Right! If you think DOGE folks have any concept of acceptable change
management practices, or that they care about what they break from
ignorance or lack of understanding, you haven't been paying attention.
These dodgy guys are convinced they are geniuses who can understand and
improve the SSA system after a few days of study. When you are convinced
you are "top gun" and can't make mistakes, then you see parallel testing
as redundant. As long as it compiles, just put it into production and
insist all results must be correct. If a few people starve or die
homeless as a result, that's just acceptable collateral damage from
incorrect use of the system.
According to Trump's Commerce Secretary, the only ones who will be upset
about receiving incorrect SS payments or late SS payments are those who
are trying to commit fraud. With the quality of people currently in
charge, one would expect adoption of the approach that worked so well in
the UK for almost three decades with their postmaster accounting
system: insist the computer results are accurate, deny that problems
are being reported, and imprison or fine the complainers for
misappropriation of funds.
JC Ewing
On 4/4/25 12:25 PM, Michael Watkins wrote:
'I can see the problems occurring when they run both systems in parallel for 6
months...'
Why assume they will run both systems in parallel for 6 months?
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of
Colin Paice
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 12:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: DOGE wants to modernize Social Security’s legacy tech — what could
possibly go wrong? – Computerworld
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Texas Comptroller's email
system.
DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you expect them from the sender
and know the content is safe.
They may be able to automate changing the code to a fancier language - that's the
"easy bit"
I can see the problems occurring when they run both systems in parallel for
6 months, and try to find the cause of the two systems giving different results
- this is the hard bit.
I remember having problems when we changed the version of the compiler...
it exposed a timing window - and this was on the same code base!
This situation is when you need tracing etc in the programs, which you will not
from the automatic conversion.
Colin
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 at 18:03, Mark Regan <
[email protected]> wrote:
This might wrap for some of you.
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
computerworld.com%2Farticle%2F3953741%2Fdoge-wants-to-modernize-social
-securitys-legacy-tech-what-could-possibly-go-wrong.html&data=05%7C02%
7Cmichael.watkins%40CPA.TEXAS.GOV%7C118691511d17473e764908dd739c5d3d%7
C2055feba299d4d0daa5a73b8b42fef08%7C0%7C0%7C638793837587325501%7CUnkno
wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXa
W4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VhPt8pUvSYb
XmxnY54eZbVr8BIOdf6WRSVNbCYEl5qk%3D&reserved=0
Regards,
Mark Regan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to
[email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
--
Joel C Ewing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
