Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why YC went to DC

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 407 posts

Re: Why YC went to DC

#131

Post by yqx »

simonw wrote: post #13

This new essay by Jack Clark, who was at OpenAI when they made the decision not to release GPT-2 for safety reasons five years ago, feels relevant: https://importai.substack.com/p/import-ai-375-gpt-2-five-yea... > [...] history shows that once we assign power to governments, they're loathe to subsequently give that power back to the people. Policy is a ratchet and things tend to accrete over time. That means whatever…

I'm curious what history Jack Clark is referring to here.

If I think of the last thirty years of policy in most of Europe and the US I'm thinking of a strong trend of deregulation and giving more powers to markets, removing international trade barriers and so on.

That seems to be a dynamic opposite to the one the quoted article is suggesting.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#132

Post by pclmulqdq »

candiddevmike wrote: post #35
siliconc0w wrote: post #9

If you need more things to fix: * Software R&D Amortization - taxes on make-believe profits * Patent law - protect small businesses from patent trolls * Automate government-driven compliance standards - enable small businesses to sell into large companies/government entities, automatic certification when using pre-approved cloud solutions. * Healthcare insurance - employees of SMBs automatically get access to medicar…

> * Automate government-driven compliance standards - enable small businesses to sell into large companies/government entities, automatic certification when using pre-approved cloud solutions. I don't see how this will end well. I appreciate the reasoning behind it, but this is not a good solution. I'd prefer to see more "startup friendly" compliance frameworks that don't require tens to hundreds of thousands of doll…

Try ISO 27001. Everyone says it's more onerous, but for startups, it's actually a lighter lift. It is a lot worse for big companies than SOC2, but it's a lot easier for startups.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#133

Post by ethbr1 »

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #128
ethbr1 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is frankly challenging to reconcile 1st amendment protections and a CU repeal. I'm not sure what the solution is, [...] Reconciliation: Companies aren't human entities. Non-human entities aren't entitled to 1st amendment protections. Campaign finance is equally simple: run your campaign on public funding. Give all candidates who meet a threshold equal amounts of money. I have yet to hear a convincing argument ab…

> Non-human entities aren't entitled to 1st amendment protections. The vast majority of speech that needs to remain protected for speech to remain meaningfully free happens through non-human entities. Removing that protection is an absolutely insane step.

Happens via, but starts with individuals (or should!).

What we have now is the worst of both worlds:

- Individual speech is censored at whim by non-government platforms that are unavoidable.

- While giant companies are empowered to speak anything they want (speaking as the company).

That doesn't seem ass-backwards?

We should be prioritizing individual speech / power, and disempowering corporate speech.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#134

Post by zer00eyz »

worik wrote: post #91
zer00eyz wrote: post #82

> And finally, we need more steps like the FTC’s recent move to ban all employee noncompetes (no carve outs, no limitations, no exceptions). YOU need to be out there beating the drum for a major exception to this. With out laws to ban raiding (and we dont have those on the federal level) this is a bad policy. It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale. > Seco…

No thanks. (I am not in the USA, I am in a country where on-competes must be paid for and short) Exemptions and carve out will be used for (and politically paid for, with the mind bending official bribery system the USA runs in politics) by the powerful to consolidate their power. Small firms have a lot of power over their employees. Small firms have to give their employees a reason to work for them, money is part of…

IF your in the EU:

https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/-/media/files/insights/pub...

Raiding is something they frown on there. They go so far as to call it anticompetitive.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#135

Post by vundercind »

ethbr1 wrote: post #110
bumby wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you believe the military is immune to "bureaucracy-at-scale" problems? From my vantage point, it may have both large bureaucratic issues and massive churn. (And it's not immediately clear to me that the former isn't partially a result of the latter.)

The mandatory rotating post system is an effective redress to the "in this job until I die" problem and the ills it creates. That's not to say there aren't other ills, but that's a pretty major one of large bureaucracies and causes serious effectiveness issues downstream.

The rotating post thing is mostly to avoid empire-building and disrupt personal loyalty to leadership, because standing armies are incredibly dangerous things to keep around and that reduces the risk.

It has side-benefits particular to the military mostly related to how adaptable the organization is when lots of its members are being killed and disabled at a high rate.

I don’t think you’d find a lot of takers for a rotating-post offer in the broader public sector, without far higher wages. I think most of the folks willing to do that for low wages are already in the military or the foreign service.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#136

Post by janalsncm »

maxsilver wrote: post #111
zer00eyz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isnt about workers. Let's say tomorrow that you find a better way to do search. It's going to crush google, and MS. You hire a team, smart people the VC's throw money at you. Everyone is happy. Your growing and the next darling of tech. Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix. In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to th…

>. Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix. In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to the roof to rest and vest. If you know for certain that "they are BlockBuster, you are Netflix", then why are you not cutting them a deal to make it worth them staying? This is absolutely about workers -- specifically, companies not wanting…

> why are you not cutting them a deal to make it worth them staying?

It’s a fair question. Workers absolutely deserve a fair cut of the pie in that scenario. Non-competes have been pretty ridiculous lately, and companies had to provide little to no justification.

But the incentives of workers might not be entirely aligned with the “Netflix” or even their coworkers. Blockbuster wouldn’t hire the whole team unless they had to: one or two people who understood the core algorithm is enough, and for 10x their old salary it would be hard to resist. That leaves the startup and everyone else who works there out in the cold.

The second thing is that people aren’t rational expected value maximizers. You can’t pay rent with equity, and a startup may not have the cash to compete on salary.

Finally, it’s possible that allowing the larger incumbent to hire all of a competitor’s employees is actually not in their best interest. After strangling/eliminating the competition, an incumbent has no further need for those employees it poached.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#137

Post by ethbr1 »

bumby wrote: post #121
ethbr1 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mandatory rotating post system is an effective redress to the "in this job until I die" problem and the ills it creates. That's not to say there aren't other ills, but that's a pretty major one of large bureaucracies and causes serious effectiveness issues downstream.

I don't disagree that it solves the "in this job until I die". But as you allude to, it creates its own issues and it's not clear to me if, on balance, its better. Churn can also create an ineffective (or superficially effective) organization because the hardest problems can't really be solved in a short tenure. (If it could the Executive Branch would be considered highly effective because it has churn every 4-8 year…

The USAF would certainly agree with you! ;)

On the whole, I think it's still a net positive. The drag of unmotivated, apathetic, and/or inflexible employees is incredibly high, and then there's the additional efficiency drag of the systems that must put in place to ensure they meet minimum performance (i.e. filling out make-work forms to track performance).

Better to simply create a system by which they're weeded out.

Which I guess dovetails with the military "up or out" process.

From a giant organization perspective, there's a lot to admire in militaries. They're the worst systems, except for all the other ways organizations as large as them could be organized...

Re: Why YC went to DC

#138

Post by janalsncm »

zer00eyz wrote: post #122
maxsilver wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>. Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix. In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to the roof to rest and vest. If you know for certain that "they are BlockBuster, you are Netflix", then why are you not cutting them a deal to make it worth them staying? This is absolutely about workers -- specifically, companies not wanting…

From a benefit perspective: When apple uses its dominant position to tax everyone 30 percent apple benefits, and the market does not. When apple uses its dominant position to pay your team 30 percent more and stifle the free market by driving competitors out of business. you benefit, Apple benefits more and the market does not. Is apple being a giant market dominating force a good thing or a bad thing? Your getting t…

And importantly, once your old employer is gone, there’s no need to pay you inflated salaries anymore.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#139

Post by zer00eyz »

janalsncm wrote: post #136
maxsilver wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>. Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix. In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to the roof to rest and vest. If you know for certain that "they are BlockBuster, you are Netflix", then why are you not cutting them a deal to make it worth them staying? This is absolutely about workers -- specifically, companies not wanting…

> why are you not cutting them a deal to make it worth them staying? It’s a fair question. Workers absolutely deserve a fair cut of the pie in that scenario. Non-competes have been pretty ridiculous lately, and companies had to provide little to no justification. But the incentives of workers might not be entirely aligned with the “Netflix” or even their coworkers. Blockbuster wouldn’t hire the whole team unless they…

> Finally, it’s possible that allowing the larger incumbent to hire all of a competitor’s employees is actually not in their best interest. After strangling/eliminating the competition, an incumbent has no further need for those employees it poached.

And even if the do, it isnt at the inflated pay rate.

The big incumbent crushed the little guy.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#140

Post by bumby »

luma wrote: post #101

Why should healthcare be tied to employment? "Quit fucking around" and institute a national, single-payer plan that covers everyone, like every other modern industrialized country.

>"Quit fucking around" and institute a national, single-payer plan that covers everyone, like every other modern industrialized country.

Except we're not starting from a blank slate. So short of heavy-handed, dictatorial decisions how would you propose to get to a single-payer plan that covers everyone? You'll have to work with the existing hospital infrastructure, insurance companies, and citizens who don't want a single-payer system. They all get a say, too. People who act like its a straightforward solution don't really understand the problem. But to avoid sounding overly cynical, I'll throw out a couple of recommendations.

1) Expand the VA system to cover all vets, regardless of whether it's a service-connected health issue or not, without insurance. This is politically possibly the easiest step because its hard for a politician to stand up and say they aren't an advocate for better care for the troops. However, the VA is entwined with medical schools and you'd have ensure you expand the funding proportionately to avoid pissing off that constituency.

2) Gradually ratchet down the age for medicare, over decades.

(I'd also argue you'd have to get money out of politics first for any really change to have a chance)

Post reply on HN