Musk Droppings (2 Viewers)

[Huntn]

SpaceX’s Starship explodes in second failure for Musk’s Mars program

Back-to-back mishaps indicate big setbacks for program to launch satellites and send humans to the moon and Mars

www.theguardian.com

The failure comes just more than a month after the company’s seventh Starship flight also ended in an explosive failure. The back-to-back mishaps occurred in early mission phases that SpaceX has easily surpassed previously, indicating serious setbacks for a program Musk has sought to speed up this year.

 

[Dragon]

It would be nice if we could test everything in life in quality prior to implementing it in production. But that isn’t always possible.

That being said, the folks who do reorganizations for a living have a different process from what appears to be the case with Doge. I don’t disagree that a deep dive into spending and priorities is warranted and long past due but I do believe there is a better way to accomplish the objective with less pain and suffering.

No IT professional worth their salt would ever work the way DOGE does.

I've worked with government systems in Denmark, and believe me—if anyone operated as unprofessionally as they have, they’d be fired on day one.

They have no understanding of the database design. The fact that they didn’t even know an empty field would return a value of 159—which they mistakenly thought represented deceased individuals receiving social security—is beyond incompetent.

How can you analyze data without even understanding the underlying structure? That’s like trying to fly a plane without knowing what any of the levers or buttons do. It’s reckless, and the results speak for themselves.

 

[Sendai]

Provide a smidgeon of proof that these kids did that. We aren’t even able to find out who they are definitively. I would be willing to bet these are not the engineers who are responsible for that, and you don’t know either, but you keep saying it to put lipstick on a pig.

Marko Elez​

Before government, the 25-year-old Rutgers University graduate worked at SpaceX, where he focused on vehicle telemetry, Starship, and satellite software

Steve Davis is a long-time Musk confidant. He began working at SpaceX as one of its earliest employees in 2003 after earning a master’s degree in aerospace engineering from Stanford University, according to the Los Angeles Times.


Farritor worked as an intern at Elon Musk’s satellite internet company Starlink in mid-2022, then went on to work at SpaceX between May 2022 and July 2023, where he worked on “several mission-critical projects” leading up to Starship Flights 1 and 2, per his website.

 

[Dragon]

Marko Elez​

Before government, the 25-year-old Rutgers University graduate worked at SpaceX, where he focused on vehicle telemetry, Starship, and satellite software

Steve Davis is a long-time Musk confidant. He began working at SpaceX as one of its earliest employees in 2003 after earning a master’s degree in aerospace engineering from Stanford University, according to the Los Angeles Times.


Farritor worked as an intern at Elon Musk’s satellite internet company Starlink in mid-2022, then went on to work at SpaceX between May 2022 and July 2023, where he worked on “several mission-critical projects” leading up to Starship Flights 1 and 2, per his website.

There is a huge difference between working with rockets and government systems. Especially if you do not even care to learn about how they are designed first. Government systems are very complex and you do not begin to make changes to those within a day just because you are good at rocket systems that you have worked on for years and where you know the code and the data.

 

[Bayouboy]

No IT professional worth their salt would ever work the way DOGE does.

I've worked with government systems in Denmark, and believe me—if anyone operated as unprofessionally as they have, they’d be fired on day one.

They have no understanding of the database design. The fact that they didn’t even know an empty field would return a value of 159—which they mistakenly thought represented deceased individuals receiving social security—is beyond incompetent.

How can you analyze data without even understanding the underlying structure? That’s like trying to fly a plane without knowing what any of the levers or buttons do. It’s reckless, and the results speak for themselves.

THIS! I don't think any American is against what DOGE is supposed to be doing - creating efficiency and weeding out any fraud/waste. It's how the team is going about doing that mission......and it's failing miserably. They are basically using DOGE as a cover to cut and trim whatever agencies and programs they do not like. Very little has to do with actual fraud.

 

[bird]

It’s common sense that media in its many and ancient forms is speech. And it costs money. So no need for the document to mention money.

And the same guys that gave us Roe gave us money is speech.

All of which is irrelevant. Media, particularly investigative media, is not arbitrarily involved in advocating for any candidate. Monies passed directly to campaigns or PACs are bribes as the expectation is quid pro quo. Here is money to help you get elected. If you get elected you had better remember me. If you think that does not happen then you are naive.

Yes, media costs money. Advertising contributes to revenue. That means ads that are generally selling products or services. Even editorial type ads like the Orange Orangutan’s ad regarding the Central Park 5 contribute revenue. Monies directly to candidates or PACs are not the same as advertising revenue and shame on you for making such a lame comparison.

Extreme high net worth individuals have the single resource that the vast majority of people in the country do not have. This means that they will be listened to far more readily. Money has also altered the election landscape resulting in 24/7/365 campaigning and fund raising. This is something I highly doubt that the founders expected.

Btw, the same group that overturned Roe for no legal reason beyond religious belief basically codified Buckley v Valeo more firmly with Citizens United.

Re: originalism Jefferson said that artificial aristocracy based on wealth was a threat to democracy. I’ll take him over you in that instance.

 

[SFIDC3]

I've spent much of the last 15 years in QA, and the core principle of QA is simple: you don’t break things in live applications or databases.
When you do, real people suffer—whether financially or even physically. Your casual remark about "breaking things to find out what is truly essential" isn’t just misguided—it’s reckless and irresponsible.

You analyze, test, and improve on copies of applications or data—never on live systems. Breaking things in a live environment isn’t experimentation; it’s negligence.

Yup, I worked in an IT environment (both private corp and gov) for 30+ years.....it's abject insanity to role out changes without adequate testing......in a secure test environment.....for someone who is supposedly experienced in this area, it's weird that they have no concept of Change Control.....

 

[RobF]

Marko Elez​

Before government, the 25-year-old Rutgers University graduate worked at SpaceX, where he focused on vehicle telemetry, Starship, and satellite software

Steve Davis is a long-time Musk confidant. He began working at SpaceX as one of its earliest employees in 2003 after earning a master’s degree in aerospace engineering from Stanford University, according to the Los Angeles Times.


Farritor worked as an intern at Elon Musk’s satellite internet company Starlink in mid-2022, then went on to work at SpaceX between May 2022 and July 2023, where he worked on “several mission-critical projects” leading up to Starship Flights 1 and 2, per his website.

Your claim was that "these people catch rockets". @MT15 asked you to "provide a smidgeon of proof that these kids did that".

Instead, you've lazily googled and copied and pasted a couple of bits that show you either haven't read them, or don't understand how this works either.

Your first guy, Elez, worked at SpaceX for a bit, and you quote him as working on "vehicle telemetry, Starship, and satellite software", before joining X. If your inference is that he personally implemented rocket catching in that time, it is a stupid inference. There is nothing that indicates he has any responsibility for that, let alone any significant responsibility.

Your second guy, Steve Davis, leads Boring. He has worked at Boring since 2016. Boring does not catch rockets. If your inference is that he somehow implemented rocket catching by 2016, and then SpaceX just... didn't catch rockets for another, what, eight years? It's a stupid inference.

Your third guy, Farritor, was interning at SpaceX in 2023. If your inference is that an intern personally implemented rocket catching in a short period of time, it is, again, a stupid inference.

You seem to think that if people worked somewhere where people - primarily and overwhelmingly, from everything you've provided, other people - did something that means that they did it. You also seem to think that if those people then work with other people who had literally nothing at all to do with it, that means they all collectively did it, such that you can declare "these people catch rockets."

No. That is not how any of that works.

Additionally @Dragon is entirely correct to note that people who had actually implemented rocket catching would not necessarily be good at reviewing government systems.

And, regardless of all that, we can infer quite strongly that these particular people are, in fact, collectively not good at reviewing government systems by observing how badly they're actually doing it right now.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Your claim was that "these people catch rockets". @MT15 asked you to "provide a smidgeon of proof that these kids did that".

Instead, you've lazily googled and copied and pasted a couple of bits that show you either haven't read them, or don't understand how this works either.

Your first guy, Elez, worked at SpaceX for a bit, and you quote him as working on "vehicle telemetry, Starship, and satellite software", before joining X. If your inference is that he personally implemented rocket catching in that time, it is a stupid inference. There is nothing that indicates he has any responsibility for that, let alone any significant responsibility.

Your second guy, Steve Davis, leads Boring. He has worked at Boring since 2016. Boring does not catch rockets. If your inference is that he somehow implemented rocket catching by 2016, and then SpaceX just... didn't catch rockets for another, what, eight years? It's a stupid inference.

Your third guy, Farritor, was interning at SpaceX in 2023. If your inference is that an intern personally implemented rocket catching in a short period of time, it is, again, a stupid inference.

You seem to think that if people worked somewhere where people - primarily and overwhelmingly, from everything you've provided, other people - did something that means that they did it. You also seem to think that if those people then work with other people who had literally nothing at all to do with it, that means they all collectively did it, such that you can declare "these people catch rockets."

No. That is not how any of that works.

Additionally @Dragon is entirely correct to note that people who had actually implemented rocket catching would not necessarily be good at reviewing government systems.

And, regardless of all that, we can infer quite strongly that these particular people are, in fact, collectively not good at reviewing government systems by observing how badly they're actually doing it right now.

 

[bird]

Your claim was that "these people catch rockets". @MT15 asked you to "provide a smidgeon of proof that these kids did that".

Instead, you've lazily googled and copied and pasted a couple of bits that show you either haven't read them, or don't understand how this works either.

Your first guy, Elez, worked at SpaceX for a bit, and you quote him as working on "vehicle telemetry, Starship, and satellite software", before joining X. If your inference is that he personally implemented rocket catching in that time, it is a stupid inference. There is nothing that indicates he has any responsibility for that, let alone any significant responsibility.

Your second guy, Steve Davis, leads Boring. He has worked at Boring since 2016. Boring does not catch rockets. If your inference is that he somehow implemented rocket catching by 2016, and then SpaceX just... didn't catch rockets for another, what, eight years? It's a stupid inference.

Your third guy, Farritor, was interning at SpaceX in 2023. If your inference is that an intern personally implemented rocket catching in a short period of time, it is, again, a stupid inference.

You seem to think that if people worked somewhere where people - primarily and overwhelmingly, from everything you've provided, other people - did something that means that they did it. You also seem to think that if those people then work with other people who had literally nothing at all to do with it, that means they all collectively did it, such that you can declare "these people catch rockets."

No. That is not how any of that works.

Additionally @Dragon is entirely correct to note that people who had actually implemented rocket catching would not necessarily be good at reviewing government systems.

And, regardless of all that, we can infer quite strongly that these particular people are, in fact, collectively not good at reviewing government systems by observing how badly they're actually doing it right now.

The good at rocket catching so they must be good at everything is telling. I would not want a guy who catches rockets performing surgery on me. Both take skill and training but have nothing to do with each other.

As regards government departments and systems used to track and implement programs those are complicated just like catching rockets but if the children don’t bother to learn about the systems then they create havoc. The move fast and break things bullschlitz is just that, bullschlitz.

 

[Sendai]

There is a huge difference between working with rockets and government systems. Especially if you do not even care to learn about how they are designed first. Government systems are very complex and you do not begin to make changes to those within a day just because you are good at rocket systems that you have worked on for years and where you know the code and the data.

I’ve yet to see a verifiable assertion that they are modifying active production systems code.

 

[Dragon]

I’ve yet to see a verifiable assertion that they are modifying active production systems code.

You have a clear, verifiable source (Musk) confirming that they failed to take even the most basic steps to understand the system’s design before making bold claims—such as the supposed payments to individuals over 150 years old.


Any competent IT professional dealing with an unknown database would first examine and understand its structure before reviewing the data. Skipping this step is not just careless—it’s a fundamental sign of incompetence.

 

[RobF]

I’ve yet to see a verifiable assertion that they are modifying active production systems code.

What @Dragon said, and additionally, you might have noticed, assuming you haven't been living under a rock, in a cave, miles from civilisation, with your fingers stuck in your ears shouting "LA LA LA THESE PEOPLE ARE VERY COMPETENT ROCKET CATCHING GENIUSES NOT INCOMPETENT ARROGANT IDIOTS MASSIVELY OUT OF THEIR DEPTH LA LA LA," that they have, most definitely, been doing a lot of things that don't involve modifying code but are still remarkably stupid and damaging.

Why on Earth would you think it would achieve anything trying to frame what they're doing as nothing because you don't think they've modified production code, as if they're not carrying out large, sweeping, actions based on their supposed analysis, and as if government systems are solely defined by the production code they involve? Everyone else here clearly understands the scope of their activities and is obviously well aware it's not limited to "modifying code".

I mean, come on. Why are you so determined to degrade yourself defending this psycho clown show?

 

[MT15]

Why are you so determined to degrade yourself defending this psycho clown show?

This is what I have been wondering. His claim to be a conservative, which implies a certain reverence for law-and-order and the Constitution, is put to shame by his defense of lawless and reckless behavior.

 

[TampaJoe]

No IT professional worth their salt would ever work the way DOGE does.

I've worked with government systems in Denmark, and believe me—if anyone operated as unprofessionally as they have, they’d be fired on day one.

They have no understanding of the database design. The fact that they didn’t even know an empty field would return a value of 159—which they mistakenly thought represented deceased individuals receiving social security—is beyond incompetent.

How can you analyze data without even understanding the underlying structure? That’s like trying to fly a plane without knowing what any of the levers or buttons do. It’s reckless, and the results speak for themselves.

I understand your point on the empty field. They should have inquired about such things.

Tell me from an IT professionals point of view, is it a control weakness to be missing data in a critical field in millions of records. That’s what concerns me as an accountant. I mean DOB of a social security recipient would be a required field in my view. That’s a critical piece of information. Makes me wonder what other critical pieces of information are missing?

There could be compensating controls out there. That would be good to know. I haven’t heard that. Have you?

So you may be correct in that there is an explanation as to how this system can pay someone 150 years old. Critical data is missing. Okay. But my next question is how long has this been a problem and how can payments go out when critical information is missing?

There may be a really good explanation. I’m anxious to hear it. Aren’t you?

 

[Dragon]

I understand your point on the empty field. They should have inquired about such things.

Tell me from an IT professionals point of view, is it a control weakness to be missing data in a critical field in millions of records. That’s what concerns me as an accountant. I mean DOB of a social security recipient would be a required field in my view. That’s a critical piece of information. Makes me wonder what other critical pieces of information are missing?

There could be compensating controls out there. That would be good to know. I haven’t heard that. Have you?

So you may be correct in that there is an explanation as to how this system can pay someone 150 years old. Critical data is missing. Okay. But my next question is how long has this been a problem and how can payments go out when critical information is missing?

There may be a really good explanation. I’m anxious to hear it. Aren’t you?

A database never operates in isolation; it serves purely as a data repository. The applications that interact with the database interpret and present the stored data. For instance, an entry of "156" in the database might be displayed as "Not Registered" by the application.

This is why understanding the data structure and coding conventions is crucial when working directly with database records rather than through an application interface. This fundamental concept is covered in the first year of any programming degree, making the DOGE team’s handling of the situation appear not only careless but highly unprofessional.

The presence of 156 entries in the database is typically a result of two common scenarios. The first occurs when older, paper-based systems are converted to digital formats, often leading to the inclusion of outdated records—such as those of individuals who are deceased. The second scenario involves new registrations that are still being processed. In this case, the entry is temporary and will be corrected within a short timeframe.

 

[MT15]

I’ve yet to see a verifiable assertion that they are modifying active production systems code.

We have sworn court statements saying that they have read/write capabilities, even though they publicly claim they do not. We have sworn court statements that they have the capability to copy protected data and have done so and sent it over non-secured networks to other government agencies who do not have the right to use such data.

It’s obvious they care nothing about data security, or they know nothing about data security.

And yet you are ascribing to them near-genius levels of knowledge and capabilities. Why?

 

[TampaJoe]

A database never operates in isolation; it serves purely as a data repository. The applications that interact with the database interpret and present the stored data. For instance, an entry of "156" in the database might be displayed as "Not Registered" by the application.

This is why understanding the data structure and coding conventions is crucial when working directly with database records rather than through an application interface. This fundamental concept is covered in the first year of any programming degree, making the DOGE team’s handling of the situation appear not only careless but highly unprofessional.

The presence of 156 entries in the database is typically a result of two common scenarios. The first occurs when older, paper-based systems are converted to digital formats, often leading to the inclusion of outdated records—such as those of individuals who are deceased. The second scenario involves new registrations that are still being processed. In this case, the entry is temporary and will be corrected within a short timeframe.

Understood. However, from an accounting perspective, that doesn’t make me feel any better about a payment system that is possibly issuing payments to individuals while missing critical pieces of information. You know the how. You have explained it. But you haven’t explained the “why”.

Why are we issuing checks to people when we are missing critical data. There SHOULD be controls that prevent this from happening at all. It makes me question the integrity of the entire payment system. As an auditor, I don’t know that I could place any reliance on such a system As you say, maybe there are mitigating controls somewhere. i would hope so. I haven’t heard anything about them. I would think if that were the case someone would have mentioned it.

 

[RobF]

A database never operates in isolation; it serves purely as a data repository. The applications that interact with the database interpret and present the stored data. For instance, an entry of "156" in the database might be displayed as "Not Registered" by the application.

This is why understanding the data structure and coding conventions is crucial when working directly with database records rather than through an application interface. This fundamental concept is covered in the first year of any programming degree, making the DOGE team’s handling of the situation appear not only careless but highly unprofessional.

The presence of 156 entries in the database is typically a result of two common scenarios. The first occurs when older, paper-based systems are converted to digital formats, often leading to the inclusion of outdated records—such as those of individuals who are deceased. The second scenario involves new registrations that are still being processed. In this case, the entry is temporary and will be corrected within a short timeframe.

To add to this, they wouldn't necessarily update the older records at any point, because it would be expensive (millions of dollars) and unnecessary. Why unnecessary? Because they're not actually receiving payments. They're just old records of people.

For some reason, Musk and Trump have been making the dumb assertion that they're getting paid - why? - and some very gullible people, mentioning no names, appear to have just believed this. Which is, honestly, really dumb. The premise is essentially that it wouldn't have occurred to Social Security at any point that people maybe die sometimes and perhaps they should stop receiving support, and maybe there should be some sort of checks in case someone dying is missed. As if.

Social security there - as everywhere - does make some overpayments, but they're usually to living people, and mostly recovered.

Some reporting supporting the above: https://apnews.com/article/social-s...-claims-doge-ed2885f5769f368853ac3615b4852cf7