#Industrial Embedded Computer | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

industrial-embedded-systems · 1 month ago

Text

Networked Embedded Systems and the Rise of Distributed Intelligence in Industry

The transformation of industrial systems through technology has reached a pivotal juncture. Among the most significant changes is the emergence of distributed intelligence, a paradigm shift that integrates computation, communication, and control at various points within a system rather than centralizing them. Central to this evolution are networked embedded systems, compact and dedicated computing units integrated with network interfaces, sensors, and actuators. Their synergy with distributed intelligence frameworks offers industries a powerful toolkit for automation, analytics, and adaptive control.

As industries increasingly pursue digital transformation, the need for responsive, reliable, and scalable solutions grows. Networked embedded systems meet this demand by enabling real-time data exchange, autonomous decision-making, and system-wide integration across geographically dispersed components. This article explores how the convergence of these technologies fosters a more intelligent industrial ecosystem. Through a structured examination of their architecture, applications, and future directions, we illuminate the path forward for smart industry.

Understanding Networked Embedded Systems

Networked embedded systems consist of microprocessors or microcontrollers embedded in devices that communicate with each other over a network. Unlike traditional standalone embedded systems, networked variants are interconnected, allowing multiple units to operate collaboratively. This distributed architecture permits localized decision-making while maintaining overall system coherence.

These systems are commonly found in environments requiring synchronized operations, such as manufacturing plants, energy distribution networks, and transportation systems. Each unit within a networked embedded framework can process data, execute tasks, and communicate its status or results to other units or a central server. The integration of sensors and actuators allows these systems to interact with their environment, creating a closed-loop control system that is both autonomous and responsive.

A major advantage lies in scalability. Systems can be expanded by adding more units without overhauling the entire infrastructure. Furthermore, networked embedded systems are designed for real-time operation, ensuring that decisions are made promptly in response to dynamic conditions. This responsiveness is crucial in industrial settings where delays can lead to inefficiencies or safety hazards.

The Concept of Distributed Intelligence

Distributed intelligence refers to the allocation of decision-making capabilities across a network of interconnected devices or nodes. Rather than funneling all data to a central processor, each node processes information locally and contributes to a collective understanding of the system’s state. This model enhances system resilience, reduces communication overhead, and supports faster decision-making.

In industrial contexts, distributed intelligence is transformative. It enables machinery to adapt to varying conditions autonomously, detect anomalies in real-time, and optimize performance without human intervention. For example, in a production line, individual machines can adjust their operations based on inputs from adjacent units, thereby maintaining product quality and reducing downtime.

The paradigm also aligns with the principles of decentralization and modularity, which are increasingly favored in system design. By embedding intelligence at the edge, systems become more fault-tolerant. If one node fails, others can often compensate, thereby maintaining operational integrity. This decentralized approach is particularly beneficial in large-scale industrial environments where centralized control could be a bottleneck or a single point of failure.

The Interplay Between Embedded Systems and Distributed Intelligence

The integration of embedded systems with distributed intelligence frameworks creates a potent combination for modern industry. Embedded systems serve as the physical interface with the real world, collecting data and executing control actions. When networked and equipped with distributed decision-making capabilities, they become nodes in an intelligent system capable of nuanced behavior and autonomous operation.

This interplay is evident in predictive maintenance systems. Embedded sensors monitor equipment conditions such as vibration, temperature, and pressure. By analyzing this data locally, each system can identify early signs of wear or failure. Through networked communication, this information is aggregated and assessed to predict failures before they occur, enabling proactive maintenance and reducing unplanned downtime.

Another example lies in smart logistics. Delivery vehicles equipped with embedded GPS and environmental sensors can adjust routes in real-time based on traffic, weather, or delivery priorities. These decisions, made locally but informed by a network-wide data exchange, optimize the entire logistics chain, enhancing efficiency and customer satisfaction.

Industrial Applications and Benefits

Industries across sectors are leveraging the capabilities of networked embedded systems and distributed intelligence to enhance performance, reduce costs, and improve safety. In manufacturing, smart factories utilize embedded systems to monitor and control production processes. Machines communicate with each other and with supervisory systems to coordinate tasks, balance workloads, and ensure quality control.

In energy, smart grids use distributed embedded units to monitor electricity flow, detect faults, and manage energy distribution dynamically. These systems contribute to grid stability, integrate renewable sources more effectively, and empower consumers with real-time usage data. Transportation networks, from railways to autonomous vehicles, rely on networked systems for navigation, collision avoidance, and adaptive traffic control.

The benefits are manifold: improved operational efficiency, enhanced system reliability, real-time responsiveness, and the ability to scale without compromising performance. These advantages make the adoption of distributed intelligence not just beneficial but increasingly essential for competitiveness in a data-driven industrial landscape.

Challenges in Implementation

Despite their advantages, implementing networked embedded systems with distributed intelligence presents several challenges. Technical complexities include ensuring interoperability among diverse hardware and software components, maintaining real-time performance under variable network conditions, and securing data across distributed nodes.

Cost is another consideration. Upgrading legacy systems or deploying new infrastructure involves significant investment in both capital and expertise. Industries must assess the return on investment carefully, considering long-term gains in efficiency and maintenance savings.

Security and privacy are paramount. Distributed systems increase the attack surface for cyber threats. Protecting each node, securing communication channels, and ensuring data integrity are critical tasks that require robust security frameworks and constant vigilance. Additionally, regulatory compliance concerning data handling and operational safety must be addressed proactively.

Finally, talent shortages in fields like embedded engineering, cybersecurity, and data analytics can slow adoption. Organizations must invest in training and develop partnerships to build the necessary skill base for successful deployment and management.

Case Studies: Real-World Success Stories

Several organizations have successfully implemented networked embedded systems to achieve distributed intelligence in their operations. In automotive manufacturing, companies like BMW and Toyota have integrated smart assembly lines where each station adapts its operation based on the part it receives. This flexibility improves customization, reduces error rates, and shortens production cycles.

In the oil and gas sector, firms deploy remote monitoring systems on rigs and pipelines. These embedded devices gather environmental and operational data, process it locally, and transmit alerts or optimization recommendations. The result is increased safety, reduced operational risk, and lower maintenance costs.

The logistics industry offers another compelling example. Amazon's fulfillment centers use thousands of mobile robots equipped with networked embedded systems. These robots navigate warehouses, retrieve items, and coordinate with each other to prevent collisions and optimize routes. This automation enhances throughput, accuracy, and scalability.

Each of these cases underscores the tangible benefits of distributed intelligence enabled by networked embedded systems. They also illustrate the adaptability of these technologies across diverse industrial contexts.

The Role of Edge Computing

Edge computing is a foundational technology for distributed intelligence. By processing data close to the source, edge computing reduces latency, bandwidth consumption, and reliance on centralized data centers. This approach aligns seamlessly with the goals of networked embedded systems, enabling faster, context-aware decision-making.

For instance, in a smart grid, edge computing nodes analyze data from sensors in real-time to detect faults or optimize energy distribution. In industrial automation, edge nodes adjust machine parameters instantly based on sensor feedback, minimizing defects and downtime. This local processing capability empowers each embedded system to act with a degree of autonomy while contributing to a coherent system-wide strategy.

Companies seeking to harness the full potential of this synergy often turn to specialized edge computing solutions. These platforms provide the hardware and software infrastructure necessary to deploy, manage, and scale edge-enabled applications effectively across industrial environments.

Designing Robust Industrial Architectures

Creating an effective architecture for distributed intelligence requires careful planning and execution. Key considerations include network topology, data flow management, fault tolerance, and system scalability. Hybrid architectures that combine centralized oversight with decentralized control are often preferred for their balance of control and flexibility.

Data management is a critical factor. Designers must decide which data to process locally, which to aggregate, and which to transmit to central systems. Efficient data handling reduces bandwidth demands and ensures timely responses. Redundancy and failover mechanisms enhance resilience, ensuring that the system continues to function even if individual nodes fail.

Security architecture must be integrated from the ground up. Authentication, encryption, and intrusion detection are essential to protect the system from cyber threats. Additionally, adherence to industry standards and regulatory requirements guides the development of safe and compliant systems.

The integration of industrial embedded systems into these architectures provides the physical and computational foundation necessary to execute complex industrial tasks reliably and efficiently.

Looking Ahead: Trends and Innovations

The future of networked embedded systems and distributed intelligence is shaped by ongoing innovations in artificial intelligence, wireless communication, and semiconductor technology. AI algorithms are increasingly embedded at the node level, enabling more sophisticated local decision-making. These smart nodes can perform tasks such as anomaly detection, predictive analytics, and adaptive control without centralized input.

Advancements in communication protocols, such as 5G and time-sensitive networking (TSN), support high-speed, low-latency connectivity crucial for industrial environments. These technologies enhance the feasibility of real-time distributed systems across larger and more complex infrastructures.

Hardware miniaturization and energy efficiency continue to expand the applicability of embedded systems. Smaller, more powerful, and energy-efficient devices can be deployed in environments where traditional systems would be impractical.

As industries embrace digital transformation, the importance of networked embedded systems will only grow. Their role in enabling intelligent, autonomous, and interconnected operations positions them at the core of the next industrial revolution.

Conclusion

Networked embedded systems, when combined with distributed intelligence, represent a fundamental shift in industrial system design. They offer the promise of enhanced efficiency, resilience, and adaptability across diverse sectors. While challenges in implementation and maintenance persist, the long-term benefits—operational excellence, cost savings, and innovation—are compelling.

As the technological landscape evolves, the convergence of edge computing, embedded systems, and distributed intelligence will redefine how industries operate. Strategic investment in these technologies, supported by robust design and skilled personnel, will enable organizations to remain competitive and responsive in a rapidly changing world. This shift is not merely a technological upgrade—it is a reimagining of how intelligent systems function and evolve within the fabric of modern industry.

#Edge computing solutions #industrial embedded systems #networked embedded systems

0 notes

creativeera · 9 months ago

Text

Understanding Embedded Computing Systems and their Role in the Modern World

Embedded systems are specialized computer systems designed to perform dedicated functions within larger mechanical or electrical systems. Unlike general-purpose computers like laptops and desktop PCs, embedded systems are designed to operate on specific tasks and are not easily reprogrammable for other uses. Embedded System Hardware At the core of any embedded system is a microcontroller or microprocessor chip that acts as the processing brain. This chip contains the CPU along with RAM, ROM, I/O ports and other components integrated onto a single chip. Peripherals like sensors, displays, network ports etc. are connected to the microcontroller through its input/output ports. Embedded systems also contain supporting hardware like power supply circuits, timing crystal oscillators etc. Operating Systems for Embedded Devices While general purpose computers run full featured operating systems like Windows, Linux or MacOS, embedded systems commonly use specialized Real Time Operating Systems (RTOS). RTOS are lean and efficient kernels optimized for real-time processing with minimal overhead. Popular RTOS include FreeRTOS, QNX, VxWorks etc. Some simple devices run without an OS, accessing hardware directly via initialization code. Programming Embedded Systems Embedded Computing System are programmed using low level languages like C and C++ for maximum efficiency and control over hardware. Assembler language is also used in some applications. Programmers need expertise in Microcontroller architecture, peripherals, memory management etc. Tools include compilers, linkers, simulators and debuggers tailored for embedded development. Applications of Embedded Computing Embedded systems have revolutionized various industries by bringing intelligence and connectivity to everyday devices. Some key application areas include: Get more insights on Embedded Computing

Unlock More Insights—Explore the Report in the Language You Prefer

French

German

Italian

Russian

Japanese

Chinese

Korean

Portuguese

Alice Mutum is a seasoned senior content editor at Coherent Market Insights, leveraging extensive expertise gained from her previous role as a content writer. With seven years in content development, Alice masterfully employs SEO best practices and cutting-edge digital marketing strategies to craft high-ranking, impactful content. As an editor, she meticulously ensures flawless grammar and punctuation, precise data accuracy, and perfect alignment with audience needs in every research report. Alice's dedication to excellence and her strategic approach to content make her an invaluable asset in the world of market insights.

(LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/alice-mutum-3b247b137 )

#Embedded Computing #Embedded Systems #Microcontrollers #Embedded Software #Iot #Embedded Hardware #Embedded Programming #Edge Computing #Embedded Applications #Industrial Automation

0 notes

electricalinsightsdaily · 1 year ago

Text

RN42 Bluetooth Module: A Comprehensive Guide

The RN42 Bluetooth module was developed by Microchip Technology. It’s designed to provide Bluetooth connectivity to devices and is commonly used in various applications, including wireless communication between devices.

Features Of RN42 Bluetooth Module

The RN42 Bluetooth module comes with several key features that make it suitable for various wireless communication applications. Here are the key features of the RN42 module:

Bluetooth Version:

The RN42 module is based on Bluetooth version 2.1 + EDR (Enhanced Data Rate).

Profiles:

Supports a range of Bluetooth profiles including Serial Port Profile (SPP), Human Interface Device (HID), Audio Gateway (AG), and others. The availability of profiles makes it versatile for different types of applications.

Frequency Range:

Operates in the 2.4 GHz ISM (Industrial, Scientific, and Medical) band, the standard frequency range for Bluetooth communication.

Data Rates:

Offers data rates of up to 3 Mbps, providing a balance between speed and power consumption.

Power Supply Voltage:

Operates with a power supply voltage in the range of 3.3V to 6V, making it compatible with a variety of power sources.

Low Power Consumption:

Designed for low power consumption, making it suitable for battery-powered applications and energy-efficient designs.

Antenna Options:

Provides options for both internal and external antennas, offering flexibility in design based on the specific requirements of the application.

Interface:

Utilizes a UART (Universal Asynchronous Receiver-Transmitter) interface for serial communication, facilitating easy integration with microcontrollers and other embedded systems.

Security Features:

Implements authentication and encryption mechanisms to ensure secure wireless communication.

Read More: RN42 Bluetooth Module

0 notes

amtechinternational5 · 1 year ago

Text

What Are The Applications Of Industrial Computer Touch Screen?

The modern era of a digitally advanced world, where technology is reshaping with its evolution rapidly. The advancement in industrial computer touch screens has emerged as a revolutionary in the field of technology. The way the business is being operated with these transformative interfaces in different parts of industries. The manufacturing sector is witnessing enhanced efficiency by improving the customer experience and making a big contribution to the evolution of the industrial sector. In this article, you will discover the applications of industrial computer touch screen in the industrial sector. Read More: https://www.zupyak.com/p/3978263/t/what-are-the-applications-of-industrial-computer-touch-screen

#industrial computer touch screen #marine display monitor #embedded pc industrial

0 notes

bliiot · 1 year ago

Text

Embedded ARM Controller Node-Red System for IoT Solutions

The BL302 Embedded ARM Controller use NXP I.MX6ULL processor, with ARM Cortex-A7 architecture, running speed up to 800MHz, 512MB RAM, 8G eMMC flash. This tiny embedded computer is widely applicable to a variety of Industrial IoT solutions. BL302 Arm computer comes with 4 RS485 or RS232, 1 CAN port, 2 Ethernet ports, 2 DI, 2 PWM output and 1 USB port, 1 power input/output port, 1 HDMI, 1 Mini PCIe expansion slot for a wireless module. The Arm Based Computer supports LINUX, Ubuntu, Debian and other OS; Node-Red, QT, Python, C++; MySQL, InfluxDB, SQLite and other databases. Tiny embedded computer is widely applicable to a variety of Industrial IoT, industrial automation, energy monitoring, rail transit, and other IoT solutions.

#industrial computer #Embedded computer #ARM computer #industrial automation #industrial iot #bliiot

0 notes

chriswu08 · 2 years ago

Text

Predictive Maintenance at EdgeCOM

Predictive maintenance is the process of analyzing the operating conditions of equipment or machine to predict when maintenance should be performed on that asset based on current and historical data.

Many companies install IoT sensors such as humidity, temperature, motion, vibration, gases, and other factors that affect machine operation and wear and tear in their equipment to monitor machine conditions.

The amount of data that needs to be collected and analyzed in this process is huge, and it is costly to transfer all of this data to the server or cloud, so EdgeCOM can be used to process a portion of the data in real time, reducing the cost of data storage and also improving security. This is critical for industries where a slight delay in response time can lead to disaster.

Benefits of Predictive Maintenance

Reduced Downtime

One of the biggest concerns for manufacturers is reducing unplanned downtime. Even a small period of unplanned downtime can lead to very significant losses. Once an IoT device detects frequent spikes in any variable, managers can take preventative measures to avoid downtime or reduce it, lowering maintenance costs while reducing production time lost to maintenance.

Extended Equipment Life

By monitoring equipment in operation, it is possible to improve the health and extend the average lifespan of connected devices by repairing problems before they become irreparable.

Optimize Maintenance Schedules

Knowing in advance which parts are likely to fail allows you to plan ahead for repairs and also to rationalize spare parts ordering based on demand at the right time. Avoid overstocking spare parts or not having them when they are needed.

View More About EdgeCOM

#iot devices #iot solutions #datacollection #industrial automation #EdgeCOM #Arm Embedded computer

0 notes

tech-ahead-corp · 2 years ago

Text

IoT Network Protocols (e.g., MQTT, CoAP)

Harness robust IoT network protocols, including MQTT and CoAP, for seamless connectivity!

0 notes

robin-evry · 9 months ago

Note

what if!!! hear me out 🙏🙏 yuu was a robot/miku inspired…IT SUCKS but like…miku kinda..yuu mikyuu…😓😓

Sure no worries, no judgement from me, ask and you shall receive

𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈𝐅 𝐘𝐔𝐔 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐑𝐎𝐁𝐎𝐓 🤖👾🎤

A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer—capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically. A robot can be guided by an external control device, or the control may be embedded within. But they can act independently if their creators allow it.

( English is not my first language )

Day 3 : robot!yuu

In a world full of technology and robots. Robot!yuu was the number one idol during that time and was in the number one group of the century ; vocaloid, imagine during the middle of a performance one of their solo concerts, a black carriage arrived and they suddenly shut down.

They turned on when it was an orientation ceremony. Since robot!yuu isn't technically an organic being, they would be put between the ignihyde dorm or ramshackle.

After Crowley gave them a cellphone or asked idia if he could do maintenance to connect them to social media of twisted wonderland, by doing this they started to upload their albums towards the internet and it blew up, people are loving it, it's getting headlines about a new genre of music, and the music getting about stream by millions around the world, Robot!yuu created a genre of music. A revaluation towards the music Industry.

This managed robot!yuu to get rich overnight and allowed them to buy more expensive and to fix the ramshackle dorm more to get more expensive technology for their maintenance, Robot!yuu was planning on giving half of the money to Crowley as a thanks but he only received 1/4 half of the money.

Even tho robot! yuu is an idol, their master builds them with an offensive and defensive system, they have extremely tough metal that is hard to find as well an offensive mode, they have a lot on their arsenal attacks, energy beams, rocket launchers, shield mode, and more.

They are also able to connect to any device and hack it without any issue, they manage to hack ignihyde technology without an issue. And they are waterproof

Robot!yuu also can digest and drink things without an issue, they have a special component on their stomach to make sure they can digest things normally.

During VDC they dominated the competition. Lasers, mist appears and light sticks wave around for their presence. They change outfits depending on the song, it was literally a Miku concert.

Congratulations neige Leblanc is now one of their fans, when going down the stage, he literally ran towards you and started asking a billion of questions with stars amongst their eyes

Vil was a little sour but also amazed about robot!yuu performance, he would ask them for choreography and music ideas from them as well as fashion opinions. He originally wanted robot!yuu to transfer into ignihyde but they refused due to ignihyde has the complete equipment for them or ramshackle.

Pomifiore dorm started to take notes and tried robot!yuu fashion styles. Idia is also a supporter of them and basically a super fan, robot!yuu would come to ignihyde to help him with games or help him maintain ortho, Robot!yuu is basically a sister towards Idia and Ortho.

sorry if it's short, this is by far I could come up anon

#twisted wonderland #not canon #twst headcanons #twst scenario #disney twst #twisted wonderland yuu au #twst mc #twst wonderland #twst x reader #twst yuu au #kinda miku!yuu

258 notes · View notes

communistkenobi · 1 year ago

Text

something I’ve been thinking about is like, the internet is this magical system of technologies, never before seen in human history, and one of its capabilities is to answer virtually any question you ask of it. Which is not even remotely a novel observation obviously lol. But I’m thinking about this in the context of a point that Adorno & Horkheimer made (in The Culture Industry I think?) about the radio: that to expedience the radio, to live in a social context where there is this vast incomprehensible system of technological infrastructure that you do not understand or control, and which allows you, a mere peasant, to listen to news broadcasts, music, and advertisements, is effectively like listening to the voice of god. Like the average person’s relationship to modern telecommunications is so mystifying, incomprehensible, and abstract that we experience technologies like the radio as an all-powerful, indestructible authority, and this (obviously) shapes our relationship to the information that is shared through it. People make jokes on here about how transmission towers are angels, but like tbh that is essentially how we experience them - vast, incomprehensible, highly dangerous objects whose impact on our lives are at once all-consuming and unknowable. We do not just turn on the radio and listen to the news, we tune into what the voice of god has to say today - right now he’s selling toilet cleanser!

and all that to say, I always find something a bit incomplete about discussions about wilful ignorance online - that we live in an age of mass information and yet people still seem as ignorant as feudal peasants, or whatever. Nobody googles things, nobody tries to branch out and experience new kinds of art, nobody educates themselves on important topics they don’t understand. and like this frustration is very real and well taken, I feel it frequently, but what I’m grappling with is whether this is the correct framing - that maybe “why don’t people just google things” is the wrong question to ask, because I tend to find the explanations offered unsatisfactory. Like specifically I’m thinking of discussions on here that are about like, “anti-intellectualism”, kids these days are so ignorant even though they grew up with the internet, reading comprehension is piss poor, and so on. Recently I’ve seen a lot of weirdly moral-panicky posts about children not knowing how to type on computers because back in my day we were forced to learn how to touch-type by age 8 even though we couldn’t look up any tutorials on YouTube to help us, etc etc. And like I just do not buy that people are individually choosing to be ignorant, that people are “getting dumber,” and that this state of getting dumber is inversely related to the amount of information we have access to (which makes “getting dumber” even more dumb). An unstated assumption that goes into a lot of these “anti-intellectualism” discussions is that “information” is this universal object that has a standardised enlightening effect on the people who interact with it - that the only reason to have an ignorant, sheltered, or ill-formed opinion on something is because you have individually chosen not to Look At Information that will cure you of your ignorance. And so going back to the god radio thing, having regular access to the google search bar is not just having access to an encyclopaedia or dictionary - it is like having a direct line of communication to god, this authority that can answer any question you ask of it. But it’s not just one answer, it’s many answers, more answers than you could ever possibly read through. Google reports the number of hits it returns for whatever you type in - you will regularly get millions of answers to your question. And these answers are embedded with advertisements, just as radio news broadcasts are. Like if god is selling you toilet cleanser while telling you the number for a suicide hotline or news about what’s happening in the world, how do you psychologically deal with that, how is your relationship to capital-I Information shaped by this relationship?

The corollary to “we live in an age of mass information” is “we live in an age of mass misinformation,” but they both show up as answers on google (again, not a novel observation). but in the face of that how do you not simply stop asking questions? & of course this decision to stop asking questions is given form and substance by social circumstance, it reinforces systemic privileges and violences, and so this decision is not one free from consequence, and in many cases it is not an innocent decision. a white person deciding not to read the news because it’s too hard to figure out what is happening/too frightening/etc has the consequence of reinforcing the white supremacist outlook that is foundational to the social context of white people because they’re not reading anything that challenges that outlook. ignorance has many social contexts and many of them are violent. etc. like the consequence of “why does nobody google anything” is just a continuation of the status quo, just with this supposedly glaring and easy fix to it (simply google it). but that just leads us back to a discourse of individual choice, of people individually choosing not to “google shit.” it is a deeply individual fix to a systematic social problem. and so maybe the question is not, why doesn’t anyone google shit, but rather, why is the primary delivery system of knowledge a god that sells you toilet cleanser

#book club #um well barely . shower thoughts style post

264 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 4 days ago

Text

On March 27th, Sahil Lavingia walked into the Secretary of War Suite, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, to attend an all-hands meeting of the Department of Government Efficiency. Lavingia had been a DOGE employee for two weeks, part of a small team embedded at the Department of Veterans Affairs. So far, it had been an unexpectedly isolating experience. Lavingia communicated over the messaging app Signal with another member of the V.A.’s DOGE team, but there didn’t seem to be a Signal channel where he could interact with the rest of DOGE. Instead, Lavingia would watch Elon Musk, who led the initiative, engage with his allies on X. Lavingia told me, “You’d see where the dolphins were swimming—like, now we’re looking at D.E.I. contracts—and so you’d swim there, too.”

Before coming to Washington, Lavingia lived in New York, where he worked at Gumroad, an e-commerce site that he’d founded more than a decade earlier. He wasn’t really a MAGA guy, but he had always thought it would be interesting to work in government, and he admired Musk. In October, at a tech meetup at the New York offices of the venture-capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Lavingia talked with someone who later introduced him to a DOGEstaffer. The staffer put him in touch with a DOGE engineer, who connected him with a DOGE recruiter. The calls didn’t last much longer than five minutes. “All the questions were about ‘When can you move to D.C.?’ ” Lavingia said. Eventually, Lavingia told me, he talked to Steve Davis, the president of Musk’s Boring Company, who asked if Lavingia could code. Yes, Lavingia said. A few weeks later, he got a text: a job had opened up at the V.A. “I felt like, O.K., finally, that’s some information,” Lavingia said. He started in mid-March, making an hourly wage of about thirteen dollars.

President Donald Trump formally created DOGE by executive order on his first day in office, rebranding what had been the United States Digital Service, a kind of internal tech consultancy for the federal government. Musk’s allies quickly staffed it: Davis, who had helped Musk overhaul Twitter, effectively became C.O.O., and Chris Young, a Republican political operative who had led Musk’s super PAC, became a senior adviser. On February 2nd, Wired identified six young computer engineers, all in their late teens or early twenties, who were working for DOGE. The young coders, collectively dubbed the “DOGE kids,” had set up shop at the Office of Personnel Management and at the General Services Administration, where, according to Politico, some of them appeared to be living, having furnished four rooms with IKEA beds. That cinched the cultural image. DOGE was the tech industry’s outpost in government, the department that would move fast and break things.

Initially, it was hard to know how seriously to take the new venture, whose name derived from a meme coin. A senior figure at a conservative think tank predicted to me that DOGE would yield nothing more than a government report that would get stuffed away in a drawer. But DOGE staffers were soon identifying contracts to cancel and employees to let go. On January 28th, the Office of Personnel Management sent most federal employees an e-mail titled “Fork in the Road,” which warned of involuntary downsizing to come and offered them the chance to resign with eight months of pay and benefits. (Musk had sent Twitter employees an e-mail with nearly the same subject shortly after he bought the social-media company, which he rebranded as X.) Those who stayed in their jobs were soon required to document, at the end of each week, five things that they had worked on. A series of lawsuits accumulated in DOGE’s wake, but its actions seemed to be producing results. At the end of March, the Times estimated that the federal government had potentially been cut by twelve per cent.

Lavingia and other members of the DOGE team at the V.A. had prepared a list of accomplishments to present at the all-hands meeting. There were about fifty people in the room at the Secretary of War Suite, a surprisingly small number, Lavingia thought, if this was all of DOGE. When Musk walked in, he asked attendees to share their recent victories, and pontificated about how broken the government was. “It was this very surreal scene,” Lavingia said. He tried to engage Musk in a conversation about a project, but “everyone looked at me like I was weird, like, ‘Why are you trying to get feedback from your boss?’ ” At one point, someone asked how many I.T. workers there were at the I.R.S. It turned out to be more than seven thousand. (The agency has a total of around a hundred thousand employees.) A member of DOGE’s I.R.S. team said that he thought the tax agency needed an “exorcist.” “Elon was, like, ‘Wait, seriously?’ ” Lavingia recalled. After a few hours, Lavingia left, disappointed. “It’s almost like this is one of the things you get for working at DOGE,” he said. “You get to hang out with Elon once in a while.”

Lavingia had already grown skeptical of the effort. At the V.A., he’d initially planned to update what he’d been told was an outmoded and fragmented human-resources system, but it seemed to be working just fine. “DOGE never had an information flow that was, like, ‘Hey, Elon wants us to do this,’ ” Lavingia said. “You’re asked to give a lot, but you don’t get any access to information.” In April, he returned to New York, working remotely on improving the V.A.’s internal chatbot, VA GPT. In early May, he gave an interview that was published in Fast Company, in which he said of the government, “It’s not as inefficient as I was expecting, to be honest. I was hoping for more easy wins.” Not long after that, his access to the V.A. systems was cut off; he was fired.

Later that month, Musk announced that he, too, was leaving DOGE, after a run in which he had impressively stretched the definition of what a “special adviser” to the President could do. In Trump’s White House, with its long red ties and compulsory praise circles, Musk wore novelty T-shirts and baseball caps, and attended meetings with his four-year old son, X, whom Trump pronounced “a high-I.Q. individual.” He installed a Starlink satellite system on the White House roof, and sold Trump a red Tesla on the White House lawn. Trump obligingly climbed into the driver’s seat and assessed the car’s interior. “Everything’s computer,” the President observed.

At Musk’s sendoff in the Oval Office, Trump presented him with an oversized White House key and said that his work on DOGE had “been without comparison in modern history.” But the relationship between the two men, always transactional, had turned into a bad deal for both of them. DOGE had achieved far fewer savings than Musk had anticipated, leaving Trump backing a budget bill that would add trillions to the deficit. Musk’s work for Trump, meanwhile, had alienated liberals and centrists, tanking Tesla’s sales and stock price. In the Oval Office, Musk had a black eye, which he said he’d got after his son hit him in the face. A reporter asked him about a recent Times story alleging that he had used ketamine and other drugs extensively on the campaign trail. Musk said, “Let’s move on.”

Within days, Trump announced that he was withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman, Musk’s business associate, to run NASA, after “a thorough review of prior associations.” Musk called the Republican budget bill a “disgusting abomination,” and later started a poll on X asking if it was time to start a new political party. Trump seemed to take this personally, posting that the easiest way to save money in his budget bill would be to “terminate” the “Billions and Billions of Dollars” in government subsidies that Musk’s companies received. “Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ ” the President wrote. “I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” Musk responded, “Such an obvious lie. So sad.”

For a few hours on June 5th, the President and the world’s richest man went back and forth, until the fight landed on the subject of many rabid internet disputes—the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “Time to drop the really big bomb,” Musk wrote. “@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!” (Trump addressed the claim, telling NBC that he was “not at all friendly” with Epstein.)

At that point, many of the most experienced and talented government workers had left their jobs. Those who remained were often forced to pare back the mission and the scope of their work. Jacob Leibenluft, a senior Biden official, told me, “What DOGE has done, what the Administration has done, is cause a remarkable exodus of talent—of people who have built years and years of knowledge that is critical to the government functioning and who would, under normal circumstances, pass that knowledge on to the next generation of civil servants.”

Lavingia thought that the rupture between Musk and Trump had probably marooned many of the remaining DOGE employees, too, some of whom are still embedded in agencies throughout the federal government. It was also possible, Lavingia told me, that DOGE’s strength and its weakness had the same source. He’d seen from the inside that DOGE had no real internal structure. “At the end of the day,” he said, “DOGE is just Elon.”

Dawn on the Potomac River: rowers, joggers, a quickening column of jets descending toward the runways at Reagan National. Culs-de-sac empty; park-and-ride lots fill; the Beltway clogs hellishly. The federal government is everywhere. It is downtown, in the marble buildings near the White House, a sort of nineteenth-century visual trick to lend the appearance of Greco-Roman permanence to what remains a somewhat tenuous political project. But it is also in the Baltimore suburb of Woodlawn, where ten thousand people work at the Social Security Administration’s headquarters; on the brick campus of the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda; and in the sprawl of the defense contractors out toward Dulles. This is not the political D.C., but the projects are vast. I recently asked a former senior official at the S.S.A. if she’d been worried when Trump won. “Not really,” she said. “My focus was on the solvency crisis.”

Conservatives tend to inveigh against the federal apparatus in Washington; liberals mostly defend it. But the operations of government reflect both Republican and Democratic ambitions. Paul Light, a scholar of public service at N.Y.U.’s Wagner School, has estimated that federal contractors outnumber civil servants by two to one. Elaine Kamarck, of the Brookings Institution, has found that the majority of federal employees now work in security-related fields—thirty-six per cent of them at the Department of Defense alone. For the most part, the U.S. government is organized not to pursue transformative change but to create systems of accountability, and the growth of its expenditures is mostly tied to the sheer scale of what it is keeping tabs on. Federal spending has quintupled since the mid-sixties, adjusting for inflation, to about seven trillion dollars a year. The number of federal workers has basically stayed flat.

People cheat the federal government all the time, in all kinds of ways. Waste exists at every level. In 2011, Boeing was found to have been grossly overcharging the Army for spare helicopter parts; a four-cent metal pin, for example, was billed at $71.01. In 2020, Harvard returned $1.3 million to the Department of Health and Human Services after a public-health professor allegedly overstated how much time she’d spent working on an overseas AIDS-relief grant. Jetson Leder-Luis, a professor at Boston University who studies health-care fraud, told me that, within Medicare and Medicaid, “you get everything from doctors reclassifying procedures to, like, organized crime.”

Leder-Luis likes to cite a study that he and some colleagues conducted on fraudulent billing for dialysis transportation. Medicare has long reimbursed patients too sick to get to dialysis on their own for the cost of ambulance rides. But some unscrupulous actors (Leder-Luis thinks they were mobsters in Philadelphia) realized that it was possible to pay kickbacks to relatively healthy dialysis patients for ambulance rides they didn’t need. Word spread; between 2003 and 2017, Leder-Luis and his colleagues estimated, Medicare spent around five billion dollars on fraudulent ambulance rides. “The F.B.I. has videos of some patients walking in and out of ambulances,” Leder-Luis told me. Dialysis costs make up roughly one per cent of the federal budget. If there was that much fraud in dialysis transportation, Leder-Luis said, imagine how much there is across the entire public sector.

In recent years, wonks in both parties have begun to focus on government inefficiency as a problem. On the center left, the so-called abundance movement calls for a thinning of regulation, to allow the country to more easily create housing and clean energy. On the Trumpist right, the prevailing view is that the government has been overtaken by left-wing ideologues and the only solution is to clear-cut the bureaucracy. Trump spent the campaign promising to purge the federal government of wokeism; his advisers were committed enemies of foreign aid, consumer protection, and the Department of Education. Project 2025, a nine-hundred-page playbook for a conservative President to “dismantle the administrative state,” called the independence of the bureaucracy an “unconstitutional fairy tale.”

The last major campaign to remake the Washington bureaucracy was championed by Vice-President Al Gore, during the Clinton Administration, and developed under the name Reinventing Government. The idea was to bring the public sector up to date with the internet. Kamarck, of the Brookings Institution, was its lead staff member. She leveraged the government’s own expertise: teams of civil servants from other departments were embedded with each agency to streamline and improve its processes. Eventually, the Clinton White House got Congress to pass more than eighty separate laws related to the Reinventing Government initiative. “If you want these changes to be permanent,” Kamarck told me, “the only way to do it is to get them in law.”

DOGE was conceived in something like the opposite fashion. In the spring of 2023, Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur who had recently launched a bid for the Republican Presidential nomination, invited a New York lawyer named Philip Howard to meet with him at his campaign headquarters in Columbus, Ohio. Since the nineties, Howard has been a guru for business leaders interested in civil-service reform. Ramaswamy wanted to test out some ideas for remaking the federal bureaucracy. As the meeting progressed, Howard had the sense of an “over-intelligent mind spinning into some new theory that creates a new reality that’s not actually connected to reality.” At one point, he recalled, “Vivek was saying, ‘I think the President can really shut down agencies.’ I said, ‘You know, Congress establishes an agency. Do you really think the President can just . . .’ And he said, ‘Oh, yes, yes, it’s fine.’ ” Howard later told one of Ramaswamy’s advisers, “I really don’t think Vivek should go public with this, because it’s just not credible.”

A week after the election, Trump announced in a formal statement that “the Great Elon Musk, working in conjunction with American Patriot Vivek Ramaswamy, will lead the Department of Government Efficiency.” Initially, the two co-chairs seemed poised to occupy separate spheres. Ramaswamy would spearhead a deregulation effort; Musk would focus on cost cutting. In a joint op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, they said that they would work closely with the Office of Management and Budget, which is often described as the federal government’s central nervous system. Before the election, Ramaswamy suggested in an interview that the White House could simply fire all nonpolitical appointees whose Social Security numbers began with an even digit or ended with an odd digit. “Boom, that’s a seventy-five-per-cent reduction,” he said. A month later, Musk was asked how much money DOGE might save taxpayers. “I think we can do at least two trillion,” he said.

But during the transition Ramaswamy and Musk increasingly disagreed about how to make the government more efficient. Ramaswamy, who had apparently come around to the fact that significant cuts would require an act of Congress, began meeting regularly with a small group of legislators. Musk mostly did not attend. A source close to DOGE told me that Musk seemed to regard members of Congress as irrelevant, sometimes referring to them as “N.P.C.s,”—non-player characters—the often mute and nameless figures who populate the backgrounds of video games.

Musk was more interested in cutting spending via the executive branch, and spoke often, according to the source close to DOGE, of a need to “control the computers.” In meetings, Ramaswamy resorted to using metaphors from the tech world to emphasize the importance of deregulation, calling the government’s rules “the matrix” and insisting that DOGE needed to rewrite its source code. Musk was unmoved.

On the eve of the Inauguration, CBS News quoted a White House insider saying, “Vivek has worn out his welcome.” The following day, Ramaswamy left DOGE. Musk, in the faintly stuffy office he inherited in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, reportedly installed a large-screen TV, so that he could play video games; he sometimes slept there. A prominent conservative told me that, online, people were devising ways to influence Musk’s efforts. “You do it by tweeting at Elon and sucking up to him,” he said. “He’s like a prism, and all of social media kind of feeds to him through X.” The trouble, he said, was that “Elon goes on these destiny quests, sometimes looking for something that isn’t there, and then a lot of the government is on a destiny quest.”

Danny Werfel spent much of his career in the federal government. He worked as a policy analyst in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and as controller at the Office of Management and Budget. Most recently, as Biden’s commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, he was given the rare opportunity to not only run the government but also change it. Congress had pledged eighty billion dollars over ten years to modernize the I.R.S. and bring its collection of taxes up to par with the efforts to evade them. Werfel had expanded the agency’s Large Business and International Division, its enforcement efforts targeting cryptocurrency and high-net-worth individuals, and its investments in artificial intelligence and other technologies. As late as December, 2024, he was still hiring the next generation of civil servants. At the I.R.S.’s annual holiday party, employees were invited to have their photo taken with him; one young man, after the camera clicked, said, “Thank you, Coach!” He was a new hire, right out of college. A decade earlier, he and Werfel’s son had played in the same northern-Virginia Little League. His father, it turned out, also worked at the I.R.S.

After Trump won, Werfel “wasn’t a hundred per cent sure” that the new Administration would continue the I.R.S.’s modernization efforts, but he tried to engage with it in good faith. In early January, representatives from Trump’s transition team and DOGE met with I.R.S. leaders over Zoom to discuss the handover of power. Werfel’s team had rehearsed the scenario, fine-tuning the language that they planned to use. “We said, ‘Look, we know you have a remit for shrinking government from a people standpoint,’ ” Werfel recalled. “ ‘Do we have that right?’ And they didn’t argue—they agreed. We said, ‘Wouldn’t it be great if you could do that and also improve or maintain the performance of the I.R.S., and its collections?’ And it was, like, ‘O.K., we’re listening.’ ”

Werfel promised the Trump officials that, with a little patience, the I.R.S. could employ fewer federal workers and bring in more revenue. The more effective tax regime that Werfel had been building was not just funded; it was half assembled, like the Death Star. He urged the Administration to give it time to become fully operational. “Think of it as spans across a stream,” Werfel said. “Some of the spans are complete, and you can drive across and automate. Some of them are only halfway complete, so you can’t drive until you finish the span, and some of them you need to build before you begin.” Werfel proposed that the Trump Administration commit to reducing the agency’s personnel in the course of two to four years, and that it “modernize strategically,” to insure that fewer people didn’t mean less revenue or worse service. “That was our pitch,” Werfel said. “It resonated in the moment.”

Hours after being sworn in, Trump signed twenty-six executive orders, restoring the federal death penalty, withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization, placing a ninety-day pause on foreign aid, and eliminating diversity-equity-and-inclusion programs across the federal government. The executive order establishing DOGE seemed, by comparison, to describe a humble purpose: “to implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” Musk, though a frequent presence in the West Wing, was technically an unpaid adviser.

One area of focus for both Musk and the Administration was eradicating what the Tesla founder called the “woke mind virus.” DOGE soon boasted of cutting more than a billion dollars in D.E.I. contracts. But what, exactly, qualified as a D.E.I. program was open to interpretation. At Social Security headquarters, civil servants were directed to scrub mentions of “diversity” and “equity” from grants, publications, and performance evaluations. Laura Haltzel, who was the associate commissioner for the Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, told me, “It was, like, ‘O.K., this is incredibly inefficient. But we’ll get through it.’ ”

For twenty-five years, Haltzel’s office had operated a research-and-grant program to study the effects and the viability of the Social Security system. Recently, the program had been awarding points to potential grantees if they partnered with institutions that served minority populations, such as historically Black colleges and universities. Because of this, Haltzel told me, she was ordered to shut down the entire program, a request that she viewed as absurd. The program was not focussed on race or gender. It predated the term “D.E.I.” by decades. Haltzel’s boss had petitioned the Office of Management and Budget not to end the initiative altogether, to no avail. “They said, ‘You’ve got to kill it,’ ” Haltzel said.

Similar changes were under way at the I.R.S., where workers were deleting references to “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” from the service’s employee handbook. A senior I.R.S. official told me, “If you could measure enforcement actions by month, I bet you’d have seen a significant decline in February, because everyone was worrying about what to do about their jobs.” On February 4th, Musk posted a survey on X: “Would you like @DOGE to audit the IRS?” Two weeks later, seven thousand of the agency’s probationary employees—those who’d been hired in the past year or so—were fired. An I.R.S. employee told ProPublica, “It didn’t matter the skill set. If they were under a year, they got cut.” (A federal court later ruled that the firings were unlawful.)

Many of the fired employees had focussed on curbing tax evasion by the country’s wealthiest people. The Yale Budget Lab estimated “very conservatively” that, if DOGE cut half the I.R.S.’s employees, as it had reportedly considered doing, the reduced workforce would cost the government four hundred billion dollars in lost tax revenue, far more than the savings in salaries. Werfel used the analogy of a backpack: if you are filling a backpack, you start with the thing that is most important to you, and then find room for the rest. “They didn’t start by filling the backpack with efficiency, or collections,” Werfel said. “They filled it with job cuts.”

One evening, his wife wondered what had happened to the Little League player from the Christmas party. It turned out that he had been fired that day; he’d been given an hour to vacate the I.R.S. headquarters. His father had walked him out the door.

Every incoming Administration enjoys an unusual power in its first weeks, since the new Cabinet secretaries have not yet been appointed, and thus cannot yet object to changes at their agencies. The White House’s pause on foreign aid raised a particular panic in the Kinshasa office of the United States Agency for International Development. The following weekend, rebels from the paramilitary group M23 took control of the Congolese city of Goma, part of an ongoing conflict that Congolese citizens had long blamed on Western nations, including the U.S. There were rumors of protests in the capital. Meanwhile, dozens of senior U.S.A.I.D. officials had been placed on administrative leave, scrambling the aid workers’ lines of communication to Washington and clouding the question of who was running the agency.

On the morning of Tuesday, January 28th, many U.S.A.I.D. workers had already sent their children to school on a bus and boarded a shuttle to the U.S. Embassy when they received messages telling them that the situation in the capital might no longer be safe. The vehicles turned around, bringing their passengers back home. According to a senior U.S.A.I.D. official in Kinshasa who filed an affidavit in federal court under the pseudonym Marcus Doe, one U.S.A.I.D. worker reported that protesters were setting fires outside his residence. A little later, he requested an evacuation—his front gate had been breached. On social media, Marcus Doe could see videos of looting, and outside his own home he could hear protesters chanting. He and his wife called their kids inside and locked the doors.

Leaders at the Embassy decided to evacuate the staff, but the executive order pausing foreign assistance had made it harder for U.S.A.I.D. personnel to figure out how to fund their travel. Staffers were losing access to the agency’s internal payment system, and officials in the Congo were reluctant to authorize an expenditure, for fear that they would be accused of circumventing the executive order. Employees sought a waiver from U.S.A.I.D.’s acting administrator, a career official named Jason Gray. It was approved, but only after Marcus Doe and others had started evacuating. “I began to feel an intense sense of panic that my government might fully abandon Americans working for U.S.A.I.D. in Kinshasa,” Marcus Doe recalled. He and his colleagues began coördinating with contacts at other foreign-aid organizations. They made it across the river to Brazzaville by boat that night, with an allotment of one carry-on-size bag per person.

The new deputy administrator of U.S.A.I.D. in Washington was Pete Marocco, a former marine who, during the first Trump term, had left his job at U.S.A.I.D. after subordinates filed a thirteen-page memo accusing him of mismanagement and workplace hostility. In a closed-door meeting with lawmakers in March, the Washington Post reported, Marocco called U.S.A.I.D. a “money-laundering scheme” and said that he was examining whether foreign aid was even constitutional. “What we’re seeing right now is Pete’s revenge tour,” a former senior U.S.A.I.D. official recently told NPR. “This is personal.”

Musk shared Marocco’s dim view of foreign assistance. On January 28th, while U.S.A.I.D. staff were fleeing Kinshasa, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told reporters that DOGE and the O.M.B. had discovered that the Biden Administration planned to purchase fifty million dollars’ worth of condoms for Gaza. Musk posted on X, “Tip of iceberg.” In recent years, U.S.A.I.D., in its efforts to combat H.I.V. and AIDS around the world, has earmarked around seventeen million dollars annually for condoms, including allocations to the province of Gaza in Mozambique; none of the money went to the Palestinian territories. “Some of the things I say will be incorrect and should be corrected,” Musk later said, during an appearance in the Oval Office. “Nobody’s going to bat a thousand.”

By early March, the State Department had announced the termination of more than eighty per cent of U.S.A.I.D. contracts and all but a few hundred of its ten thousand employees. Musk had posted on X that the agency, which was placed under the direct administration of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was “a viper’s nest of radical-left marxists who hate America.” But it could be difficult to decipher which parts of its mission were progressive and which were conservative. On February 13th, Andrew Natsios, who had been George W. Bush’s U.S.A.I.D. administrator, testified about the cuts before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Natsios had helped lead a faith-based foreign-aid organization, and as the agency’s administrator had increased grants to religious groups. In his testimony, he stressed that many faith-based organizations would close without U.S.A.I.D. funding. Natsios recalled, “I could see the expressions on the Republicans’ faces: ‘Wait a second. No one told us that before. Are you telling me we’re going after our base with these cuts?’ ” He told me that the night before his testimony he’d had dinner with executives from several of the largest Christian N.G.O.s. They were livid. “Ninety per cent of them are on the verge of insolvency,” he said.

The Trump Administration’s campaign against foreign assistance was widespread. On February 28th, Marocco, accompanied by DOGE officials, staged an “emergency board meeting” outside the Inter-American Foundation, which supports civil-society organizations in Latin America and the Caribbean; Marocco announced that he was now the president and C.E.O. and moved to dissolve the organization. On March 5th, officials at the United States African Development Foundation, which invests in small businesses on the continent, managed to keep DOGE officials from coming inside; the next day, the officials returned with U.S. marshals, entered the building, and changed the locks. The following week, DOGE officials arrived at the United States Institute of Peace, an independent nonprofit founded by Congress which works to prevent and resolve violent conflicts around the world. U.S.I.P.’s leadership believed that the institute represented a kind of boundary on the DOGE project—an organization funded by, but not part of, the federal government. (Although most of the institute’s board members are appointed by the President, it was established as an entity separate from the executive branch.) When DOGE officials presented one of U.S.I.P.’s lawyers with a resolution firing the institute’s president, he rejected it as invalid. A few days later, DOGE returned with the police and took over U.S.I.P.’s building. (A federal judge later ruled that DOGE’s actions were unlawful.)

The role DOGE employees played in these closures was not especially technical. But they offered the White House a way to avoid potential bureaucratic obstacles. “The reality is that DOGE has become the instrument for carrying out the will of the President,” a senior foreign-aid official told me. “The game changer for this Administration has been its ability to use this instrument in frankly unlawful ways to carry out its will.”

Before DOGE, U.S.A.I.D. had played a leading role in collecting health data in poorer countries on child and maternal mortality, disease incidents, malnutrition, and access to clean water. Now the ability to gather that information—“the early-warning system for the next pandemic,” as Natsios put it—was gone. A network of aid companies had established a global supply chain for medications, antiretrovirals, and vaccines. It’s now unclear what will happen to the contracts for that system, which cost a few billion dollars a year, paid for by U.S.A.I.D. “There’s no way of doing this stuff without big contractors, because they’re worldwide contracts,” Natsios said. “No N.G.O. can fill that gap.”

DOGE officials were encountering a simple budgetary truth: radically paring back D.E.I. and humanitarian programs didn’t save that much money. U.S.A.I.D.’s spending in the most recent fiscal year had amounted to around forty billion dollars, less than one per cent of the over-all federal budget. But Natsios emphasized that, as a result of the cuts, the U.S. would be confronted with a more challenging world. In the next two years, he expected to see increased mass migration and instability because of famine. He was, he noted, an avowedly anti-Trump Republican. “But the responsibility for this belongs to Musk,” he said. “He is the one getting away with murder.”

By mid-February, small teams of DOGE officials were embedded at most federal agencies. (The original executive order had called for teams of four: one team leader, one engineer, one H.R. specialist, and one attorney.) They were often not a natural fit. A conservative policy analyst who spent time in the Department of Education’s headquarters this winter told me that the DOGE team was largely siloed off, interacting only with a couple of senior staffers, and that its members seemed particularly worried about the possibility of being doxed online. “Your standard political appointee came out of the Heritage Foundation, and has a family and works nine to five and then goes home,” the conservative analyst told me. “The DOGE guys are completely different. They are sleeping in some corner of the building, just looking at their computers. So they’re really seen almost as these exotic animals that can’t be touched.”

Erie Meyer, the chief technologist of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, was at first cautiously optimistic about DOGE. A veteran of the U.S. Digital Service, she had long advocated for more efficiency in government. “I thought, At least the President will have technical people advising him,” Meyer told me. She was a political appointee from the Biden Administration; she had no illusions about her own future. In January, she worked to identify projects that might interest the incoming Administration. Meyer told me, “I basically said, ‘If you want them, here are some easy wins.’ ”

On her last day at the C.F.P.B., Meyer noticed a group of five men wandering around the executive suite; one of them was trying to open the deputy director’s office, but it required a key card. She recognized another from the news—a blond twenty-three-year-old former SpaceX intern named Luke Farritor. Meyer walked out and introduced herself. Were they looking for the printer, she asked, trying to think of an innocuous explanation for jiggling door handles in the executive offices of a government agency. No, a slightly older man, “schlumpy in that D.C. way,” as Meyer put it, told her. It turned out that he was Chris Young, the DOGE leader who’d run Musk’s PAC. He and Meyer made small talk for a minute, and then the group left.

The C.F.P.B., the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren, was created by Congress in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to protect Americans from financial manipulation. Its databases are filled with details of open investigations, including the names of whistle-blowers and their specific allegations. Meyer became increasingly worried about DOGE’s attempts to access the vast stores of personal and corporate data housed at the C.F.P.B. On January 31st, a longtime Treasury official named David Lebryk, who led the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, which sends out payments on behalf of government agencies, resigned after clashing with DOGE officials over their access to the payment system. Lebryk was well regarded across the government, and his resignation reverberated. As a former Social Security official put it, “When it’s, like, ‘Oh, DOGE is trying to get in and Lebryk took a bullet to prevent it,’ that’s pretty concerning, right?”

On February 7th, Musk posted on X, “CFPB RIP.” Later that day, Russell Vought, the director of the O.M.B. and a DOGE ally, sent an e-mail to C.F.P.B. staffers saying that he was assuming control of the agency. Vought, an original architect of Project 2025, has been outspoken about his desire to defund government programs and fire career civil servants. “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said in a private speech in 2023. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains.”

Vought ordered all C.F.P.B. employees to stop work; eventually, more than a thousand of them were placed on administrative leave. One of the C.F.P.B.’s leaders e-mailed Mark Paoletta, the general counsel at the O.M.B., asking if the agency could at least resume monitoring companies and “was just told no—you have no authority right now.” The union representing most of the agency’s employees sued, winning a preliminary injunction to halt the dismissals. At that point, the C.F.P.B. entered a kind of zombie state, which an enforcement attorney described as “just turning on your computer to stare at it for eight hours with nothing to do.”

The Social Security Administration was under the direction of Michelle King, a career official who had recently been elevated to acting commissioner, when the DOGE representatives began to arrive, in early February. First came Michael Russo, a longtime tech executive who was appointed as the S.S.A.’s chief information officer; then came a coder named Akash Bobba, who had recently graduated from U.C.-Berkeley. According to a senior S.S.A. official, Bobba arrived “sort of spilling over with laptops and cellphones belonging to other agencies he was already working with.” King and her team grew wary when Russo asked for direct access to the main Social Security data files—among them the Death Master File, on which the S.S.A. records each number holder who has died. The senior S.S.A. official said, “It just was never totally clear what Mike wanted access to the Death Master File for.”

Russo and Bobba were set up in an office, working with a small group of anti-fraud officials from the S.S.A., but Bobba had not yet received the credentials necessary to access the S.S.A.’s data files. Steve Davis, incensed, started reaching out to senior S.S.A. officials. “It was ‘S.S.A has got to be the worst agency in the whole government,’ ” the former S.S.A. official said. “ ‘There’s no reason that this hasn’t happened yet. Make it happen.’ ” Russo demanded that Bobba be allowed to visit the S.S.A.’s main data center. “There is absolutely nothing to see there—a loading dock, some security, a bunch of computers,” the former S.S.A. official said. “But their view was they didn’t trust any of the permanent staff at S.S.A., so they needed Akash to get directly in.”

On February 11th, Musk joined Trump in the Oval Office and told reporters that his team had found “crazy things” happening within the Social Security system, including benefit recipients who were a hundred and fifty years old. Employees at the S.S.A. were mystified—virtually no one who had been dead more than a month was receiving benefits, and certainly not a hundred-and-fifty-year-old. S.S.A. officials, unable to reach Musk or Davis directly, tried to explain the situation to Russo, hoping that what they said would percolate up to Musk. “What was weird about that period was everything seemed to be coming through DOGE, rather than from the O.M.B. or from the White House, but it was almost impossible to get any information up the chain,” someone who temporarily led a government agency this winter told me. “They would never let us interface with them directly, since that was sacred. So it was like a really bad game of telephone.”

That Sunday, Musk posted a chart suggesting that there were three hundred and ninety-eight million active Social Security numbers. “Yes, there are FAR more ‘eligible’ social security numbers than there are citizens in the USA,” he wrote. “This might be the biggest fraud in history.” S.S.A. officials were peeved. A week earlier, a few of them had patiently explained to Bobba that the chart contained not the number of people receiving Social Security benefits but, rather, the total number of people without death records. When officials asked Bobba about Musk’s post, he said, “I told him everything you told me. He just tweeted it anyway.”

Meanwhile, the relationship between King and the DOGE team had deteriorated. On February 14th, S.S.A. leadership placed Leland Dudek, a sixteen-year veteran of the S.S.A., who had been working closely with DOGE, on administrative leave. Dudek posted a defiant message on LinkedIn and spent the weekend searching for a new job. Meanwhile, Davis called another S.S.A. official. “I have the agency’s complete executive roster,” the official recalled him saying. “I’d like you to go through it with me and tell me your thoughts on who should be fired.” King resigned, and Dudek received an e-mail from an official at the Office of Personnel Management notifying him that his administrative leave was lifted and he was now in charge of the entire agency.

Dudek did not think that the S.S.A. should fight DOGE directly. “Elections have consequences,” he wrote in an e-mail to Social Security employees. In March, according to a recording obtained by ProPublica, he urged the staff to be patient with the “DOGE kids.” But he was also committed to keeping the agency functional. The DOGE team wanted to lay off the S.S.A.’s probationary workers. In meetings that included representatives from the O.P.M. and the G.S.A., and congressional staffers, Dudek went through the list of potential layoffs: How many were veterans or military spouses or worked in customer-service positions? Surely, Dudek said, President Trump would not want to let those people go. The total number of cuts dwindled from what might have been fifteen hundred to less than two dozen.

Dudek wanted to keep the checks going out and limit the personnel losses. But, in doing so, he was forced to make compromises. In April, a DOGE official named Aram Moghaddassi, an ex-Twitter engineer who was embedded with both the S.S.A. and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, sent Dudek a request to take away the Social Security numbers of sixty-three hundred immigrants who had been allowed to enter the country during the Biden Administration. Doing so would make it impossible for those individuals to work legally, open bank accounts and lines of credit, or access government benefits. In a separate memo, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, explained that the cancellations would “prevent suspected terrorists who are here illegally” from having “privileges reserved for those with lawful status.” Dudek determined that the simplest way to make the change would be to add all the names to the Death Master File, a move he soon authorized. The former Social Security official, who by then had left the agency, told me, “This was the one truly totalitarian thing the agency was asked to do.”

In the five months since DOGE officially began its operations, the scale of its projected savings has steadily dwindled. Musk revised his original promise of two trillion dollars to one trillion. In May, reporters from the Financial Times went through the “wall of receipts” that DOGE had been posting online, which now claims a hundred and eighty billion dollars in savings. They concluded that “only a sliver of that figure can be verified.” The Times, which has made a series of similar findings, reported, “The group posted a claim that confused billions with millions, triple-counted the savings from a single contract and claimed credit for canceling contracts that had ended under President George W. Bush.”

DOGE has reportedly cut more than two hundred and eighty thousand government jobs—U.S.A.I.D. and the C.F.P.B. have been effectively eliminated—and the fate of much of the rest of the bureaucracy is now in the hands of federal judges. But even if DOGE’s accounting is taken at face value, the effort has still slashed less than three per cent of the federal budget. Zachary Liscow, a chief economist at the O.M.B. during the Biden Administration, wasn’t especially surprised by the small numbers. The total cost, including pay and benefits, of all civilian personnel across the federal government, Liscow said, is just four per cent of the budget. The entire non-defense discretionary budget amounts to about nine hundred billion dollars—one-seventh of the total. Liscow, who is now a professor at Yale Law School, said cutting government personnel is unlikely to lead to savings, since fewer people helping with oversight often allows the costs of contracts to balloon: “If, in the name of efficiency, they cut a bunch of I.R.S. employees who pay for themselves many times over, it makes you wonder what motivates them.”

The savings that DOGE uncovered were supposed to help pay for tax cuts—one Trump operative even conceived of “DOGE checks,” through which money would be returned to the public. But the Republican budget in Congress would now add three trillion dollars to the national debt. “It’s a lost opportunity,” Howard, the lawyer and conservative regulatory specialist, told me. DOGE “was not focussed on any vision of how to make government more efficient—just on cutting. They didn’t have any vision of duplication, or of how to create more effective operating systems. You can fire the paper pushers, but if the law says you’ve got to push this paper, and there’s no one left to push it, that’s a formula for paralysis.”

Veronique de Rugy, a leading libertarian thinker at the Mercatus Center and one of the thirty-four named authors of Project 2025, also initially supported DOGE. But she eventually grew disillusioned with what she regarded as its almost singular focus on culture-war issues. In March, she wrote, in an essay for Reason, “For all the talk about cutting government waste and fraud, the DOGE-Trump team seems mostly animated by rooting out leftist culture politics and its practitioners in Washington.” She was especially concerned by the ways in which DOGE seemed to be expanding, rather than curtailing, the powers of the executive. “Being a libertarian right now,” she told me, “is like being punched in the face with your own ideas by a drunk teen-ager.”

Even before Musk and Trump’s blowup, some of DOGE’s main lieutenants, including Davis, were quietly exiting. Their departures offered a reminder of the essential imbalance between the bureaucrats’ enduring stake in the structure of government and the fleeting and contingent interest of Musk’s team. After Musk’s departure, Vought, at the O.M.B., became the face of what remained of DOGE, which made a certain amount of sense: without the new-new gloss of tech, the project would revert to a more mundane, institutional form.

What, then, was DOGE? Part of its pitch was that it would infuse government with talent, replacing diversity hires and ineffective workers with more adept ones from the startup industry. The young embeds who moved throughout the government, whom Musk raved about during his Fox News appearances, were an embodiment of this vision. But, in the end, the quickest way for DOGE to cut the government had nothing to do with technology. Lavingia told me that, during his two months at the V.A., he came to the conclusion that there were not actually so many people sitting around doing nothing. “To be honest, it is often worse in the tech industry, where you have venture money and low interest rates,” he said. “It can be pretty inefficient.”

I asked the former S.S.A. official, who had worked closely with several DOGE coders, what he thought of their abilities. “In general, they were all pretty talented for their level of experience,” he said. “If we’d taken them on as junior hires, they would probably have progressed pretty quickly in a hierarchical organization.” But, by design, they existed outside the civil service, with little guidance on what to do and why. “They all seemed pretty desperate for Elon to say that they were doing good,” the former official said. “There was a lot of ‘What does E. want?’ ‘Did you see what E. said?’ ” The former official compared the situation to the science-fiction novel “Ender’s Game,” by Orson Scott Card, in which a team of children who are invited by the military to play an elaborate video game are unknowingly operating actual weapons of war.

A conservative influencer familiar with DOGE made a similar point about Musk, saying that he’d attempted to transfer the partisanship of social media to the weights and measures of the federal government. “It’s true of a lot of people, and it’s definitely true of Elon, that you live on X and your psychology is merged with the cesspool of the modern internet,” the influencer told me. “Going in and deregulating things and cutting costs might have achieved the policy result. But he’s playing a different sport—getting people to hit him really hard and then becoming a savior to everyone who hates those people.” He added, “It’s not that the vitriol from the other side is an unfortunate side effect—it’s actually the point.”

When I spoke with Lavingia, he reflected on what DOGE had actually achieved. It had been blamed for mass firings and contract cancellations across the government, but, in reality, it had played the role of technological adviser to politically appointed agency heads. “There’s a lot of power that comes in that first hundred days,” Lavingia said. “But DOGE and Elon really mostly had soft power—they didn’t have hard power.” The hard power had come from Trump; the soft power depended on Musk’s influence over him. “The premise of DOGE requires Elon and Trump to really be aligned,” Lavingia said. “And it now seems that was kind of for show.”

14 notes · View notes

playstationvii · 7 months ago

Text

Jest: A Concept for a New Programming Language

Summary: "Jest" could be envisioned as a novel computer programming language with a focus on humor, playfulness, or efficiency in a specific domain. Its design might embrace creativity in syntax, a unique philosophy, or a purpose-driven ecosystem for developers. It could potentially bridge accessibility with functionality, making coding intuitive and enjoyable.

Definition: Jest: A hypothetical computer language designed with a balance of simplicity, expressiveness, and potentially humor. The name suggests it might include unconventional features, playful interactions, or focus on lightweight scripting with a minimalist approach to problem-solving.

Expansion: If Jest were to exist, it might embody these features:

Playful Syntax: Commands and expressions that use conversational, quirky, or approachable language. Example:

joke "Why did the loop break? It couldn't handle the pressure!"; if (laughs > 0) { clap(); }

Efficiency-Focused: Ideal for scripting, rapid prototyping, or teaching, with shortcuts that reduce boilerplate code.

Modular Philosophy: Encourages user-created modules or libraries, reflecting its playful tone with practical use cases.

Integrated Humor or Personality: Built-in error messages or prompts might be witty or personalized.

Flexibility: Multi-paradigm support, including functional, procedural, and object-oriented programming.

Transcription: An example code snippet for a Jest-like language:

// Hello World in Jest greet = "Hello, World!"; print(greet); laugh();

A Jest program that calculates Fibonacci numbers might look like this:

// Fibonacci in Jest fib = (n) => n < 2 ? n : fib(n-1) + fib(n-2);

joke "What's the Fibonacci sequence? You'll love it, it grows on you!"; n = 10; print("The Fibonacci number at", n, "is:", fib(n));

Potential Domains:

Gamified education

Creative industries

AI-driven storytelling

Interactive debugging

Would you like me to refine or explore additional aspects?

Certainly! If we were to imagine Jest as the brainchild of a creative coder or team, their portfolio would likely include other innovative or experimental programming languages. Let’s expand on this concept and invent some plausible complementary languages the same inventor might have designed.

Related Languages by the Inventor of Jest

Pantomime

Description: A visual programming language inspired by gesture and movement, where users "drag and drop" symbols or create flowcharts to express logic. Designed for non-coders or children to learn programming through interaction.

Key Features:

Icon-based syntax: Conditional loops, variables, and functions represented visually.

Works seamlessly with Jest for creating visual representations of Jest scripts.

Sample Code (Visual Representation): Flowchart blocks: Input → Decision → Output.

Facet

Description: A declarative programming language focusing on creativity and modularity, aimed at artists, designers, and 3D modelers. Facet could integrate well with game engines and creative suites like Blender or Unity.

Key Features:

Embedded visual tools for shaders, animations, and simulations.

Simplified expressions for creative coding (e.g., animations and generative art).

Sample Code:

shape = circle(radius: 10, color: "blue"); animation = wave(shape, amplitude: 5, frequency: 2); render(animation, duration: 10s);

Quip

Description: A lightweight scripting language built for humor, similar to Jest, but more focused on natural language processing, chatbots, and interactive storytelling.

Key Features:

Syntax mirrors conversational English.

Designed for AI integration, especially in storytelling apps.

Sample Code:

character "Alice" says "Hello! What's your name?"; user_input -> name; character "Alice" says "Nice to meet you, {name}!";

Cryptic

Description: A language for designing cryptography algorithms and secure communications. Aimed at developers interested in blockchain, encryption, or cybersecurity.

Key Features:

High-level abstractions for cryptographic primitives.

Secure-by-design philosophy.

Sample Code:

key = generate_key(algorithm: "AES", length: 256); encrypted_message = encrypt("Hello, World!", key); print(encrypted_message);

Harmony

Description: A reactive programming language for building interactive user interfaces, designed to be highly interoperable with Jest and other tools in the suite. Perfect for web developers and app creators.

Key Features:

Two-way data binding with minimal boilerplate.

Component-based architecture.

Sample Code:

component Button { state: clicked = false; onClick() { clicked = !clicked; alert("Button clicked!"); } } render(Button);

Inventor’s Vision

The coder or team behind Jest and these complementary languages would likely be passionate about:

Accessibility: Making programming intuitive and fun for people of all skill levels.

Playfulness: Infusing coding with creativity, humor, and expressiveness.

Interoperability: Ensuring all their languages work well together for larger projects.

Would you like me to dive deeper into one of these languages, conceptualize others, or expand Jest further?

Expanded Concepts and Bridge Languages

Pantomime

Expansion: Adds support for AR/VR interfaces where users use gestures to program logic in 3D space. For example, drawing a loop physically creates a repetitive cycle.

Bridge Language: GestureScript: Converts AR/VR gestures from Pantomime into traditional code for broader applications.

Facet

Expansion: Enhanced for generative AI tools, allowing users to define complex artistic styles and AI-driven procedural designs.

Bridge Language: PixelForge: Focused on exporting Facet code into game engines, enabling real-time rendering pipelines for interactive environments.

Quip

Expansion: Includes pre-trained AI models for dynamic storytelling, allowing Quip scripts to evolve based on user interaction.

Bridge Language: Narrate: Combines Quip scripts with voice-to-text technologies for live storytelling in games or educational tools.

Cryptic

Expansion: Introduces quantum-safe cryptography primitives and allows simulation of blockchain-like ecosystems for testing purposes.

Bridge Language: CipherBridge: Translates Cryptic code into various blockchain frameworks like Ethereum or Solana.

Harmony

Expansion: Gains support for cross-platform development, allowing users to write code for web, mobile, and IoT devices simultaneously.

Bridge Language: Symphony: Converts Harmony components into platform-native scripts for seamless integration.

Additional Bridge Languages

Echo: Bridges Quip and Jest, enabling storytelling code to trigger functional scripts for immersive experiences.

Morph: A universal language that compiles any Jest family code into executable binaries for specific operating systems.

Thread: Integrates Cryptic and Harmony to build secure, reactive user interfaces for fintech applications.

Canvas: Bridges Facet and Pantomime to create interactive art in AR/VR, blending visual coding with gesture inputs.

Let me know if you'd like a deeper dive into any specific language or bridge concept!

Here's a detailed exploration of Echo, Morph, Thread, Canvas, and all previously mentioned languages, emphasizing their unique applications and advanced functionalities.

Expanded Bridge Languages

Echo

Purpose: Links storytelling elements in Quip with functional programming in Jest, enabling dynamic, immersive interactions between narrative and logic.

Key Features:

Story-driven logic triggers: e.g., a character’s dialogue prompts a database query or API call.

Integration with AI tools for real-time responses.

Use Case: AI-driven chatbots that incorporate both storytelling and complex backend workflows.

Sample Code:

story_event "hero_arrives" triggers fetch_data("weather"); response = "The hero enters amidst a storm: {weather}.";

Morph

Purpose: Acts as a meta-compiler, translating any language in the Jest ecosystem into optimized, platform-specific binaries.

Key Features:

Universal compatibility across operating systems and architectures.

Performance tuning during compilation.

Use Case: Porting a Jest-based application to embedded systems or gaming consoles.

Sample Code:

input: Facet script; target_platform: "PS7"; compile_to_binary();

Thread

Purpose: Combines Cryptic's security features with Harmony's reactive architecture to create secure, interactive user interfaces.

Key Features:

Secure data binding for fintech or healthcare applications.

Integration with blockchain for smart contracts.

Use Case: Decentralized finance (DeFi) apps with intuitive, safe user interfaces.

Sample Code:

bind secure_input("account_number") to blockchain_check("balance"); render UI_component(balance_display);

Canvas

Purpose: Fuses Facet's generative design tools with Pantomime's gesture-based coding for AR/VR art creation.

Key Features:

Real-time 3D design with hand gestures.

Multi-modal export to AR/VR platforms or 3D printers.

Use Case: Collaborative VR environments for designers and architects.

Sample Code:

gesture: "draw_circle" → create_3D_shape("sphere"); gesture: "scale_up" → modify_shape("sphere", scale: 2x); render(scene);

Deep Dive into Main Languages

Jest

Philosophy: A playful, expressive scripting language with versatile syntax tailored for humor, experimentation, and creativity.

Core Application: Writing scripts that blend functional programming with a whimsical, human-readable style.

Pantomime

Expanded Features: Includes AI-driven gesture recognition for predictive modeling and natural motion capture.

Advanced Use: Developing AR apps for rehabilitation therapy where exercises are coded as gestures.

Facet

Advanced Use: Procedural generation in games, defining terrains, weather systems, and NPC behaviors with artistic flair.

Quip

Advanced Features: Integrates pre-trained language models for nuanced, character-driven dialogue trees.

Advanced Use: Creating adaptive narratives in games where user decisions alter the story arc.

Cryptic

Advanced Features: Quantum-safe algorithms and AI-enhanced key generation for unbreakable security.

Advanced Use: Designing multi-layered blockchain ecosystems with Cryptic’s high-level abstractions.

Harmony

Advanced Features: Adaptive UIs that respond to user emotion, tracked via AI-enhanced cameras.

Advanced Use: Apps for mental health, where interfaces adjust to user stress levels.

Proposed New Bridge Languages

Chord

Bridges Harmony and Facet for designing interactive music-based visual art.

Use Case: Music videos where the visuals respond to real-time sound input.

Path

Links Cryptic and Canvas for secure AR/VR environments.

Use Case: Virtual meetings in secure, customized 3D spaces.

Fable

Connects Quip and Pantomime for storytelling via interactive gestures.

Use Case: VR education apps where lessons are taught through immersive narratives.

Would you like a specific implementation plan for any of these languages or applications?

9 notes · View notes