It blows my mind how many people like "that's so inefficient!" or "that will create so many problems!", giving even a shred of consideration to this fake org that its goal has literally anything to do with what it says publicly. It's a complete farce.
I've said this a dozen times here now, but the word "efficiency" doesn't really mean anything in isolation; "efficiency" only really makes sense if you define what you're optimizing for.
Since they don't really do that, they can then define the term to mean whatever they want and then declare it as "successful".
It's absolutely not clear that that's true, and "financial efficiency" doesn't make sense either in isolation.
You could only make the argument that what they're doing is "more efficient" if we're getting the same output while spending less money, but since they're cutting entire programs then I don't think it's fair to assume at all that we are getting the same output. It is absolutely not implied that spending less money and reducing the federal workforce is going to be "more efficient" by literally any definition of the term that I can think of.
And it's really odd the DOGE hasn't found any "inefficiency" in the contracts that Tesla and SpaceX has with the federal government. I would personally think that spending $400 million on a bunch of famously unreliable cars pretending that they're tanks is a waste of money, but I'm not the richest person alive, so what do I know.
