Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It really is funny to see adults, employed by the Federal Government of the United States, get so upset over being asked essentially that: "What would you say you do here?".
Very few are upset about the underlying question, which is one they have to answer within their department. With millions of employees, the federal government is certain to have its share of slackers who may resent any additional efforts, sure, but all large employers have those (and most small employers do too). What people are angry about is that most of them have very well defined job descriptions, so this is not about "what do you do here" -- that is prescribed and documented. They mostly also already have to do departmental self-evaluations and get supervisors to provide performance reviews that are in their records.It really is funny to see adults, employed by the Federal Government of the United States, get so upset over being asked essentially that: "What would you say you do here?".
Anyone who is a)engaged with the details of their role and b) actually executing the responsibilities of their role should be able to respond in minutes.
BTW, the role/performance of any employed person, whether they know it or not, is likely being assessed on a daily basis.
I don't disagree that there's probably a PR aspect to this and DOGE in general. I don't think it's uncommon for administrations, at every level, to publicize their accomplishments or really anything that they believe their constituents would like. It's like the "Your tax money at work" signs I see occassionally around town.Very few are upset about the underlying question, which is one they have to answer within their department. With millions of employees, the federal government is certain to have its share of slackers who may resent any additional efforts, sure, but all large employers have those (and most small employers do too). What people are angry about is that most of them have very well defined job descriptions, so this is not about "what do you do here" -- that is prescribed and documented. They mostly also already have to do departmental self-evaluations and get supervisors to provide performance reviews that are in their records.
The five bullet point demand would be lazy circumvention of the existing and available records if that is what Musk is up to. But it is not. He is creating some sort of ad hoc response system, with zero meaningful instruction, that he now claims will be fed to an AI to determine who is worthy of continuing work and who should be fired. Based on five bullet points about a 4-day work week. Musk doesn't actually run DOGE, per DOJ repeated filings and statements in court, so it is not clear how Musk has any authority to make any such demands of anyone who works for the Federal Government.
The process is asinine harassment as a PR stunt and to undermine the morale of federal workers generally. People who support DOGE keep using the "what would you say your do here" consultants from Office Space as a hilarious joke to support DOGE, and that is somewhat accurate but not at all positive for DOGE since those consultants were soulless outsiders brought in to slim down the ranks, not brilliant good guys defending the company's righteous efficiency.
There are assumptions that the changes, "destruction" as you call it, have done or are doing damage. I haven't seen any negative results, so far.It’s really funny (pitiable) to see educated adults valorize chaotic and incompetent destruction, simply bc they hero worship grifting, drug addled, antisocial billionaires.
It’s asinine to do a performance review based on less than 2% of the year. Is your job so mundane that your workload is steady state throughout the year?If I were being asked the question, I would look at it as an opportunity to tout my performance and showcase my work because I'm sure there are also people who do more than their job description or are picking up the slack of the slackers. Then there are people who are probably so disengaged, that they didn't even see the email.
“… But now the delivery of therapeutic food assistance to nearly 400,000 severely malnourished children abroad is in doubt due to ongoing firings at USAID, two manufacturers of this product told me in interviews. The raw materials needed to make the product are sitting in warehouses, but the manufacturers say they’re uncertain whether to proceed, because they don’t know if the U.S. government still wants to buy the product—and they can’t be certain it will be shipped.
The product in question is called Ready to Use Therapeutic Food (RUTF), a sterile, bureaucratic name that masks the horrific nature of its life-saving function. It is a sweet paste largely made of peanuts, milk, and vitamins. It’s designed for safe ingestion by young children inflicted with what’s known as “severe wasting,” meaning they’re suffering extreme, acute malnutrition or hovering on the edge of starving to death. It’s packaged in foil packets that don’t need refrigeration, making it suitable for delivery to areas inflicted by extreme deprivation.
“It’s the only treatment that can cure a severely malnourished child,” says Navyn Salem, the founder and CEO of Edesia Nutrition, which manufactures the product in Rhode Island. …”
——
Back on the old IC ZZLP I had encouraged folks to donate to a UNICEF program to provide RUTF to prevent famine from becoming starvation — the stuff has been miraculous at keeping kids in horrific food shortages alive and at least subsisting (rather than literally starving to death).
This should probably be self-evident but there might be some people confused by this.![]()
Musk Will Use AI to Assess Email Responses
"Responses to the Elon Musk-directed email to government employees about what work they'd accomplished over the past week are expected to be fed into an artificial intelligence system to determine whether those jobs are necessarypoliticalwire.com
“The AI system will determine whether someone’s work is mission-critical or not”
If you can't describe the work you do, in 5 bullets, after two months of work, that would seem to be a problem. Nevermind, that few are literally in their first 2 months of work.It’s asinine to do a performance review based on less than 2% of the year. Is your job so mundane that your workload is steady state throughout the year?
1. Your last point undermines everything else.It really is funny to see adults, employed by the Federal Government of the United States, get so upset over being asked essentially that: "What would you say you do here?".
Anyone who is a)engaged with the details of their role and b) actually executing the responsibilities of their role should be able to respond in minutes.
BTW, the role/performance of any employed person, whether they know it or not, is likely being assessed on a daily basis.
This is an excellent post. Thank you for writing this.Very few are upset about the underlying question, which is one they have to answer within their department. With millions of employees, the federal government is certain to have its share of slackers who may resent any additional efforts, sure, but all large employers have those (and most small employers do too). What people are angry about is that most of them have very well defined job descriptions, so this is not about "what do you do here" -- that is prescribed and documented. They mostly also already have to do departmental self-evaluations and get supervisors to provide performance reviews that are in their records.
The five bullet point demand would be lazy circumvention of the existing and available records if that is what Musk is up to. But it is not. He is creating some sort of ad hoc response system, with zero meaningful instruction, that he now claims will be fed to an AI to determine who is worthy of continuing work and who should be fired. Based on five bullet points about a 4-day work week. Musk doesn't actually run DOGE, per DOJ repeated filings and statements in court, so it is not clear how Musk has any authority to make any such demands of anyone who works for the Federal Government.
The process is asinine harassment as a PR stunt and to undermine the morale of federal workers generally. People who support DOGE keep using the "what would you say your do here" consultants from Office Space as a hilarious joke to support DOGE, and that is somewhat accurate but not at all positive for DOGE since those consultants were soulless outsiders brought in to slim down the ranks, not brilliant good guys defending the company's righteous efficiency.
Are you saying it’s a problem if you can’t describe the work you’ve done within the past week in 5 bullet points, or that it’s a problem if you can’t describe the work you’ve done over the course of two months? (Never mind that the email asked for “accomplishments” within a week, whatever that means.)If you can't describe the work you do, in 5 bullets, after two months of work, that would seem to be a problem. Nevermind, that few are literally in their first 2 months of work.
I understand why these 21 senior staffers resigned.Federal technology staffers resign rather than help Musk and DOGE
![]()
Federal technology staffers resign rather than help Musk and DOGE
Twenty-one civil service employees have resigned from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, saying they're refusing to use their technical expertise to “dismantle critical public services.”apnews.com
"More than 20 civil service employees resigned Tuesday from billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, saying they were refusing to use their technical expertise to “dismantle critical public services.”
“We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations,” the 21 staffers wrote in a joint resignation letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press. “However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments.”
The employees also warned that many of those enlisted by Musk to help him slash the size of the federal government under President Donald Trump’s administration were political ideologues who did not have the necessary skills or experience for the task ahead of them.
The mass resignation of engineers, data scientists and product managers is a temporary setback for Musk and the Republican president’s tech-driven purge of the federal workforce. It comes amid a flurry of court challenges that have sought to stall, stop or unwind their efforts to fire or coerce thousands of government workers out of jobs. ...
...“Anyone who thinks protests, lawsuits, and lawfare will deter President Trump must have been sleeping under a rock for the past several years,” Leavitt said. “President Trump will not be deterred from delivering on the promises he made to make our federal government more efficient and more accountable to the hardworking American taxpayers.”
The staffers who resigned worked for what was once known as the United States Digital Service, an office established during President Barack Obama’s administration after the botched rollout of Healthcare.gov, the web portal that millions of Americans use to sign up for insurance plans through the Democrat’s signature health care law.
All had previously held senior roles at such tech companies as Google and Amazon and wrote in their resignation letter that they joined the government out of a sense of duty to public service.
...According to the staffers, people wearing White House visitors’ badges, some of whom would not give their names, grilled the nonpartisan employees about their qualifications and politics. Some made statements that indicated they had a limited technical understanding. Many were young and seemed guided by ideology and fandom of Musk — not improving government technology.
“Several of these interviewers refused to identify themselves, asked questions about political loyalty, attempted to pit colleagues against each other, and demonstrated limited technical ability,” the staffers wrote in their letter. “This process created significant security risks.”
...Earlier this month, about 40 staffers in the office were laid off. The firings dealt a devastating blow to the government’s ability to administer and safeguard its own technological footprint, they wrote.
“These highly skilled civil servants were working to modernize Social Security, veterans’ services, tax filing, health care, disaster relief, student aid, and other critical services,” the resignation letter states. “Their removal endangers millions of Americans who rely on these services every day. The sudden loss of their technology expertise makes critical systems and American’s data less safe.”
Those who remained, about 65 staffers, were integrated into DOGE’s government-slashing effort. About a third of them quit Tuesday.
“We will not use our skills as technologists to compromise core government systems, jeopardize Americans’ sensitive data, or dismantle critical public services,” they wrote. “We will not lend our expertise to carry out or legitimize DOGE’s actions.” ..."