I keep getting gobsmacked by how much misinformation and straight up lies there are on the internet these days. And what's worse is that I keep falling for it like everyone else, even though I pride myself on being so skeptical about everything. I remember reading that last week and thinking "oh, interesting" and now I'm angry at myself for not questioning that more, especially since I worked at a bank.
With so much manipulated information, AI-generated content, and straight up lying, I really can't tell what's real and fake anymore.
I distinctly remember finally not being able to tell the difference between fake and real info during the Allen Texas shopping mall shooting. I went on Twitter to get more info and I couldn't tell what was real and what was fake for the first time because everything was so convincing. That feels like ages ago now because things are so much more sophisticated.
There's a snarky thread going around attempting to dunk on DOGE employees who revealed that some social security recipients have 150 year old birth dates. The claim is that this is just the default start date for COBOL (like the UNIX epoch), but it's not even true, and even if it was, it's still a major problem if we have social security recipients with no birth date in the system.
I think you have to read this one generously. The claim isn't about how COBOL works, except incidentally. It's more along the following lines:
COBOL doesn't have a default date/time type
As such implementation decisions are left to the implementor
The implementors* of the SS system chose 1875 as the epoch date for reasons
*I made a lot of money in 1999. The original implementors of SS probably used something else ("it'll be rewritten before this is a problem" was essentially the whole raison de etre of Y2K). The 1875 thing, if it's a thing, was probably the result of Y2K work. But I have no direct knowledge of these matters.
> The implementors* of the SS system chose 1875 as the epoch date for reasons
The problem is we have no solid evidence that is actually true. The claim appears to originate in an anonymous DailyKos comment which contains so many factual errors (e.g. claiming this is due to COBOL), it is unclear why any of it should be believed. For all we really know, the SSA code doesn’t treat 1875 specially at all. And even if it actually does, are these social media claims that it does based on inside knowledge of how it works, or just a lucky guess?
That’s not to say DOGE’s claims about 150 year old social security recipients are right - for all I know, they could be wrong - but, if they are wrong, it could be for some reason which is completely unrelated to “1875 as an epoch”
> Because I couldn't name any programming language people in use today that has no built-in date type.
But this isn’t true. COBOL 85 has builtin functions for representing dates as an integer from 1601 epoch. IBM mainframe COBOL supports two operation modes, ANSI-compatible mode in which those functions use the 1601 epoch, and IBM-compatible mode which use a 1582 epoch instead - https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/cobol-zos/6.4?topic=options-intd...
A lot of COBOL software didn’t use the COBOL 85 date functions because it is so old it long predates COBOL 85, and also because old habits die hard and some COBOL programmers avoided using them.
COBOL 85 doesn’t have a date type per se, dates are either integers (count of days since epoch) or strings (YYYYMMDD). But, C’s ‘time_t’ isn’t really a separate type (in the sense that many other languages have them) it is just an alias for an integer type. So COBOL is closer to C on this than you might think
I did a lot of COBOL Y2K work in 1998-2000 and I have never once heard of any 1875 epoch related to COBOL until the last few days. We either modified code to use windowing functions or we just full converted to 4 digit years depending on severity. For instance, windowing code for front end, 4 digit years for DB, VSAM and flat files.
"The implementors* of the SS system chose 1875 as the epoch date for reasons"
So, they invented their own date system instead of just using the standard CENTURY-DATE or an ISO-8601 date from their DB. Highly doubt...
1875 being the result of Y2K work makes no sense to me.
Also the social media claim was that "this is how COBOL works", not "this is how the SS system works". It does not seem that the person who made the original social media claim has any insider knowledge of the SS COBOL system.
The problem is that DOGE public statements like those of Trump are a fountain of lies so there is little point in digging into them because the alternative is the equivilent of looking for some edible corn in a bucket of human waste.
Logical theories include connected records include an age, its chaff unconnected to any money being moved retained for legal reasons, and them just making it up.
Since they won't substantiate this you can choose your own adventure whilst waiting for the boring truth which is probably on balance that all receipients have a known age but they were unable to look it up correctly and something somewhere returns default when not available i in that code path.
> it's still a major problem if we have social security recipients with no birth date in the system.
It's not a problem, since there are other ways of determining eligibility. If a person doesn't have proof of a birth date, what are you supposed to do? Make one up?
And the claim is that it's fraud, which requires evidence, not some anomaly which can be several things. Musk and DOGE deserve the "dunk" since they're spreading unsubstantiated BS.
If a person doesn't have proof of birthdate, you could make up a realistic one. Pick 1935. Pick 1942. Pick anything but longer than the oldest human to ever live ago. And you know what? Since centenarians are rare enough, maybe do annual checkups on those folks to see if they're still alive before cutting checks.
Absolutely not. You don't enter false values pretending to be accurate, you put in a null value or other marker. You want it to make no sense so it's not mistaken for real data.
Exactly wrong making up fake data would poison actual data. The pupose of these systems isn't to look correct to people on twitter. We have zero reason to believe we are cutting checks unreasonably inaccurately.
There are of course going to be recently decreased not yet accounted for and a tiny number of fraudsters collecting grannies check.
Individual annual audits 200 USD per person would cost 136B over the next 10 years. Far more than fraud it would deter. Fraud which is already minimal.
Indivual audits of client accounts for obvious issues and fraud is already a thing because the experts that are responsible for such aren't complete morons.
Why would you deliberately input realistic but known incorrect data, versus using a special “we don’t know” value? How on earth could that possibly be better?
I’m guessing that when Social Security started being paid out in 1937 that many US citizens were born around 1875 and also did not have a birth certificate. So when the system was computerized in the ‘70’s there was no way to correctly input data so they simply continued that method.
It's sad that there are so many people that don't realize what they're saying is absolutely illogical. I agree with you, the technical details are irrelevant if there are people getting payments with those attributes it's a problem.
Nope, you're totally wrong. it's entirely a technical issue if it's an old system that handles exceptional circumstances in odd ways. The facts of the case(s) are not known.
You don't know what the recipient's details are, you're just saying it's a problem without knowing any of the facts around the individuals circumstances.
You're simply thinking in the most shallow way possible.
How are your "unknown facts" that you've NOT substantiated at all, more relevant than my "unknown facts" that are based on logical conclusions?
If that field is the qualifying field that it was presented as, Then any record with that data means you shouldn't be getting payments. And it was communicated that there are individuals getting payments with that dirty field.
Aren't you just doing the same thing, just in reverse? Ie you don't know any facts about individual cases, yet assume there is no problem. (If that's not your position, in what sense is gp "totally wrong"?)
The number of super old accounts is many millions. There is no way that this particular number is indicative of a fraud problem.
Now you could motte-and-bailey the sentence "the technical details are irrelevant if there are people getting payments with those attributes it's a problem" by saying oh if any accounts in this group are getting payments, even if it's just a handful of them, that's a problem. But if we're talking about the number of these accounts being representative of the amount of fraud, there's no way that's true.
The person I was replying to was implying that they were fraud.
But uh, you don't think Musk was implying that? He decided to make an announcement that there were lots of super old accounts without any implication beyond their mere existence in a completely inactive state?
And I'm not going to ignore blatant implications to accept "oh he didn't say it".
Is it plausible that, given the claim is that people currently >150 years old are receiving money, in the previous 40 years of audits, etc., no-one has noticed that people >110 (vanishingly rare in the US) were getting money? That it took the arrival of Elon and his Special Boys with their cursory glance to immediately spot this problem that must have been missed by every other developer, tested, auditor, etc. for AT LEAST 40 years? Or that there has been some vast conspiracy - on both sides of the US political aisle - to keep paying out this money to clearly ineligible people without a single person ever whistleblowing?
My money is on the vastly simpler "Elon and his Special Boys[0] have misunderstood" hypothesis.
[0] who have not demonstrated a great acumen for being correct at any point, let's be honest.
Have you interacted with the federal government? Or any government at all? Do you know how much money they waste? Do you think a 7 trillion dollar budget isn't going to be filled with multiple hundreds of billions of dollars of false payments, waste, fraud, and 42-year old loopholes that have never been closed? Our national debt is growing at trillions a year. That's not sustainable. The inflation is happening now. It gets a lot worse without this.
Trump and Musk are not truly worried about debt. Their current top goal is to commit to trillions in future debt to cut taxes for the top 0.1% of earners. The current Treasury estimate is these tax cuts will cost $4.5 trillion and accumulate to the wealthiest in the country.
Of course there is waste. Nothing runs with 100% efficiency.
You claim a huge scale of fraud, "multiple hundreds of billions of dollars" which we can bound as
200/7000 - 900/7000
Or something roughly in the range of 3-12%.
So, not exactly invisible. Probably pretty findable.
Where is the evidence of these "multiple hundreds of billions of dollars"? If you are going to go about it from individual fraudulent SS recipient upwards, you will be looking for fraud forever. A liftetime of SS is, what, $100,000? So, like 0.00005% of the amount of fraud you claim?
If this is how DOGE is going about it, IT WOULD BE THE LEAST FUCKING EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT PROGRAM EVER.
This is not how you find fraud. This is not how you audit. This is a smash and grab job, orchestrated by the most wealthy human and most powerful elected official on the planet.
The stack exchange question is the example. It specifically talks about a bit of information making the rounds that turns out to be wrong. You read the linked page, and didn't just jump to the comments, right?
The thread says any such implementation has nothing to do with it being COBOL and further that COBOL doesn't even have a concept of dates, which absolutely does refute the original claim of "in COBOL, if a date is missing...".
Do not both sides any of this. One cannot claim that both sides present misinformation and then not acknowledge that one side is doing so intentionally and the other is not.
Elon tweeted that there was a lot of 150-year-old recipients. That's all he said. [1] So there was a rush to point out why, if this 150 year old number is the only information he's providing of fraud, it is not a prima facie case of fraud. That was a good faith response to a bad faith, selective release of information.
So then Musk provides more data, but again, not enough data to provide all the context. What he leaves out is that there have been multiple, prior good faith attempts to investigate these data entries, identify whether there's any fraud, and address any problems. This was the work of inspectors general whose job is to work in good faith to try to resolve these issues.
There is one side acting only in bad faith. If they were acting in good faith, they would raise these issues through legal channels (inspectors general) and then have an orderly, legal process to address them. That is how it has always been done, for a reason. They are not operating legally because they know that what they are doing is in bad faith and would be found out as such.
What we are witnessing is a dismantling of the rule of law. It's important to recognize that and to not to be complicit in it.
You're replying to a thread on an article about how someone just made up the 1875 thing to own Elon.
There's definitely a "both sides" problem here. Many more commenters are making totally unfounded assertions about how these systems actually work for the same reason.
You yourself are pontificating about the inspector general's report at a level of expertise beyond what you likely have. I have some familiarity with IGs, though not in the SSA. It has been eye-opening to see people crawling out of the woodwork to talk about their role, their effectiveness, their "good faith attempts", etc. They don't actually know any of this: it's just ammo they found online to "get" Musk since the controversy started.
Why is it so hard to just suspend judgement about these claims, rather than attack them with little basis? Or at least go after it for solid philosophical reasons? I can't understand why the level of discourse on this subject on Hacker News, of all places, is so bad.
The way Musk has acted in the past 4 weeks has caused people here to feel it's not in good faith. Suspending judgement when people are lying to your face is a recipe for getting the wool pulled over your eyes. We have ample reason to think Musk isn't acting in good faith, mainly because of the drive-by posting he is doing and the way he's not working with Congress. He wants to make incredible claims without credible evidence... which just makes his claims incredible.
If Musk were doing what FDR did 100 years ago -- affecting major change by working through Congress -- there would be a different response.
I don't approve of Musk for varying reasons, but FDR's relationship with Congress was a little more complicated than that. If anything, Musk and Trump have not yet come close to Roosevelt's excesses, which are now thankfully mostly forgotten and not used as examples. Roosevelt did not so much as "work" with Congress as directly control it, particularly in his first term. Even in his later terms, he directly embedded his executive staff in Congressional committees. He also had no problem ignoring legislation that did not suit him, and had no problem using the FBI and IRS to harass and destroy his political enemies, which helped cooperation quite a bit. Today we find even a hint of this unacceptable. (We've also now mostly forgotten FDR's war against the media.)
From the distance of almost 100 years, it's difficult to see that FDR was an extreme radical when it came to executive power and probably the most powerful US President of all time. It's a good thing he was mostly a good one too.
> We have ample reason to think Musk isn't acting in good faith, mainly because of the drive-by posting he is doing and the way he's not working with Congress.
I don't think the "drive-by posting" or not working with Congress indicate anything of the kind. Congress has for decades done it's best to do absolutely nothing. Even when just a few years ago they busted the CIA spying on Congress, Congress did nothing. Congress has passed basically no major legislation since the ACA (itself pathetically watered down and passed narrowly) except in extremis. The best you get is one party or another grandstanding in committees about some nakedly partisan "investigation." But if they don't even do anything about a level of corruption and abuse that includes spying on Congress itself, why on earth do you think they'd care about low-to-mid-level fraud/waste?
As for drive-by posting, I think we all know Musk is a fundamentally unserious person, not a deep thinker, and prone to exaggeration or outright lying. That doesn't mean that DOGE personnel aren't looking into and finding things that perhaps we'd be better off without and which the executive has the legitimate power to correct or terminate. I don't see any problem with looking more deeply into Social Security payments. As I said in another post, we've had years of reporting on mass SSDI fraud, and other countries do have small amounts of pensioner fraud. Probably we have some too, and this strange belief that "the IG and Congress would have discovered any such problems" seems bizarrely naive to many of us who have worked in the government.
At any rate if Musk is making false claims, then making our own false claims does not help us or any good cause in any way. Lying because someone else is lying does not make anything better. Almost as bad is silly tendentious "well, actuallys" that dress up as a "fact check" and word everything very carefully as if Musk is totally wrong about something when the substance is correct. Consider the Reuters situation. Here's what Musk tweeted:
> “Reuters was paid millions of dollars by the US government for ‘large scale social deception,’” Musk tweeted the night before. “That is literally what it says on the purchase order! They’re a total scam. Just wow.”
The entire story is written as if Musk and Trump are deranged conspiracy theorists...when in fact what Musk tweeted was correct. Yes, OK, actually "Thomson Reuters Special Services" was the one with the contract, not "Reuters", and yeah sure they're all actually ultimately part of the same organization, they own Reuters, but there's a firewall between them, we promise, so...and yeah, it was to study "large scale deception" and "social engineering defense" but actually it's a good thing and-
Long story short, Reuters did have some dumb consulting contract with the government regarding social engineering "defense", which likely was a huge waste of money. Of course, it also wouldn't be surprising if the government was not only paying for "defense" (just as the Department of Defense was not "defending" American from Iraq) but Musk didn't make that claim in the Tweet.
This is just an example. I find it just as bad as what Musk does. If we're trying to educate people telling our own lies and bending the truth to fit our narrative doesn't help anything.
> FDR's relationship with Congress was a little more complicated than that. If anything, Musk and Trump have not yet come close to Roosevelt's excesses
Yeah, what I'm saying is that going through Congress such as FDR did is what would make those actions defensible. If Congress wants to be compliant, that's their prerogative. This Congress wants to be compliant, they can pass laws to do what they are.
So if Musk were doing the same as FDR, I would have much less of an objection, and not much of a Constitutional grounds to stand on. I think they aim to wield executive power, but I think trying to go around Congress is what tips the scales from "radical view of executive power" to "dictatorial view of executive power".
> Congress has for decades done it's best to do absolutely nothing.
This is false, Congress has done N things. Some guys have proclaimed the N things are insufficient, and they demand a new thing be done. Now we are doing N+1 things. Are they working? Who knows; we can't tell because they won't post sufficient details.
We do know what Congress has done is not 0% effective - oversight, whistleblowers, IGs have identified areas of waste/fraud/abuse. Of course there's room for improvement by adding other areas of feedback and DOGE could have been that, but they won't/can't be by going around Congress.
> That doesn't mean that DOGE personnel aren't looking into and finding things that perhaps we'd be better off without and which the executive has the legitimate power to correct or terminate.
I have found in my life that "the fish rots from the head" is often true. A person of such low character surrounds himself with people of similar or lower character, because they lack the temerity to say no to him. Given the recent reports on the people who are in DOGE, they seem to be DEI hires, in that they seem to have been hired due to their proximity to Musk-owned companies rather than their ability to audit federal programs.
> This is just an example.
It's a great example of what I'm talking about when I said "drive by posting". Why is it up to leadstories.com to bring me this very relevant context about the program? Why didn't Musk describe the nature of the program in his initial tweet?
To me this tweet is implying that the money was spent for a social engineering program that caused large scale social disruption. Is that a fair reading, or do you disagree with that? Either way, it seems like many other people interpreted it that way with my reading and became alarmed, hence the reaction.
But when you look at the added context, it becomes clear this program is about preventing large scale social disruption via social media, which seems to me like a good thing. They are apparently paying Reuters for some sort of SaaS tool. I don't know what it does but if it's waste or fraud Musk could explain exactly why/how. But he doesn't, he just tweets his indignation at some perceived abuse and that's the end of it. How is this any different or going to produce better results than "grandstanding in committees about some nakedly partisan investigation".
> The entire story is written as if Musk and Trump are deranged conspiracy theorists
Can you point out where you feel the article characterizes Musk in this way? To me, the article reads as a recitation of factual statements. Every claim is backed by supporting evidence. They describe Musk in neutral and factual terms. They accurately depict his words. It only mentions Trump in passing by way of mentioning his first term. Are you claiming it has left out factual information to slant a narrative? Or that the information is presented in a misleading way?
So where does that leave us? Is the program waste/fraud? No idea, DOGE hasn't provided enough information enough though he has it all.
>Each side of every argument is full of misinformation, intentionally or not.
This is just silly information, and is used to sow resignation and demean actual and valid arguments.
There are plenty of arguments and forums where misinformation is treated disdainfully, as it should be. HN used to be one of them, but everything anti trump and musk seems to get brigaded, rather than debated.
I will point out that it is predominantly one side in American politics using misinformation as a weapon. Its the side that brought us "teach the controverry" instead of accepting the scientific reality of evolution. Its the side that made it illegal for the CDC and ATF to do studies of firearms. Its the side that claims to be anti- politics in science while at the very same time politicizing science.
Your statement benefits the side that doesnt have truth on its side, and is therefore harmful.
Confusing insane asylums and refugee asylum by way of talking about Hannibal Lecter points in a completely different direction than what you've stated.
I think no change across 40 years of life is not what either of us meant
Impaired by age is impaired by age. Don't try to move the goalposts. If you meant something more specific, you should have been more specific.
But How does 2020 Biden hold up to this test you came up with?
See above. I didn't come up with anything. 2020 Biden was fine. As for 2024 Biden, I don't care if he was a head in a jar, he and his cabinet were doing great.
1. Not all arguments suffer from misinformation on both sides.
2. The political right uses misinformation as a weapon at a scale that dwarfs that of the political left. Your single example does not counter that argument.
> suddenly it is a new problem when Trump does it.
Nope.
January 29, 2021: "Biden has taken heat from critics over his early reliance on executive action, with Republicans saying it betrays his vow to work with Congress on to build a consensus on issues."[0]
February 6, 2014: "Executive Order tyranny -- Obama plans to rule America with pen, phone"[1]
November 2, 2011: "Obama uses executive orders as a political tool"[2]
February 21, 2001: "The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives"[3]
Just stop. No evidence presented will satisfy you. Right wing misinformation warfare has been going on since at least Rush Limbaugh.
The post you are responding to has effectively and accurately rebutted the post it is answering, which claimed that the media complaing about Trump's EOs is a new thing, despite having been done be prior presidents.
>The post you are responding to has effectively and accurately rebutted the post it is answering
Wrong.
>which claimed that the media complaing about Trump's EOs is a new thing, despite having been done be prior presidents.
Wrong. My complaint was that Trump is held to a double standard on executive orders, and this is true.
>Just stop. No evidence presented will satisfy you. Right wing misinformation
The irony. Good god. Maybe if you get your head out of your arse and accept you might be wrong on occasion you would see what is obvious to everyone across the planet, that the media holds Trump to a completely different standard.
Next thing you will claim that Israel isn't held to a different standard by the UN. Your claim is as obviously ridiculous as that.
Those were just the stories I could find in 5 minutes.
Also previous presidents didn't issue nearly as many EOs with nearly as controversial content which gives rather less for people to complain about (and yet they still did.)
I'm referring to the widespread meme (that predates this use of the word meme) that is prevalent in the USA. It is so frequently repeated in some form, it is practically an article of faith. Notably, it is a major component of Donald Trump's messaging since he became a right-wing political figure.
Quote marks are frequently used to delimit text for purposes other than direct attribution to a speaker.
In this case the misinformation isn't even the attack the mis-informers think it is.
Anybody getting payments with this erroneous data is committing fraud because the choices with that mis-information are that we don't know how old they are. This means they have been 150 years old since they got into the system. That scenario is actually worse than they have been getting payments for some decades after their qualification age.
> This means they have been 150 years old since they got into the system.
No, the theory being made was that they appear to be 150 years old because the marker for "unknown DOB" -when queried- comes out as 1875 by default and that wasn't accounted for / known about by the Special Boys given their lack of knowledge around these systems. It's entirely plausible that they look 150 years old (with a badly formed query done in a rush) but there's an "eligibility" section of fields which says they're eligible because they verified their citizenship[0] in 1952 with their military record[1].
Basically doing a query on DOB/age instead of eligibility. Easily done! Just not something to brag about in a press conference before triple-checking that you weren't about to make a massive arsehole out of yourself to the world.
[0] Or however it works, I'm from the UK, I don't know.
In the attention economy, what you're saying being true has no relation to you getting paid (and reality is often more boring).
This is what you get for wanting everything to be "free as in beer" and "free as in speech" at the same time in a market economy. Systems optimized to profit from free information have reached great efficiency.
With so much manipulated information, AI-generated content, and straight up lying, I really can't tell what's real and fake anymore.
I distinctly remember finally not being able to tell the difference between fake and real info during the Allen Texas shopping mall shooting. I went on Twitter to get more info and I couldn't tell what was real and what was fake for the first time because everything was so convincing. That feels like ages ago now because things are so much more sophisticated.