In 2004 I was at a company that dedicated a team of people to rebuilding a bunch of tables (lots of financial data) in to styled divs because... "tables are depreciated". The fact that they couldn't pronounce or understand the word "deprecated" should have been enough of a clue to ignore this person, but they were the 'lead' on the web team, and... had been there longer than other people. Obviously they must know what they're talking about. Weeks later after having converted dozens of spreadsheets to divs (instead of just using tables) they were 'done', but it was a tremendous waste of time that ignored all the semantics of tables. I was asked to 'help out' on that project to meet the deadline and refused, citing that it was not just stupid, but a big waste of time and against web semantics.
"table" was never deprecated in HTML at all, but was discouraged for general layout (we were aware of this even in the early 2000s). But for representing tabular data - like... data in rows/columns from spreadsheets (with column headers and such)... HTML tables were absolutely the right (only?) way to present this.
> Instead of firing the commissioner, the president should be giving the agency a raise in the form of a bigger budget. The goal should be to restore public trust in government statistics, not undermine it.
When you believe that government should not be providing many services, or doing most of what it currently does overall, why would you want to bolster trust in government statistics? Those statistics might contradict the administration, which is not a goal of the administration and its backers.
I understand why articles like this are written and why we have these conversations but it all feels like we're sane washing this administration. Any other administration (especially a Democrat) firing the head of BLS due to unsavory numbers would be a scandal on its own. Yet, we're seven months into this one with multiple corruption scandals flooding the zone. It just seems crazy that we're here justifying basic concepts of government/public service and not outright calling this out for what it is.
> but it all feels like we're sane washing this administration
This is not a defense of the admin or their actions, but if there's something we should have learned well over the past 100+ years of history, it's not to assume insanity on the part of people who disagree with you. It feels good to assume that we are so correct that anyone disagreeing with us must be insane, but it's a deeply unproductive (and often counter-productive) way to interact with people.
Personally, I think they think that places like the BLS are stacked with "deep state" people that are trying to sabotage the current administration. I think that's mostly absurd, but they don't, and without evidence either way it's a matter of opinion (I personally lean heavily on things like Hanlon's Razor and trying to gauge "likeliness" rather than assuming the best or worst). If you believe as they do, then cleaning house is not only good but necessary, so the actions aren't insane. If we don't try to (in good faith) understand their beliefs/motivations, and just assume they are just randomly pulling triggers, not only will we only further entrench partisan divides (nothing alienates somebody more than feeling they aren't being properly understood), but we hinder our own ability to predict and prepare for the future.
The prior comment is not using the definition of sane/insane as in: "the leadership of the White House is composed of people that are insane." Rather: "the decisions and policies set forth by the White House are insane." That's an important distinction.
To "sane-wash" is to take an extraordinary break from liberal order/american historical norms and treat such break as normal politics.
I completely agree that there are rational actors at the White House who have an incorrect sense of a Deep State at the BLS, and are taking what they would describe as a rational step and firing it's leader. But simply because they are rational does not mean that their subsequent decisions are rational.
If am a rational person and I have an incorrect belief that my house has cockroaches, then I burn down my house to get of the cockroaches, then the news media reports I "took bold new steps to rid my house of cockroaches," I have been sane washed.
For something like this, all the data are there. They show their work. The administration could try to check and see if the numbers are correct, but they don't.
There's no need. The BLS themselves check their own numbers and huge revisions have become normal. The idea that the BLS is getting things wrong isn't controversial and has been flagged by economists for years. If you want to understand this POV read this:
Others and I mercilessly criticized the BLS during the Biden Administration for the huge downward revisions that occurred every month under the prior administration. Reporting good numbers one month, only to revise them down significantly over the next two months, when no one was paying attention. Frankly, at the time, it looked political. Now it appears to be just gross incompetence.
Understand, the revisions to the employment data last Friday were the largest revisions in my lifetime. More than 90% of the initially reported jobs didn’t exist. Combined with the revisions over the past three years, it is clear that something at BLS is broken. I have spent a career building statistical forecast and prediction models. If my models produced 90% errors, I would have adjusted them, or I would have been fired. Ms. McEntarfer didn’t make adjustments….so she was fired.
I think you're giving them too much credit. I don't think they care if the numbers are legit. They care about the optics. They're happy to lie about what they believe if it fits the optics they want to project.
I think they think that government is inherently bad (with the exception of the military and certain law enforcement) and reducing it is automatically good. I think this because I heard Rush Limbaugh saying it for three hours a day every day for years. It’s not hard to figure out their motivations. Just listen to them. Understanding those motivations can be tough, due to a combination of very different values and a reliance on various facts that happen to be untrue, but you can at least figure out the first level pretty easily.
I'm not saying MAGA supporters are insane or that Trump himself is insane. I'm merely pointing out that the response to the extraordinary levels of corruption in this administration is insane along with the actions themselves considering what scandals plagued previous administrations.
You can try to steelman their view all you want, what we're seeing is bold-faced corruption: Trump coin crypto investor dinners, Trump mobile, receiving a $400M jet from Qatar, Tech executives donating to him in various ways to curry favor, and revoking security clearances from law firms who represent things he doesn't like. Just to name a few.
> and without evidence either way it's a matter of opinion
The absence of evidence is used as evidence of the thing (hostile deep state actors) existing, because they're so good they can hide their tracks so well that they can't be found. They must be stopped.
When lack of evidence is the proof... I'm not sure there's much room for rational discussion.
"...and just assume they are just randomly pulling triggers...hinder our own ability to predict and prepare for the future."
Speaking about the current politics and US administration, much of what's coming doesn't need to be 'predicted' - it's unfolding from the project2025 document. Not everything happening is from there, but quite a lot is.
Luckily, we don't need to "try in good faith" to understand their motivations. They published a manifesto about it (Project 2025) and are systematically going down that list of sweeping changes. These changes don't happen in a bubble.
Unfortunately there are lots of people on the sidelines that watch them screaming "censorship!", "persecution!", "injustice!" and fall for it. Any act against them is met with whining and fake outrage, and it works politically.
You can see this in action even in here, a forum where most people are more well-educated than 90% of the global population, they still swallow those cries as if this administration is the victim.
What is even more amusing and weird is how much the same side likes to scream "stop being a victim" while continuously playing into victimising themselves.
The liberal can't argue with inauthentic memes. They must give the benefit of the doubt by their own rules. The conservative sees this as an exploit that they can use to win the game every time. Because they see it as a game, amoral, based on scoring symbolic points for their preexisting tribal identity ("This family has always rooted for Liverpool"). They see it as a Conflict, not even of competing interests, but an inherent conflict of identity. The liberal insists on seeing it as a disagreement between friends, or an opportunity for education. An earnest Mistake. All of their rhetorical tools are based on persuading someone reasoning in good faith.
Exactly, it drives me insane that people are still thinking this administration is in any way acting in good faith. The argument you quote above is assuming an awful lot of good faith when this administration continually lies and violates court orders.
Hell they lied about Trumps weight and height on his physical.
Exactly. Instead of battling with their own internal departments when they show lack-luster numbers in good faith, they can just blame the "agendas" of the non-blessed private sector companies who show the same data.
Even better, they can exult the virtues of select private sector companies who show "good" "approved" data.
What? No, no conflict of interest that members of the President's immediate family happens to hold board seats in those "approved" companies.
> I'm willing to bet 99% of users run their browsers fullscreen.
99% of the folks I interact with usually just use whatever size the browser opens in initially, then maybe resize it if they're reading for a while, or need to see more info. If half a pic shows up, they might try to fumble to grab a handle to resize to see more of the pic; sometimes it works, sometimes they end up giving up.
Going 'full screen' may be different than just 'as wide and tall as the monitor', because 'full screen' mode gets rid of the window chrome, which causes confusion.
The only folks I know who consistently use browsers 'full screen' are on mobile devices where that's generally the only option.
Do you interact with a lot of people using macs? I find that Mac users don’t maximize their windows. They leave them cluttered everywhere; all the people I know on Windows maximize their windows.
Do you have a tiny monitor? I find that people with small mointors maximize their windows because they have to.
I have a 27" widescreen. The idea of maximizing a browser window is absurdity. My monitor can comfortably show three websites side by side. The amount of wasted white space on a full screen website would approach 90%.
Here's this very post fullscreened (without a taskbar). What a wild waste of space and the content is clearly not designed to be viewed like this, with the UX being located at the top left lol.
Because that is clearly not the norm for webpages? You're picking deliberate low-tech html pages. HN and memeorandum are not representative of the internet at large.
Honestly, man I don't care for this conversation. You do you bae. I was merely offering an observation of what I've seen from people and you're not even talking about that.
> I think the total reliance is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed.
> I still think this approach to addressing that issue is complete madness.
You're assuming the 'total reliance' argument and corresponding actions are being done in good faith. The original 'emergency' declarations justifying large initial tariffs in February were because of a 'fentanyl crisis'. Which then morphed in to 'well, we should be manufacturing here for defense purposes' and assorted other arguments along the way ("we're getting ripped off!", etc).
There's a danger in being cynical about this, but also danger in taking everything at face value. There's been no coherent communicated policy with justifications and expected outcomes or timelines ever put forward the same way twice from this administration.
> You're assuming the 'total reliance' argument and corresponding actions are being done in good faith.
To clarify, I’m not assuming the administration is acting in good faith.
But in casual conversation, I try to assume the person who worries about total reliance is acting in good faith, so my reply was primarily directed at the comment itself which I have to assume comes from someone who may believe the administration is actually attempting to address the issue.
I think there are numerous ways to split this:
- The reliance concern as a standalone consideration
- How the current administration sees/uses this concern
- How the public perceives this concern
- How the current administration claims they’re addressing it
- Whatever the current administration’s true goals are
$252 million was collected from excise tariffs on May 6. You can look at this PDF day to day.
EDIT: adding on to this... most days are between $150m and $300m. There's been a few days north of $300m this calendar year. There was also one day - April 16? 17th? - with $11.5b coming in. Under 'excise taxes'. I have to assume that was something to do with early April tariff announcements? But haven't seen anything remotely similar since.
So this "billions of dollars are pouring in from tariffs!" is... simply not true. There's not been a huge shift one way or the other yet.
More to the point, if high tariffs are GOOD, we should be embracing them and the WH should be working to promote 'pride in tariffs!' messaging. Show how much you love your country and leader by how much in tariffs you pay! It'll be great, because you won't have to pay $3k income tax, just... an extra $5k in cost of living every year. Forever. Even when you stop working.
And for things that can not be manufactured or grown here... we just suck it up and pay the extra 10-20-30% anyway?
If the 'intent' was to spur manufacturing, you'd enact laws with long term financial stability planned in. Few are going to commit to spending millions equipping factories when the 'tariff moat' that might make those factories sustainable will go away if Trump sees a movie in six weeks that says tariffs are bad.
The 'intent' seems to be to create financial instability and chaos, to allow Trump to position himself as the financial savior, and we are concentrating huge amounts of economic power in the hands of a single person.
Especially when the legal basis these tarriffs are based on is a sham of
They are temporary emergency powers with a limited timeframe. The emergency is fake, Congress has declared the calendar is suspended for purposes of the clock running on these temporary "emergency" powers.
The tariff could disappear any day if Congress grows even the flimsiest spine.
If a business in France uses tech X imported from China, and a competing US business uses the same tech X imported from China but has to pay 145% more than the French company, is that not an advantage they have over the US company?
"table" was never deprecated in HTML at all, but was discouraged for general layout (we were aware of this even in the early 2000s). But for representing tabular data - like... data in rows/columns from spreadsheets (with column headers and such)... HTML tables were absolutely the right (only?) way to present this.
I was at that company less than a year...