Live data from Hacker News

Recreation.gov

recreation.gov

71–80 of 205 posts

Re: Recreation.gov

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fetish we have with trying to private sector everything is a financial disaster. We can pay people to build it directly, it's ok. There doesn't need to be an unaccountable greased palm making $100 million in the background through some "public-private partnership". If the contractor makes a profit we pay more. If instead the government makes a profit, we pay less (see public banking for an example). Kinda funny h…

The government makes a profit? How does that work?

One of the most common vehicles for this are Sovereign Wealth Funds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund

Norway uses one for their pension program (AUM of > $1 trillion, owning over 1.4% of the global stock market, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...)

My favorite one, however, was created by Ronald Reagan, the United States Mint Commemorative Coin Program:

> Since the modern commemorative coin program began in 1982, the United States Mint has raised more than $506,301,189 in surcharges to help build new museums, maintain national monuments... and much more.

https://www.usmint.gov/news/inside-the-mint/commemorative-co...

Honestly a world where the government has, say a commercial for-profit version of NPR, high speed internet, etc, that coexists with other current offerings and then re-invests that into government programs and needs less tax dollars from me sounds like a great idea. Tax payer money already paid for most of the infrastructure, we might as well profit from it.

There's some odd political animosity to it however, as if asking for a tax-payer owned version of NBC with some entertaining primetime shows is like some kind of slippery slope to autocratic socialism ... it's actually bringing capitalism into the government like never before and allowing them to say, not have to ask me to vote on raising my sales tax to build a train. Instead they ask us how we want to use all those sweet profits.

... it'd be nice ...

Re: Recreation.gov

#73
post #16

I worked in the bot defense space for quite some time, and it’s insane how much of the bot efforts were dedicated to getting camping spots. I’m happy to see this being recognized because I had many summers ruined because I couldn’t just get my old favorite camp spot.

In my experience many of the best camp sites I have been to have been in federal forest land on forest roads. The tougher the road the better (limits traffic). I have found some amazing places in Colorado that you could never reserve and they don’t exist as official camp sites. You find a good spot and you camp. Camp grounds with packed in sites are... good for some things. I acknowledge this is a problem for some high traffic areas, but how natural and interesting is that kind of camping. It’s a shade below glamping. This does make camping accessible and of course there are edge cases, but in general I just find it pretty uninteresting. Anyway, I acknowledge the problem, but it’s also not really a problem for me and many people I know.

Re: Recreation.gov

#74

Not reCAPTCHA, please. It’s horrendous in any environment that blocks any real amount of tracking. Rate limiting would solve the bot issue without inconveniencing regular users.

As someone with lots of anti-anti-botting knowledge - both are ineffective. Even if it's a "global rate limit" I'll find out the value (never ran into someone randomizing it) and jump on the web request faster than anyone else RIGHT as it comes up. With CAPTCHAs I'll bypass with a solving service and/or computer vision if it's easy, or even just get past the noCAPTCHA solutions with primed browser instances from cred…

> As someone with lots of anti-anti-botting knowledge

Any recommendations for books/other information sources? Currently doing some backend work for a company that mainly does scraping and a lot of this seems to be based on the tribal knowledge of the resident old wise one.

Re: Recreation.gov

#76
post #75

But why the government have to do it? Isn't it a profitable business in itself?

IMHO, this type of sites should be developed and owned by the government. It's OK if someone finds a way to monetize this, but the directory itself should be public.

Re: Recreation.gov

#77

They REALLY need recaptcha on park reservations, or some sort of other automation. I'm 90% sure that botting is the only realistic way to get campsites in some high demand areas (such as lower and upper pines of Yosemite). I'm convinced the only reason there's not MORE scripts around to do it is because their API/web framework is impossibly ugly and not intuitive.

Why don't they run a lottery rather than first-come-first-served on a website?

That doesn’t really obviate the need for a captcha, since the number of bots can be scaled arbitrarily high fairly easily.

Re: Recreation.gov

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't they run a lottery rather than first-come-first-served on a website?

Because that would be fair and reasonable.

Probably because it would increase cost (programming the system, administering it) and they're severely underfunded?

Re: Recreation.gov

#79
post #68

They REALLY need recaptcha on park reservations, or some sort of other automation. I'm 90% sure that botting is the only realistic way to get campsites in some high demand areas (such as lower and upper pines of Yosemite). I'm convinced the only reason there's not MORE scripts around to do it is because their API/web framework is impossibly ugly and not intuitive.

Seriously. I hate that visiting a national park now involves the same sort of online shenanigans as getting a popular concert ticket. That's not the vibe that should be associated with our parks system. Anyone botting the site should feel ashamed.

What shenanigans? The popular spots really are popular, which is why nearly everything will be booked to most interested visitors. Are you just suggesting that there shouldn’t be online reservations at all?
Post reply on HN