It's sad that there are so many people that don't realize what they're saying is absolutely illogical. I agree with you, the technical details are irrelevant if there are people getting payments with those attributes it's a problem.
Nope, you're totally wrong. it's entirely a technical issue if it's an old system that handles exceptional circumstances in odd ways. The facts of the case(s) are not known.
You don't know what the recipient's details are, you're just saying it's a problem without knowing any of the facts around the individuals circumstances.
You're simply thinking in the most shallow way possible.
How are your "unknown facts" that you've NOT substantiated at all, more relevant than my "unknown facts" that are based on logical conclusions?
If that field is the qualifying field that it was presented as, Then any record with that data means you shouldn't be getting payments. And it was communicated that there are individuals getting payments with that dirty field.
Aren't you just doing the same thing, just in reverse? Ie you don't know any facts about individual cases, yet assume there is no problem. (If that's not your position, in what sense is gp "totally wrong"?)
The number of super old accounts is many millions. There is no way that this particular number is indicative of a fraud problem.
Now you could motte-and-bailey the sentence "the technical details are irrelevant if there are people getting payments with those attributes it's a problem" by saying oh if any accounts in this group are getting payments, even if it's just a handful of them, that's a problem. But if we're talking about the number of these accounts being representative of the amount of fraud, there's no way that's true.
The person I was replying to was implying that they were fraud.
But uh, you don't think Musk was implying that? He decided to make an announcement that there were lots of super old accounts without any implication beyond their mere existence in a completely inactive state?
And I'm not going to ignore blatant implications to accept "oh he didn't say it".
Is it plausible that, given the claim is that people currently >150 years old are receiving money, in the previous 40 years of audits, etc., no-one has noticed that people >110 (vanishingly rare in the US) were getting money? That it took the arrival of Elon and his Special Boys with their cursory glance to immediately spot this problem that must have been missed by every other developer, tested, auditor, etc. for AT LEAST 40 years? Or that there has been some vast conspiracy - on both sides of the US political aisle - to keep paying out this money to clearly ineligible people without a single person ever whistleblowing?
My money is on the vastly simpler "Elon and his Special Boys[0] have misunderstood" hypothesis.
[0] who have not demonstrated a great acumen for being correct at any point, let's be honest.
