Live data from Hacker News

Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

techcrunch.com

371–380 of 454 posts

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#371
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a random person joined your company’s Slack and said “tell me what you do, or I will fire you,” and your CEO then said to ignore it, which one would you go with?

If the board of my company (my CEO’s boss) showed up in Slack and asked, I would probably listen to my CEO’s boss. And what a poor CEO for risking his entire workforce and his own position on a political squabble.

That’s not how well-functioning organizations operate. Power is delegated, and if it’s publicly undercut, there is a loss of trust in leadership.

If a board wants something done, they can urge the CEO to implement it, but they do not hold unilateral power to dictate internal operations. They can vote to remove the CEO if they feel that they aren’t producing the desired result, but again, this is an indirect action.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#372
post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something tells that's an intended feature not a bug, that they will re-hire personel, re-buy assets like all those EVs, re-rent offices, but next time it will be with gov-aligned providers, and the cost will be the same for less.

The cost won’t be the same but 2-3x more.

And that’s what the American taxpayer is going to pay for. “Savings”.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#373

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 assumption is that privatization saves money, but that only happens in instances of free market competition.

That's not what governmental privatization is, instead it is the government handing a company a monopoly.

At least monopolies in the "open" market are subject to absolute price limits by customers. That's not what happens in government. They can be as inefficient as they want, and the government will fund them with "unlimited" pockets, and then they can pay a couple hundred thousand to key senators and they are home free.

At least public institutions are subject to the inherent competition between right and left wing.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#374

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…

Yes, this exactly. Reflexive "ugh govt" is a result of decades of Reagan-ite propaganda. Govt is just people, and people are flawed and have competing incentives. I've worked in massive companies that have incredibly dumb inefficiencies.

> Reflexive "ugh govt" is a result of decades of Reagan-ite propaganda.

Looking at federal spending as a percentage of GDP [1] it seems we've been hovering around 20% for most of post-WW2. There was a huge spike for COVID and a smaller spike for the GFC. (It was pretty surprising this chart doesn't also show a huge spike for the response to 9/11.)

Pre-2020 spending was ~20% of GDP, pre-2018 was more like ~18% - 19%.

There's definitely more government spending than there used to be.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#375

It’s so interesting that here on HN, on virtually any political topic, virtually the entire commentary is one-sided, and virtually all comments providing dissenting views are simply downvoted and/or flagged out of existence (often with no actual counter-arguments). On technical topics, this place tends to be so awesome—I learn so much by just reading the comments—due to the intellectual diversity of the viewpoints, b…

Happens to me here all of the time. If it doesn't align with the HN groupthink it gets hammered out of view.

> If it doesn't align with the HN groupthink it gets hammered out of view.

Yup. The following is a concrete example…

HN commenter [0][0]:

> If things keep going the way they are going, [a country with an authoritarian government that makes favored industries subsidized] could describe the US just as well in a few short years.

Me [1][1]:

> Why do you think so?

For asking this reasonable question, I received a bunch of downvotes but not a single response. Of course I can assume the reason is because I’m supposed to just accept the premise that Trump is bringing about an authoritarian government, but I really don’t, and a majority of American constituents (who voted for him) don’t either.

Before emigrating to the U.S., my parents and my family lived under real authoritarian regimes, under which family members were sanctioned, tortured (some still have the marks on their bodies to this day), and even killed for their political viewpoints, so I actually find so much of this hyperbolic rhetoric rather offensive when there are billions of folks all across the world who actually have to live under such regimes.

Rather than doubling down on the hyperbolic rhetoric, it might be a good idea to, in good faith, try to understand why half of your fellow Americans see the state of our country so differently from you, which requires good-faith intellectually diverse discussions.

The ultimate irony in all of this is that a lot of folks seem to not understand that, when it comes to politics, simply alienating the other side, is one of the most counterproductive things to do, because while you won’t have to “suffer” hearing their viewpoints, they’ll simply resort to using the one tool they can still use: their vote. This is why Trump’s 2024 win was so shocking to so many when it was so obvious to anyone actually paying attention and listening. The same applies to AfD coming in second in Germany.

Months before the 2024 election, I told a friend of mine (who’s a big Democrat donor in Georgia) that I think the Democrats are wrong about the Hispanic vote, and he told me, “I love you bro but if you think Hispanics are voting for Trump the way he speaks about them I got a bridge to sell you. Trump is cooked!” After the election, he followed up, “I’m all ears now, what did I not understand?” It was too late though.

I knew I was right about the Hispanic vote, not because I have a crystal ball, but because my church is filled with Hispanics and I learned so much about how they think politically and so much of the nuanced perspectives within their community by listening to them, meanwhile the Democrats think almost entirely in terms of identity politics.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43159998

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43163139

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is private companies that accumulate too much waste and useless things can fail and be replaced. Even if that is true, in some areas companies' interests strongly misalign with that of citizens. An insurance company earns more by rejecting customer declarations. An ISP earns more by giving customers less bandwidth for a higher price. A toll road company earns more by doing as little maintenance they ca…

The theory of capitalism leading to efficient markets makes a great deal of assumptions that are simply not true in the real world. Even for elastic goods that nobody needs to participate in at all, let alone an inelastic good like healthcare where people will pay pretty much anything for themselves or their family members to continue living.

The concept of perfect competition describes what capitalism in its purest, most ideal form should be, and everything after that is a description of what happens when humans get involved.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#377
post #152

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?

Because a million things can be replaced. An electricity company can use private contractors (either individual or with lots of small regional companies) for maintenance, build, diagnosing, private power plants, ... and these can fail and be replaced independently, even if the power company as a whole cannot.

A municipal electric company can use private contractors just the same. The difference is that the municipal electric company is accountable to the captive residents they serve, while a privately-owned monopoly escapes most accountability.

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For government offices were I know workers, firing is based on 100% seniority, completely independent of performance or email responses. Reductions in force due to mission/budget/etc. changes, etc., which are based on seniority, not firings, which are (where civil service protections apply) exclusively for documented misconduct or incompetence and have due process protections. It’s true that private industry (at le…

I was speaking to current rank and file layoffs. Are you agreeing they fall under seniority dismissal?

To be legal, without individual cause, they would have to, but they don't appear to have followed the law for either seniority-based reductions or for-cause firings (and in at least some cases there appear to have been directives given to falsely characterize broad policy-focus based dismissals as for-cause firings.)

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#379
post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy that it sounds like Login.gov is better than the broken solution we had before. At the same time, I do not think a basic functional login system is something that should be celebrated as a success.

Why would this not be a success? The previous system didn’t work, the govt created a specialized team that built a great functional product, and now it works... they fixed a problem? Many would consider that a success. Maybe don’t look at this through the lens of a tech company or normal business (bc it’s not), but look at I from the perspective of how shite govt tech is. Not sure if you live in the states but you sh…

It's funny you say that. The NC DMV used to have a decent site for renewing registration. It was basic but functional. No bling. Took me like 2 minutes to use.

A few years ago they replaced it with a vendor solution (PayIt[1]). It's terrible. The renewal process easily takes 5x as long. The old site was two steps and a couple forms. The new site is this stupid chat bot interface that pretends like it's thinking between the half dozen or so steps it now is. On top of that, I get to pay $3 or something for the privilege of using it.

Annoys me just thinking about it.

I have a whole rant about our local private toll road's web site too. Easily in the bottom 5 sites I have to deal with. I may switch back to MA's EZ Pass just out of spite.

[1]: https://payitgov.com/

Re: Mark Cuban offers to fund former 18F employees

#380
post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is not. The article says no such thing and you show yourself as an untrustworthy participant in this discussion.

> Those impacted in the wee hours of Saturday morning also received emails late Friday from DOGE with the subject line, “What did you do last week? Part II.” They were asked first last last week. And then again on Friday. —— > According to Politico, the emails — prompting employees to list their weekly accomplishments by Monday — were widely distributed across multiple agencies, including the State Department, the IR…

These quotes support the existence of the emails, which people here aren't disputing. They say nothing about whether the only layoffs were those who didn't respond, which was implied by your original statement that "the people let go were unable or unwilling to send an email listing 5 things they accomplished in the last week."
Post reply on HN