Live data from Hacker News

Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

techcrunch.com

141–150 of 454 posts

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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

It's much easier to remove a Federal Employee in the US compared to Germany. The "give 3 documents" rule makes it easy to not have to deal with lengthy arbitration. At worst, it's comparable to private sector hiring/firing rules in Germany.

Furthemore, hiring practices for federal jobs are much more decentralized in the US compared to Germany.

And finally, the entire corpora of statutes, legislation, and administrative policies in the US is significantly different from that in Germany, such that any surface level similarities are basically convergent evolution.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#142
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are effective approaches to curbing fraud waste and abuse and ineffective or even damaging approaches. Which do you believe the current administration is engaged in?

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#143

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?

Private companies are funded by willing participants and have economic incentives to be efficient. The incentives for your electric company and other government programs for efficiency are not nearly so clear. It seems reasonable to favor efficiency wherever possible.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#144
Reading every thread related to something DOGE is doing reveals the same pattern. Commenters instantly seem to reach two conclusions (or bring them to the table from preconceived notions):

  1- Republican = bad, evil
  2- You cannot/should not touch anything in government
I won't get into the first because it is objectively stupid. This is just as stupid as people on the right concluding "Democrat = bad, evil". Both polar opposites need to stop being bigoted and use their brains. Living in their respective glass houses they throw stones and shit all over half the country, painting them as evil, stupid, incompetent, etc.

This simply isn't true.

On the second point. Well, that's an unreasonable position. It say that government is perfect as it is and none of the hundreds of organizations that comprise it and millions of people who run it should ever be expected to do better. Ever. Again, utterly unreasonable.

Government should be obligated to go through an audit every N years. You cannot just keep throwing money at it and growing it. That does not solve problems in the private sector and it sure as hell does not in government.

I have worked with and sold product to various government groups. From White Sands Missile Test Range to city local entities. Anyone posting comments without having had experience engaging with government entities has no idea what they are talking about. None.

I have seen contracts awarded to companies charging double the street price because the person making the decision is so incompetent that they went with the company they thought would cover their ass. These are lazy and expensive decisions made by people who are not qualified to do the job and should not have that job. In other words, they would not have been hired to do that job in the private sector in a million years.

The US has serious problems. We need a restructuring of priorities and how we do things or it will be hell in a decade or two. The reason we have to be so assertive today is that this work should have started 25 years ago. It did not. And so the problem is now an order of magnitude greater.

This week I spent five days cleaning our area drains. I should have done this ever five years or so. I did not. I have not touched them in 25 years. That's why it took five days. The accumulated crap in those pipes was amazing to see. Solid sticky mud, roots, tennis balls, rocks, lego pieces, garbage bags, etc. This required renting a powerful machine to just rip through stuff as well as a powerful 5000 PSI pressure washer with a 100 ft snake and a nozzle to shred everything in its path.

In other words, when you don't keep an eye on things for a long time, the solution tends to be far more "violent" than the case of having kept thing in order with regular checkups (this applies to your health as well).

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#145
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who will buy the newly privatized 18f's products? The government. It's back to square one except now there are shareholders in the middle and the government (you) doesn't own its code anymore. A strictly worse state of affairs.

Not necessarily. The government will have several providers to choose from, which will have to compete in price. If the prices are still inflated, we are talking government corruption, which is yet another reason to make the government smaller, not bigger.

That's not how govt contract works.

Repeat providers will win almost all contracts because they know how to navigate the "red tapes" and they know the inner people.

Competition? lol...

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Delusion belief in market forces that completely ignores the reality when companies reach monopoly status.

We have antitrust law for that. But antitrust law today is simply overwhelmed by the huge number of monopolies and oligopolies the government has created in almost every sector. And courts don't have the power to correct the problem by reducing the regulations that protected the monopolies in the first place, making their remedies temporary.

I agree with the first part of your statement but disagree quite strongly with the idea that the government created them. Monopolies and oligopolies are the natural product of unchecked capitalism. Without government activily enforcing antitrust and breaking up monopolies you naturally end up with companies having a stranglehold on their sector.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#147

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…

Delusion belief in market forces that completely ignores the reality when companies reach monopoly status.

[deleted]

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#148
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reagan or not, what you can see clearly in the comments here and many other places is that what would be considered fairly extreme libertarian talking points have become common parlance these days. Taxation as "theft", the necessity of the threat of termination and other economic deprivation in order to coerce people to doing good work, the assumption that profit inevitably produces more efficiency, and that efficien…

The Ayn Rand types deserve to be reminded that she spent her final years on welfare.

which just proves that we shouldn't have any welfare if it supported that hack! /s

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah I had to step back from this when I saw it* on my feed because I was so disenchanted by how positive the replies were. Not even sure what their issues with DOGE are if they think this is a great solution... ETA: I'm on about his bluesky post, to be clear, not this thread

the issue with Elon Musk's involvement is the WAY these things are being done. If what was previously funded through coercion -- tax dollars -- can be funded through voluntary charity of a billionaire that is 100% a good thing and we can still be upset about the rule of law and all that while being happy that billionaires are stepping up to pay their fair share when the tax money is taken away. HOWEVER Congress has N…

Where did he mention voluntary charity in his tweet?

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#150
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> When implemented well

Here's the important part. Regulatory capture and monopolies don't want or need things to be implemented well, because that leads to alternative options.

Post reply on HN