability and engagement. By requiring employees to submit a simple list of accomplishments, Musk could quickly identify who is actively participating in their roles versus those who might be disengaged or unresponsive. The tight 48-hour deadline amplifies this effect, putting pressure on workers to prove they’re not just coasting. Musk himself hinted at this when he reportedly said the request was to "see who had a pulse and two working neurons," suggesting it’s a way to flag employees who don’t even check their emails or feel accountable to directives.
Second, it’s a data-gathering exercise with potential for broader analysis. Even a basic response—five bullet points—creates a dataset that could be fed into algorithms or AI tools to assess productivity patterns, redundancies, or inefficiencies across agencies. Musk’s history of using data-driven approaches, like his code audits at Twitter after acquiring it in 2022, supports this idea. He’s known for leveraging raw input to make sweeping decisions, and this could be a first step toward identifying roles or departments that don’t justify their existence in his view.
Third, it’s a deliberate disruption tactic. The suddenness of the demand, paired with his initial threat that non-response equals resignation, sowed chaos and sparked reactions from agency heads, unions, and lawmakers. This aligns with Musk’s pattern of applying Silicon Valley-style shock tactics to traditional systems—think of his mass layoffs at Twitter or his vertical integration at Tesla. By stirring the pot, he forces the bureaucracy to reveal its fault lines, like conflicting guidance from agency leaders or resistance from entrenched interests, which he could then use to justify deeper cuts or reforms.
Finally, it’s a psychological play to shift the culture. Musk and Trump have framed this as part of a mission to "slash waste" and make government leaner. Requiring employees to justify their work, even in a small way, sends a message: no one’s job is safe unless they can prove their value. It’s less about the content of the responses and more about establishing a new norm where federal workers expect scrutiny. Even though the Office of Personnel Management later called it "voluntary," the initial threat and Trump’s wavering stance (calling non-responders "semi-fired" or "fired") kept the pressure on.
The strategy isn’t without flaws—critics argue it lacks compassion, ignores the complexity of federal roles (especially classified ones), and may not legally hold up given civil service protections. But from Musk’s perspective, it’s a bold opening move to test, gather, disrupt, and reshape, all while signaling that the old ways of operating are under siege. Whether it achieves meaningful efficiency or just breeds confusion depends on how he follows through.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/HGGdoIIYD2qXAP7pl58Q4493D
Elon Musk's demand for federal employees to respond with five things they accomplished last week appears to be a multi-layered strategy aimed at shaking up the federal workforce and advancing his broader goal of increasing government efficiency. Based on the context of his actions as part of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration, here’s an analysis of the likely strategy behind this move:
First, it’s a litmus test for accountability and engagement. By requiring employees to submit a simple list of accomplishments, Musk could quickly identify who is actively participating in their roles versus those who might be disengaged or unresponsive. The tight 48-hour deadline amplifies this effect, putting pressure on workers to prove they’re not just coasting. Musk himself hinted at this when he reportedly said the request was to "see who had a pulse and two working neurons," suggesting it’s a way to flag employees who don’t even check their emails or feel accountable to directives.
Second, it’s a data-gathering exercise with potential for broader analysis. Even a basic response—five bullet points—creates a dataset that could be fed into algorithms or AI tools to assess productivity patterns, redundancies, or inefficiencies across agencies. Musk’s history of using data-driven approaches, like his code audits at Twitter after acquiring it in 2022, supports this idea. He’s known for leveraging raw input to make sweeping decisions, and this could be a first step toward identifying roles or departments that don’t justify their existence in his view.
Third, it’s a deliberate disruption tactic. The suddenness of the demand, paired with his initial threat that non-response equals resignation, sowed chaos and sparked reactions from agency heads, unions, and lawmakers. This aligns with Musk’s pattern of applying Silicon Valley-style shock tactics to traditional systems—think of his mass layoffs at Twitter or his vertical integration at Tesla. By stirring the pot, he forces the bureaucracy to reveal its fault lines, like conflicting guidance from agency leaders or resistance from entrenched interests, which he could then use to justify deeper cuts or reforms.
Finally, it’s a psychological play to shift the culture. Musk and Trump have framed this as part of a mission to "slash waste" and make government leaner. Requiring employees to justify their work, even in a small way, sends a message: no one’s job is safe unless they can prove their value. It’s less about the content of the responses and more about establishing a new norm where federal workers expect scrutiny. Even though the Office of Personnel Management later called it "voluntary," the initial threat and Trump’s wavering stance (calling non-responders "semi-fired" or "fired") kept the pressure on.
The strategy isn’t without flaws—critics argue it lacks compassion, ignores the complexity of federal roles (especially classified ones), and may not legally hold up given civil service protections. But from Musk’s perspective, it’s a bold opening move to test, gather, disrupt, and reshape, all while signaling that the old ways of operating are under siege. Whether it achieves meaningful efficiency or just breeds confusion depends on how he follows through.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2022
- Messages
- 7,159
- Points
- 113
Many people are not happy
Similar threads
