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

Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 454 posts

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#131

Post by _fat_santa »

SpaceL10n wrote: post #57
_fat_santa wrote: post #25

Put Mark Cuban to the side for a bit, I think the general idea of 18f going private is a good one and was my first reaction when I heard they were getting dissolved. EDIT: I think it's a good idea in the context of them getting dissolved. I would much prefer if they continued to exist within the govt, but if the choice is between going private and ceasing to exist, I would prefer they go private and I think it's a go…

Could share why privatization of 18f is good in your eyes? When I heard about the creation of 18f and USDS all those years ago, I remember thinking, finally! It was embarrassing and frankly disheartening to have such crucial public websites and services be so behind the times. Especially when Silicon Valley, the cradle of technical innovation, lied within our borders. Then comes along 18f and all the good work they d…

I guess I should clarify my stance: I think that 18f going private is a good thing _given_ they are being dissolved. I of course would prefer if they stayed inside the govt but if it's between continuing to exist as private entity vs not existing at all, I'll take the former.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#132

Post by dcow »

davepeck wrote: post #83
dcow wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing this argument. Can you help me understand what parts are serving a hidden agenda?

Who said anything about a hidden agenda? Can you consider that the current efforts are outright foolish?

I disagree that trying to curb “fraud waste and abuse” is an outfight foolish endeavor, no.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#133

Post by mharrig1 »

testfrequency wrote: post #24
mharrig1 wrote: post #3

So Mark Cuban wants to lean into exactly what DOGE is pushing by putting himself in the middle of the Governmental to Private shift? That doesn't surprise me and gives more evidence that Cuban is not dissimilar to Musk, just that he has much better PR.

The fact that this is your conclusion made about Cuban offering this as a gesture to how talented and critical these people are, says more about you than Cuban

To assume only altruistic intentions from Cuban, yes I would say it's a very good thing to support the people doing actually great work in the government.

My point is just that Cuban is supporting the problem that Musk is creating, albeit without putting himself entirely in a position where he could receive the ire of the public.

And just to reiterate, 18f has done great work, and if this is the only way for them to continue for the time being I guess so be it. I just don't agree with the chain of events that led here.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#134

Post by tsunego »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #19

Privatization is what a lot of people believe is the answer, thinking that there is so much waste and useless things the Federal government does. These people must have never worked at a large corporation. I have a relative in the federal government and we would share stories because the dysfunctions are basically the same. Any large organization of humans working uses a pyramid organization since like the middle age…

Privatization isn't about eliminating human flaws but accountability and incentives. Private corporations face real consequences if they're inefficient: customers leave, profits drop, and they eventually fail. Government agencies, funded by taxpayers without alternatives, rarely face such direct pressures.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#135

Post by gorbachev »

croes wrote: post #20
mharrig1 wrote: post #3

So Mark Cuban wants to lean into exactly what DOGE is pushing by putting himself in the middle of the Governmental to Private shift? That doesn't surprise me and gives more evidence that Cuban is not dissimilar to Musk, just that he has much better PR.

The question is what would you do if you were Cuban?

I think the best would be if billionaires would stay the f** out of meddling with governing countries.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#136

Post by envy2 »

This is exactly what Trump and Musk would want, privatization of what should be (and were) government services.

No one — and I mean no one — should profit from the provision of what should be core government services, like tax filing or health care.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#137

Post by skissane »

alephnerd wrote: post #81
luckylion wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience as a consultant with both (local) administrations (in Germany) and much larger corporations is that the corporations weren't even close to being as dysfunctional. I'm certain there are great parts of government, but I've never experienced it, and all I'm hearing from friends who work at the federal level is that it's no different there.

Germany ain't the US. Organizational culture in one might be different than the other.

I think many of the factors which can make public sector entities less efficient - e.g. harder to get rid of underperforming employees, fewer institutional rewards for reducing unnecessary expenditures - apply broadly across countries.

I think something Germany and the US have in common, compared to many other countries, is less blatant corruption in government, due to strong laws against it.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#138

Post by Volundr »

modeless wrote: post #68
mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #19

Privatization is what a lot of people believe is the answer, thinking that there is so much waste and useless things the Federal government does. These people must have never worked at a large corporation. I have a relative in the federal government and we would share stories because the dysfunctions are basically the same. Any large organization of humans working uses a pyramid organization since like the middle age…

The difference is private companies that accumulate too much waste and useless things can fail and be replaced. The exception is companies propped up by government regulation. The problem with modern big companies is that the exception has become the rule. Regulation is so pervasive it's become a "what the hell is water" situation. People don't even recognize that the dysfunctional companies are protected from failur…

I'd argue the difference between private companies and government is that in government that spending is public.

Spend a few mil on something of marginal utility, politicaly controversial, or funding a study for something that seems obvious? Congratulations! Fox News found it on USASpending.gov (maybe not now that 18F is dead), and is drumming up outrage. Now your fielding phone calls from senators who are looking to grandstand by reducing your budget.

Waste a few million on a Salesforce implementation that never works, never does what it promised and never gains adoption and is finally quietly abandoned? Doesn't even make the Shareholder meeting and the exec in question gets even more influence for his ability to lead large projects.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#139

Post by cmrdporcupine »

alephnerd wrote: post #128
trentnix wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reflexive "ugh govt" is a result of decades of Reagan-ite propaganda I (and many others) have worked for, contracted for, interacted with, and/or closely observed government for decades. The only “reflexive” thing here is your argument that people who disagree with the you are the victims of propaganda. You can certainly quibble with the details on how to deliver government efficiency (and I highly encourage people…

There's no denying that there's bloat, but going in with a chainsaw is not a conducive or efficient way to reduce bloat in an organization. If you want to use the "private sector lense" (which I do not think is valid for a govenenent bureaucracy), there's a reason why when I've participated in M&A events, we would spend a year doing due diligence and understanding the organizational and financial structure before ini…

Indeed. The chainsaw approach will only produce an even less effective civil service, and one in constant crisis.

If you want to actually improve governance (and we really should because it is in fact often quite dysfunctional), you don't come in with the notion that it is intrinsically rotten to the core and the very idea of governance is flawed by nature.

You start by motivating people to improve. Which you don't do by accusing them of graft, corruption and incompetence.

It's all very disingenuous.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#140

Post by esafak »

IgorPartola wrote: post #73
modeless wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is private companies that accumulate too much waste and useless things can fail and be replaced. The exception is companies propped up by government regulation. The problem with modern big companies is that the exception has become the rule. Regulation is so pervasive it's become a "what the hell is water" situation. People don't even recognize that the dysfunctional companies are protected from failur…

A company that makes birthday party banners that fails can be replaced. If your electric company runs itself into the ground, there is no replacement without government assistance. So why add the overhead of a for profit company?

The last mile might be monopolized, but you are oversimplifying it. When implemented well, there are markets for generation, transmission, distribution, and retail, implying alternatives and resiliency. Every system has bottlenecks. This does not mean they are all equally resilient. To give a familiar example, your having one brain does not negate the benefit of having limbs in pairs.
Post reply on HN