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

Back to SF After the U.S. Digital Service

insouciant.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 169 posts

Re: Back to SF After the U.S. Digital Service

#31

Post by Jemaclus »

I applied and interviewed with the USDS, but the biggest thing was that they wanted me to move to DC for 6+ months. I'm quite happy here on the west coast, engaged to be married, and attempting to buy a house. Moving cross-country is pretty much a deal-breaker for me.

That said, I really, really want to get involved in something that matters. My dream, for lack of a better phrase, no matter how cheesy it may sound, is to change the world. I want to solve what I call Epic Problems: malaria, clean water, homelessness, HIV, slavery, human trafficking. Or even something as simple as making a trip to the DMV as painless as picking up a prescription at the drug store.

Re: Back to SF After the U.S. Digital Service

#32

Post by omouse »

>Most social impact projects and organizations are in the east coast, and, at least as far as I could tell (but in all likelihood, it’s probably because I suck at finding them), most of them don’t seem to have significant / meaningful software projects

That's because they're stuck in the stone-ages and don't have the imagination to use and create software (aka they're run by marketers, managers and people who want to feel good about themselves). The charities/non-profits are treated as non-technical users, the donors are treated as non-technical, the board members and C-level execs are all conservative. It's a wonder that there's been any use of software in automating and lowering the costs for non-profits to operate.

It's more meaningful to work on Uber because at least there you have the potential to deliver food using the service to more homeless people than any other food delivery service.

The beginning of this post was good; fighting malaria is a big enough problem that could use better software (or at least more big-picture thinking). That's the kind of stuff we should be working on; being able to distribute malaria nets as fast, as cheap and as efficiently as possible.

I don't know, you can't expect too much from companies and you can't expect much from non-profits either. At least while working at Google you have the chance to use some of your time for things like the disaster reporting/mapping tech or something else that can directly help someone like Gmail (charities do need a way to communicate!)

Re: Back to SF After the U.S. Digital Service

#33

Post by wpietri »

carlosdp wrote: post #16

I think the US Digital Service is a great initiative and I'll consider taking a tour myself in the future. That said, I don't really like these kinds of thinkers who believe the only companies that are doing something "that matters" are non-profits working directly on a specific problem in healthcare or poverty. I have yet to work for a company, from non-profit internet companies to product-oriented SaaS startup powe…

> Saying profit-making companies are inherently not working on "things that matter" is just pretentious, in my opinion.

Where do you believe he said that?

The things he called out were "helping rich people find taxis more easily, selling ads more effectively, or building sexting apps". He also said that he believed "the advancing state of computing technology has overall benefitted peoples’ lives".

So I think you're mainly arguing against a straw man here.

Re: Back to SF After the U.S. Digital Service

#34

Post by omouse »

Jemaclus wrote: post #31

I applied and interviewed with the USDS, but the biggest thing was that they wanted me to move to DC for 6+ months. I'm quite happy here on the west coast, engaged to be married, and attempting to buy a house. Moving cross-country is pretty much a deal-breaker for me. That said, I really, really want to get involved in something that matters. My dream, for lack of a better phrase, no matter how cheesy it may sound, i…

I wouldn't mind that kind of short tour of duty if they would pay for the roundtrip airfare every few weeks and for a room in DC. I assume only politicians would that kind of sweet deal though.

Re: Back to SF After the U.S. Digital Service

#35

Post by ianstallings »

dnautics wrote: post #8
angersock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good part of the reason that they spend that money is because they've been discouraged and hamstrung from developing those expertise in-house.

Don't forget the mechanism by which government spends money - it issues a bond, which gets converted to dollars. The bond comes with interest, and the interest payments go to rich people (banks).

AFAIK, concerning the interest payments sent to the Federal Reserve, if any profits are made they are given to the US Treasury, after operating expenses. And all the staff at the federal reserve make ~$250k/year or less.

Re: Back to SF After the U.S. Digital Service

#36

Post by wpietri »

dnautics wrote: post #6

"Helping rich people get taxis easier". As a Lyft and Uber driver, I count among my rides: getting a rough looking fellow (who has spent years in prison after accidentally killing someone in a bar fight) get to the only job that would take him - affordably and on-time (he would have been fired otherwise). I've given an enlisted navy family from Oklahoma (husband was deployed) get home from a late night run to a dista…

The explicit inspiration for Uber's founding was as a "limo timeshare service": http://newsroom.uber.com/2010/12/ubers-founding/

I"m glad that some people are also getting easier taxi service. But having worked in in SF since the last bubble, there is definitely an intense focus here on solving rich-people problems; when they serve others (e.g., struggling felons and young military personnel) it is often, at best, a side effect.

Re: Back to SF After the U.S. Digital Service

#37

Post by pdeuchler »

Large leaps in technology have always, and will always, benefit the wealthiest 1% at the beginning. This is just the basics of capital in a capitalistic society.

The internet has already redistributed earth shattering quantities of wealth in record time. Besides, to actually solve the "real problems" (no true scotsman, but we won't go down that path) you still need massive amounts of capital. Where else are you going to get that capital except for individuals who have gained their wealth through industry?

Can't help but feel that there's a serious holier-than-thou tone throughout the article just because the author spent 6 months in DC. Thought experiment: who is helping the 1% more, people who generate products for a public company or people who work on pet political projects for the DC elite? (Not implying there's a right answer to that question, and not implying that's all the OP did with their time in DC)

Re: Back to SF After the U.S. Digital Service

#38

Post by wpietri »

alwaysdoit wrote: post #29

Why not take rich people's money for taxis, and then donate how ever much of your salary to charities that are trying to fight malaria you think is appropriate? Is making $40K/yr doing something "meaningful" better than making $100K/yr doing something "meaningless" and donating $60k/yr to meaningful causes?

Have you tried this? I know a lot of people, but nobody who has done this sustainably.

I've definitely seen people start out on that road. But either they eventually quit and find jobs with meaning or they gradually end up not caring about meaning and spend the money on creature comforts.

Re: Back to SF After the U.S. Digital Service

#40

Post by carlosdp »

wpietri wrote: post #33
carlosdp wrote: post #16

I think the US Digital Service is a great initiative and I'll consider taking a tour myself in the future. That said, I don't really like these kinds of thinkers who believe the only companies that are doing something "that matters" are non-profits working directly on a specific problem in healthcare or poverty. I have yet to work for a company, from non-profit internet companies to product-oriented SaaS startup powe…

> Saying profit-making companies are inherently not working on "things that matter" is just pretentious, in my opinion. Where do you believe he said that? The things he called out were "helping rich people find taxis more easily, selling ads more effectively, or building sexting apps". He also said that he believed "the advancing state of computing technology has overall benefitted peoples’ lives". So I think you're…

I had a feeling that sentence was going to be taken apart and thought I should change it, but I didn't have the words at the time. By "profit-making companies", I mean companies that work on products for people that are not directly designed to help an impoverished people or solve a health or social problem. That is being implied here. He calls out the "sexting apps" directly, but most of the article is about him reconnecting with his friends at Google and the conclusion seems driven from that interaction.
Post reply on HN