Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: govuptime.com

govuptime.com

161–170 of 181 posts

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#161

This is a misleading dataviz, I’m afraid. There are around 4 million federal personnel, of which 800k are furloughed, which means the government is running at 80%. So, at the very least, ‘Is the federal government operational?’ should be 0.8 instead of zero (aka, ‘no’). I would also expect the ‘service level’ calculator to reflect this. Update, citation from US Office of Personnel Mgmt: http://www.opm.gov/policy-data…

I'm not sure that civil-service headcount will give you a good indication of how much of the government is operational.

At NASA, IIRC only ~ 20% of the funds go to civil servant salaries. The rest goes out the door in contracts, grants, etc. I don't know the fractions for other agencies.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you owned property, would you allow huge numbers of tourists access to it if you had no staff onsite and no idea when you were going to be able to get staff? Now consider if you owned 401 pieces of property* across the country. Some of these are historic sites that are pretty delicate. Some of these consist of thousands of square miles of wilderness where people get killed even when there ARE park rangers around.…

No, but if my complaint was that I didn't have the money to staff it with the fraction of a full time employee it takes to run and administer (periodically, I might add; There is no full time staff for any of the particular monuments in DC), I would have a hard time justifying paying for multiple guardsmen, police and park rangers to keep people out of them. The rental of barricades I can see as sensible -- the renta…

I don't know what the staffing level before the shutdown was. Wikipedia says that the WWII memorial was patrolled by park police 24/7 and staffed by interpretive rangers from 9:30am to 11:30pm, which suggests that your claim that "there is no full time staff for any of the particular monuments" is false. Also, the WWII memorial has become something of a circus with media, congresscritters, etc. They need to have staffing to deal with this circus. This is one site out of hundreds. I'm sure if you go to any of the hundreds of parks that don't have cameras pointed at them you'll see a massive DECREASE in staff.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but if my complaint was that I didn't have the money to staff it with the fraction of a full time employee it takes to run and administer (periodically, I might add; There is no full time staff for any of the particular monuments in DC), I would have a hard time justifying paying for multiple guardsmen, police and park rangers to keep people out of them. The rental of barricades I can see as sensible -- the renta…

I don't know what the staffing level before the shutdown was. Wikipedia says that the WWII memorial was patrolled by park police 24/7 and staffed by interpretive rangers from 9:30am to 11:30pm, which suggests that your claim that "there is no full time staff for any of the particular monuments" is false. Also, the WWII memorial has become something of a circus with media, congresscritters, etc. They need to have staf…

1) The park police are roving, and not dedicated to particular monuments or parks in the DC area. I wasn't aware of the interpretive Rangers working 2 hours a day, but regardless, they have definitely increased staff at all of the DC monuments.

In addition, they've attempted to close attractions they don't manage, like Mount Vernon, among others.

2) The WW2 memorial, and memorials in the DC area aren't the only places that security has been increased.

I'm sure you're not wrong in that over all of the 400+ locations, we have likely seen a decrease in personnel, but the executive branch is decidedly making a point of ensuring that the most pain is felt because of the shutdown.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what the staffing level before the shutdown was. Wikipedia says that the WWII memorial was patrolled by park police 24/7 and staffed by interpretive rangers from 9:30am to 11:30pm, which suggests that your claim that "there is no full time staff for any of the particular monuments" is false. Also, the WWII memorial has become something of a circus with media, congresscritters, etc. They need to have staf…

1) The park police are roving, and not dedicated to particular monuments or parks in the DC area. I wasn't aware of the interpretive Rangers working 2 hours a day, but regardless, they have definitely increased staff at all of the DC monuments. In addition, they've attempted to close attractions they don't manage, like Mount Vernon, among others. 2) The WW2 memorial, and memorials in the DC area aren't the only place…

14 hours, not 2 hours

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) The park police are roving, and not dedicated to particular monuments or parks in the DC area. I wasn't aware of the interpretive Rangers working 2 hours a day, but regardless, they have definitely increased staff at all of the DC monuments. In addition, they've attempted to close attractions they don't manage, like Mount Vernon, among others. 2) The WW2 memorial, and memorials in the DC area aren't the only place…

14 hours, not 2 hours

Oh snap. Thanks, that was a pretty severe oversight.

Anecdotal, for sure, but as I live in the area, and visit those monuments fairly often, I find it a little interesting that I've never seen an 'interpretive ranger'.

I'll have to keep my eyes open for them if and when our government gets back up and running.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, this just misses the point by miles and is consistent with the cynical narrative that the Republicans are now trying desparately to establish. That is, "the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, blah, blah, blah". The bottom line is that the action of shutting down the government as a means of forcing a completely unrelated concession from the White House/Senate is just plain wrong and damn near e…

> BTW, just because you're "not a Republican", it certainly > doesn't mean that you're non-partisan. Either way, you seem > awfully defensive for a non-Republican. Mostly, I'm just sick of seeing both sides make the same talking points over and over again to see which one's soundbites happen to stick better. As much as you discredit Boehner for disallowing an up or down vote, Reid is doing the exactly the same thing…

Your post illustrates a big part of the problem. There is all of this false equivalence, wherein the proposition is made that both sides are equally at fault. The media is guilty too (at least the outlets that make some attempt at coming off as balanced). They attempt to lay equal blame, even when one side is clearly nuts. When such false equivalence is made, it exonerates abhorrent, harmful behavior and gives cover to those who practice it.

And, that's what's happening here. You are posing as a thoughtful centrist, when in actuality, you are equivocating. No one could look at this objectively and conclude that it's reasonable or healthy behavior for our country. That's what gives you away, contrary to your assertion that I believe you to be "of the opposition" simply because you don't agree with me 100%.

Even more thoughtful, saner Republicans like Pete King are going on record as hating this insane gambit. It is splitting the Republican party itself right in two, and is the source of serious party infighting. So, your assertion that people are merely digging in based on their prior positions is patently false. Likewise, polling shows that something like 70% of those who oppose the ACA don't want the government shutdown over it. So ironically, it is your own willful blindness to these facts and subsequent assumption that I must simply oppose what the Tea Party is doing due to my party affiliation, that further reveals that you are as partisan as they come.

Edit: You're trying to decry partisan politics, when you're just as engaged as anyone. You want to come off as a wise sage who floats above it, when you're really right in the middle.  When you walk around assuming that everyone is engaged in partisanship vs. thoughtful politics and branding them accordingly (especially when they disagree with you), then what, exactly, does that make you?

There are valid points to be made against the ACA. I believe that on balance it is a big step in the right direction, but will certainly need to be tweaked. So, when I see sane Republicans discuss it, I respect and hear their opinions. But, this is something else. That's what many Republicans are saying in private--and some publicly--along with much of the nation.

I will be the first to agree--along with 90% of the country--that our politics are dysfunctional. I am also weary of this bipolar system that produces such entrenchment. But, the difference is that while there are extremist fringe elements on both the left and right, those on the right are now actually driving a major political party. Ignoring this very obvious fact that even Republicans acknowledge to their chagrin, does not fix our politics. In fact, it just makes you a tacit endorser of their extremist, partisan behavior and furthers the divide.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#169
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and that's why we're log-jammed at the moment. This implies that it's just a matter of mistakes made in the past, that it created some mechanical-procedural problem that all our politicians are powerless to fix, and it just needs to work itself out with maybe some nudging. This suggests that it is not the case that some group is actively maintaining a condition of closed government offices.

Putting that statement back into context though, I went on to explain that either party could reopen offices. The problem is that generally, each party thinks that their opposition party is the one that can clear the jam, while ignoring that both parties are being stubborn on their points. A fun, but unrelated exercise would be to see if you can find faults by members of your preferred party that has contributed to t…

>I went on to explain that either party could reopen offices.

You didn't in the comment I replied to. You talked about what the Supreme Court did, What the Senate could have done, and said that both parties and both wings are at fault. This all fits the logjam narrative.

I see now you speak of solutions that could come from either party through a 'simple vote'.

My preferred party is not at fault because my preferred party is not in congress. My comment was nonpartisan and did not restrict blame to any one house or party, or even branch. It extended blame into the present.

That said, there are some car accidents in which one party is at fault yet which could still have been prevented by defensive driving by other parties. You could always say everyone involved failed to yield right of way. I also suspect any explanation of simple voting must include the word filibuster.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#170
post #4

I chuckled at the "A SysAdmin would be pissed." line and then checked the source to see if there was any javascript which was going to change this line as the uptime % dropped lower and lower. I was disappointed there wasn't, but perhaps it is some dynamic magic that happens on page load or something....

When we launched the site we were already down to two nine's, so a sysadmin should already have been pissed. We can add more descriptive and dynamic options.
Post reply on HN