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

51–60 of 169 posts

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

#51

Post by carlosdp »

wpietri wrote: post #49
carlosdp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rec…

Again, I think you're arguing against something that is not actually in the article. I read him as pointing at ends of a continuum, and I think you're falsely constructing a dichotomy out of that. He says quite clearly: "I’m still a believer in technology, particularly in the web platform, as a force for good." He also is explicit that for himself he wants something farther toward the clear-impact end of the spectrum…

Forgive me, but you're kind of reframing his remarks a bit. For example, you cut off the second part of this sentence:

"Even though I’m still a believer in technology, particularly in the web platform, as a force for good, society needs more people working directly on problems that matter."

While the author acknowledges in the abstract that the internet has improved people's lives, I still see the tone implying we should all be directly working on more worthy causes if we really want to be doing stuff that "matters".

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

#52

Post by wpietri »

jsn117 wrote: post #46
wpietri wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Every solution starts out as a solution for rich people, that's what brings the price down for everyone else

That's pretty far from true. Using rich people to pay for product development is a well-developed modern technique, and it can definitely work well. But we didn't get, say, the smallpox vaccine because Jenner said, "I wonder what I could do for very rich people?" Most early Internet work was done for the sake of public benefit; the rich-person version was Compuserve, which was basically an evolutionary dead end.

Moreover, plenty of things made for rich people stay as solutions for rich people. And some are only valuable because they are priced so only rich people can have them. Note the entire luxury goods market, for example. You could look at houses and cars as well: because those markets focus a lot of their product development on rich people, the non-rich end up with hand-me-downs that don't suit them very well.

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

#53

Post by sliverstorm »

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…

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think if you want to solve Epic Problems like malaria and slavery, you are going to have to be ready to put things like buying a house and living where you like in the back seat.

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

#54

Post by pdeuchler »

cheeseprocedure wrote: post #41
pdeuchler wrote: post #37

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…

> 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. What about the Green Revolution?

Honest question, do you mean to imply the Green Revolution did not follow this pattern?

From my understanding it followed the pattern exactly by spawning the creation of the huge food production conglomerates we have today while also greatly enriching vestiges of colonial powers as the movement grew to feed the "global hungry".

The last three paragraphs of this section of the wikipedia page more or less confirm it fit the pattern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Criticism

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

#57

Post by sliverstorm »

rayiner wrote: post #9
jacobolus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, “the revolving door” refers to people spending time working as legislators/executive officials, and then going to work in the same industry they were regulating, and basically getting time-shifted favors/salary in return for their help while in office. Spending 6 months or whatever working as a programmer for the US Digital Service and then going back to a job in industry is something quite different.

Won't argue that doesn't happen, but it's overstated. People from industry go into government for the same reason people join the digital service: because they think that the skills and knowledge they gained in industry can let them do the job better than the government can without them.[1] And these appointments are temporary for the same reason digital service appointments are temporary: people are only so willing…

The "revolving door" is all about the fox guarding the chicken coop. How do software engineers working for the USDS fall into that basket?

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

#58

Post by walshemj »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #25
walshemj wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a big ask Googles software requires a different mind set than say correctly calculating veterans pensions. From googles perspective having 2 or 3% suboptimal query's is fine but that wont pass muster for other types of work. Try building billing systems for a global Telco and have one of Vint Cerfs reports nudge you and say this had be right otherwise we are both out of a job :-)

I don't understand what you mean by "2 or 3% suboptimal query's", or really, in general what you mean.

They don't have to be 100% right but say an accounts system must reconcile.

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

#59

Post by hueving »

Something about DC seems to give people the impression that anyone doing anything else in the world is "stuff that doesn't matter". R&D at these companies is what actually solves problems at the root cause.

How would all of that healthcare exchange work have gone if the tech industry didn't build the massive infrastructure it relies on (database tech, network tech, version control, the Internet)?

It feels like the person that wrote this article is the guy in the war movie yelling at the people designing new defenses for not being on the front lines firing a gun. There is a place for both roles, and shitting all over one half doesn't make you better than them, it just makes you myopic.

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

#60

Post by kmonsen »

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…

I am not sure why you say old company. I don't think he said he left Google.

I also don't think he is against working for profit companies (Google being one of them).

I think you are reading more between the lines than what he meant.

Post reply on HN