Yup. Big org problems, but specifically big govt org problems. Perhaps also:
5. Systems thinking - To cut though and optimize across organizations requires government "consultants" who can apply systems thinking. They become temporary experts in an area by listening to and gathering feedback from those inside and their stakeholders/customers. It would require a massive org of consultants to address the gigantic US government that is necessary by the scale and scope of America's needs.
6. A panel of wise, benevolent (rather than spiteful/malicious/ignorant) dictators who can make organizational changes the organization itself cannot. This, rather than than politically, keeps the focus on mission and effectiveness rather than political fashions.
7. No more political appointees when it comes to public administration.
8. Perhaps some sort of performance review including an anonymous vote of confidence/no confidence in leadership that has sway in hire/fire decision and keeps managers accountable to deliver for the org. (I'm inherently suspicious of layers upon layers of management unless there is a clear organizational need based on the scale and division of labor involved.)
And, for bonus points, perhaps the US should transition to a method of choosing public administrators including the chief executive by sortition every 2 or 4 years.
America needs to throw out the entire political system and replace it with sortition because unqualified political appointees are counterproductive by definition. The only way to fix government is slow, thoughtful, and deliberate consultation and reformation rather than arbitrary, agro destruction.
Except you made the failure of assumption that it would be of random people exactly like jury duty. I contend that it would be better to pick from a pool of professionals who, as part of their entrance into a professional society, agree also to lend their talents to civic duty for the benefit of all.
>I contend that it would be better to pick from a pool of professionals who, as part of their entrance into a professional society, agree also to lend their talents to civic duty for the benefit of all.
We already have a word for those people - politicians.
Why is a random lot better than an election, and having the public at least ostensibly vet the candidates and choose one?
Because they have more sensible actors, stronger regulators, and less room for corruption that America.
Maybe before you determine, without evidence, that an agency is "useless", you should be honest and dive into the details before making such a foolish statement.
The agencies offered in the parent comment don’t do the work the CFPB does, nor address the same regulatory enforcement.
The only actors “harmed” by the CFPB are the actors attempting to exploit Americans.
But by all means my fellow Americans, let’s see what happens when we remove the vanguard of the consumer protections instituted as a result of the subprime mortgage crisis. That’ll ultimately be so great for the economy.
Let’s all 50 of us share the same bathroom by choice, even when we have the choice of a private bathroom.
Let’s make it so we all deprive ourselves of an hour of sleep each morning.
Let’s deprive ourselves of an hour when we get home too (the commute home).
Let’s not let families spend most of their time together, even when we have all the tools to do so.
Let’s deny ourselves the freedom to live in affordable parts of the country. No seriously, lets literally deny ourselves this and slave away on this hamster wheel stacked on top of each other in these god forsaken overpriced cities.
Let’s do this for 40 years.
And when offered a miracle to rectify all of this, let’s reject it. Let’s talk about how great the office is for some people. Who are these selfish maniacs?
Madness. There’s not enough poetry in the world to capture the madness.
Yeap. I forgot those and more. It's like some sort of culture of medieval hazing rituals that too many people have normalized and accepted that somehow "proves" their loyalty, dedication, and/or self-worth to a company that probably took out dead peasant insurance on them and continually weighs whether laying them off would be profitable.
Cute. Seriously though, it'd be cheaper to fund (or crowdfund) a super PAC to send out lobbyists to conduct political interference and gerrymandering in the desired direction. Giving out 1 kg gold bars apparently isn't socially-acceptable but lobbyists and "support" are okay.
The problem with the traditional antivirus signature model is that it's reactive rather than proactive. Once it's been identified by human or automated submission for human and/or automated analysis, the damage has likely already been done if it ran on a clean machine(s) already. But that's only the fraction of malware that will ever be identified because a large but unknowable fraction goes by unidentified, perhaps for all time. (When I was a Windows SA 20 years ago, I saw all sort of customer machines infected by advanced persistent threats that used evasion without any sort of antivirus signatures because they were novel threats.) What may be scanned by N vendors and deemed "safe" today and/or 10 years from now could be in fact malware by behavior.
PSA: Never run untrusted code on important machines. This might mean forbidding the use of third-party extensions for common applications until they are audited, something Microsoft clearly isn't doing.
It doesn't directly. These are malicious VS Code extensions. It's completely Microsoft's fault for poorly managing the ecosystem. They must curate extensions with security audits prior to publication and sandbox them with advertised entitlements. Without these, it's running untrusted code from the internet putting users at risk for ransomware, password and cc skimmers, data harvesting, and other malware.
The package was published on npm, the original extension, has a private component on npm with a similar name to that package, and that the squat the attacker tried to take advantage of
Typically, the -ists demand uncompromising change for a complete and instant transformative adoption of their utopian designs, like the Project 2025 anarcho-libertarian billionaires, rather than fair and practical compromise/accommodations.
5. Systems thinking - To cut though and optimize across organizations requires government "consultants" who can apply systems thinking. They become temporary experts in an area by listening to and gathering feedback from those inside and their stakeholders/customers. It would require a massive org of consultants to address the gigantic US government that is necessary by the scale and scope of America's needs.
6. A panel of wise, benevolent (rather than spiteful/malicious/ignorant) dictators who can make organizational changes the organization itself cannot. This, rather than than politically, keeps the focus on mission and effectiveness rather than political fashions.
7. No more political appointees when it comes to public administration.
8. Perhaps some sort of performance review including an anonymous vote of confidence/no confidence in leadership that has sway in hire/fire decision and keeps managers accountable to deliver for the org. (I'm inherently suspicious of layers upon layers of management unless there is a clear organizational need based on the scale and division of labor involved.)
And, for bonus points, perhaps the US should transition to a method of choosing public administrators including the chief executive by sortition every 2 or 4 years.