Oh really? You don't think all the creators who do things like make video essays on 20 year old movies would benefit from not getting the rug pulled out from under them? You don't think they would prefer being legally in the right making money from analysis of media that was a generation ago?
You don't think the Techmoans and Technology connections would prefer having better demonstration material than whatever recordings from 1912 exist, so that they could actually show you what they are trying to demonstrate without having their livelihood threatened by a capricious and byzantine system hell bent on pleasing a few megacorps?
You don't think the creatives who made "The Katering show" for example would prefer that more people watch their artistic output than have it locked behind some business leaving it languishing in a random digital storefront rather than letting more people buy it because they just cannot be assed? Oh, you don't actually have to guess, because they uploaded a youtube video where they encourage people to pirate their work so they can see it.
Creatives and artists tend to enjoy their work being consumed and riffed on (not plagiarized) and well adjusted artists recognize that there's "nothing new under the sun" and that remixing and riffing are essential parts of the creative and artistic process.
Hell, the music industry even understands this, which is why letting songs get licensed out for remixes and future use is common.
But you don't understand. If the government helps you file your taxes, they'll use the service to collect your personal data, so the communists could use it against you at some point in the future.
The IRS has some pretty strict rules about who can access those files and how they can be shared with other agencies. In many ways these rules are unique to the IRS. Precisely because of the issues noted here.
Hijacking this somewhat, but shouldn't the engine be open-source so both Sean Hannity and Richard Stallman can see the code and protect their data from prying government eyes? Or maybe it's already open-source? There should be something like opentaxsolver that has a government stamp of approval.
Is it? I think the more common right-wing argument is that you shouldn't have taxes / the IRS is just evil / the whole government apparatus needs to be burned to the ground.
(I do not agree with it, it's just what I interpret the arguments to be)
Here's the tweet that prompted Elon's 'deleted' tweet:
>18F, the far left government wide computer office that was recently taken over by allies of @elonmusk, is also the same agency that built Elizabeth Warren's "Direct File" tax program.
>Direct File puts the government in charge of preparing peoples tax returns for them.
Clearly, they think there is something malicious in having the federal government manage this service despite the fact that the result gets submitted....to the federal government anyway
First of all, it's the US Governments, and thus the citizens, Direct File tax program. Unless Elizabeth Warren personally wrote the code I don't think her brand deserves to be on it.
Second, are we pretending it was a good system?
"Direct File is now open and available in 25 participating states." Wow. Half the country! That's _almost_ useful.
"You can't use Direct File if you had other types of income, such as gig economy, rental or business income." Again another baffling miss. Perhaps Senator Warren is willing to explain this personally?
"You can't use Direct File if you itemize deductions." What is even the point? Who would have wasted their time creating this boondoggle?
This is all lipservice. People who want to claim credit for a half working implementation. It's 2025. This is utterly embarrassing to the nation and I can't rightly determine what goes through the minds of Senators. They are so detached from the common American experience.
I don't get your strong objection. A 1.0 release that is fit for use by >80% of the addressable market, and gets high marks from those users is a "boondoggle"?
Perhaps you overestimate the fraction of taxpayers that itemize deductions, have gig/rental/business income?
Direct File is following a phased roll-out approach to avoid the "big launch" problem that tends to plague government tech projects. The goal is to serve all citizens, but taxes are very complex, and it will take time to address all scenarios.
Also, as the below commenter mentioned, states need to agree to be part of Direct File.
It's available in only 25 states because the other half decided not to participate. Just another maddening example in the long story of how the American system makes it very hard to Do Good Things for the average citizen.
Elon literally said they would be 'deleted' for being 'far left,' specifically for working on direct file.
Yet, people still seem baffled by what's going on and refuse to accept the maliciousness behind his and Trump's actions. He came out against a public technology service!
It's like Bill Gates being confused about USAID being dismantled and being willfully ignorant that the people dismantling it believe he's part of some sort of global health conspiracy along with Soros.
It's easy to see why they're successful. Their 'opposition' does nothing but roll over.
Same reason there is opposition to municipal ISPs. The theory is the public sector should stay away from anything the private sector could theoretically provide. It assumes the private sector will deliver better goods at lower prices due to market pressures.
> the push towards automated tax collection strikes at the heart of their games
I don't think that's even it. The goal is to make taxes seem scary and complicated to the public, to build a consensus that taxes should be eliminated or simplified - which inevitably plays out in ways which will largely, if not entirely, benefit the wealthy. And in this light, the reason the wealthy are opposed to Direct File is obvious: having it available reduces the pain that people (and particularly the working class) will feel from having to file taxes, making it harder to drum up popular support for "reform".
Tax fraud is just top of mind because the other day I had to endure a smug rich asshole brag about it over dinner and I wasn't in a position to push back, so I'm venting a bit.
These are related: the rich backers of right-wing media have for decades pushed the idea that taxes are this scary, hard process where one mistake can ruin your life. That is not, and has never been, true (the average person audited by the IRS roughly breaks even because they usually weren’t claiming every possible deduction) but it’s in their interest to promote that belief because it supports lowering the rates they pay and the consequences people suffer for cheating (rich people do this in much larger amounts because most of us don’t have the flexibility to engage in creative accounting or enough inventive to do so).
Intuit wants everyone to think it’s so scary that you need to pay them, and the company is run by rich people who would want to pay less in taxes no matter what industry they’re in.
The combination is how you get people arguing for their boss to get a tax cut even if they personally will pay more, because as long as the IRS is a fabled bogeyman they have been told that’s the price of freedom. It took the better part of the 20th century and billions of dollars in funding to teach the point where enough people believed it, but they were patient.
> It's like Bill Gates being confused about USAID being dismantled and being willfully ignorant that the people dismantling it believe he's part of some sort of global health conspiracy along with Soros.
I really find this kind of seemingly performative "confusion" at what's happening by high profile people (politicians, media, etc) irritating. As if they don't know. It's similar to how they use every euphemism for the word "lie", i.e. "misrepresentation", "mischaracterization", etc, rather than call a lie a lie.
This is an answer most should try. My relative is mentally disabled, but functional. With help from his family he got a used truck, and started lawn care and junk removal. Over time he built a business, and was able to afford his own home. The self esteem he earned for himself and for his family is something I greatly respect.
You can also see a lot of individually started businesses go broke.
Most new businesses fail.
Even if you want to start your own business, you almost certainly need to be employed in that field for an extended time first, otherwise, how will you learn the trade?
Plus, if the OP were of entrepreneurial nature, they probably wouldn't be asking.
Apropos from yesterday's server status "fortune cookie":
A young man wrote to Mozart and said:
Q: "Herr Mozart, I am thinking of writing symphonies. Can you give me any
suggestions as to how to get started?"
A: "A symphony is a very complex musical form, perhaps you should begin with
some simple lieder and work your way up to a symphony."
Q: "But Herr Mozart, you were writing symphonies when you were 8 years old."
Some of these agencies have IT infrastructure meant to accommodate thousands of people. Many have convoluted structures to protect data; webs of contractor-led programs that are barely connected. You really think an engineer that will accept 70k pay is going to even understand what's going on?
>AFAIK, it has never been stated publicly that DOGE or Mr. Musk would get control of this most essential service, responsible for sourcing identity verification, etc.
The man has been plotting on Signal with a bunch of cronies. Of course, he was never revealing his plans.
But, honestly, this makes perfect sense. USDS is an easy way for them to backdoor their way into the technology environment of the federal government on day 1. He gets a crew of talented people to report to him on day 1 who know the ins and outs as good as anyone in the federal government.
On top of that, after 4 years, they can tout all the successes of DOGE. Hell, they might even claim it saved Healthcare.gov
> He gets a crew of talented people to report to him on day 1
The Digitial Service was pitched initially as a way for technologists to serve the country. The payscale was peanuts compared to most tech companies. I suspect some of the best will leave if the mission no longer aligns with their values, because they certainly weren’t doing it for the money.
It does make sense on paper, but I wonder how effective they will be. USDS never really controlled much (at least when I was there). It was much more about soft power, connecting disparate efforts, establishing best practices, boosting other teams when needed.
The idea that it's a backdoor to government technology is something that an outsider would think. For the record this also happened eight years ago when Jared Kushner tried to put his tennis buddy in charge.
But most creative people I know aren't really that interested in trying to co-opt someone else's work
reply