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

111–120 of 169 posts

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

#111

Post by [deleted] »

woodman wrote: post #105
timr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so tired of the thoughtless repetition of this talking-point. Yes, some technologies developed serendipitously for luxury products. But when you take a broader view than the latter half of the 20th century, most of the technological progress that actually made our lives better were the results of targeted effort: wastewater treatment, antibiotics, essentially all medications. We didn't get to these things acciden…

Since we're complaining - I'm so tired of the (hopefully) thoughtless use of "we". It is incredibly presumptuous. Every time I hear it I'm reminded of the artificially simplified narrative portrayed by WWII propaganda posters - where if you do your part, Rosie the riveter, then we'll save the world†! †Saving the world means unwittingly working to further the military industrial complex, undermining your long term int…

[deleted]

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

#112

Post by mikeyouse »

acchow wrote: post #73
wpietri wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. More…

They wouldn't have developed a smallpox vaccine if it didn't affect rich people.

That's just not true.. There are numerous diseases which only affect the most poor and downtrodden citizens that are being worked on by thousands of 'first world' scientists.

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

#113

Post by woodman »

britknight wrote: post #63
Sophistifunk wrote: post #55

Standard liberal guilt. If you're a programmer and you feel like curing malaria is more important than Uber, you should make a shit-ton of money and give it to Bill Gates. Without the teen angst.

> " If you feel like curing malaria is more important than Uber"? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a pretty privileged sentiment. Would you say that everyone who feels a calling to work in the nonprofit/humanitarian sphere is merely doing so to assuage their "teen angst"? If someone else feels compelled to work more directly to help those in need, and he or she is perfectly respectful of others' work (as OP clearly…

> I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a pretty privileged sentiment.

How does any of the prior statement sound "privileged"? Or was that just a hamfisted attempt at using a dog whistle?

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

#114

Post by Jemaclus »

sliverstorm wrote: post #53
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.

Yes, like someone else said, that's not necessarily true or obvious. There's a DMV in every major city in the country, there are veteran services, immigration offices, department of defense, department of human resources, housing and urban development, and all the other alphabet agencies in almost every major city. There are hospitals, universities, and research labs in every major city. There are police departments, sheriff's departments, SWAT teams, FBI teams, and ATF teams in every major city. And in this day and age, remote work is a thing -- technology in general is a thing.

I don't see any reason I need to give up anything (other than maybe a huge salary) to work on these problems. The true roadblock for me, I believe, is just a lack of knowledge and education on those particular issues.

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

#115

Post by acdha »

Kephael wrote: post #70
markdeloura wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry... that's just totally not accurate. While there may be some who are not hacking code 24/7, it's because they're providing project management or leadership functions. This is a damn elite team of technologists there to make a difference - not for politics.

Mikey Dickerson, who is now running the US Digital Service, was previously involved in the Obama for America campaign. I don't see how we can pretend that politics play no part in this organization.

He's also a former Google SRE and has a good, relevant background. Is that politics or going with someone you personally trust to deliver results when you have a high-profile disaster in the news?

(This is not to excuse other cases where donors, fundraisers, etc. get dubiously-appropriate jobs. That certainly happens but it's not the only option)

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

#116

Post by serge2k »

woodman wrote: post #105
timr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so tired of the thoughtless repetition of this talking-point. Yes, some technologies developed serendipitously for luxury products. But when you take a broader view than the latter half of the 20th century, most of the technological progress that actually made our lives better were the results of targeted effort: wastewater treatment, antibiotics, essentially all medications. We didn't get to these things acciden…

Since we're complaining - I'm so tired of the (hopefully) thoughtless use of "we". It is incredibly presumptuous. Every time I hear it I'm reminded of the artificially simplified narrative portrayed by WWII propaganda posters - where if you do your part, Rosie the riveter, then we'll save the world†! †Saving the world means unwittingly working to further the military industrial complex, undermining your long term int…

yeah, fighting that nazi's was all about furthering the military industrial complex.

That whole pearl harbor thing wasn't really the japanese attacking, it was obviously lockheed.

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

#117

Post by woodman »

serge2k wrote: post #116
woodman wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since we're complaining - I'm so tired of the (hopefully) thoughtless use of "we". It is incredibly presumptuous. Every time I hear it I'm reminded of the artificially simplified narrative portrayed by WWII propaganda posters - where if you do your part, Rosie the riveter, then we'll save the world†! †Saving the world means unwittingly working to further the military industrial complex, undermining your long term int…

yeah, fighting that nazi's was all about furthering the military industrial complex. That whole pearl harbor thing wasn't really the japanese attacking, it was obviously lockheed.

yeah, taking advantage of a crisis is impossible and never happens.

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

#118

Post by britknight »

woodman wrote: post #113
britknight wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " If you feel like curing malaria is more important than Uber"? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a pretty privileged sentiment. Would you say that everyone who feels a calling to work in the nonprofit/humanitarian sphere is merely doing so to assuage their "teen angst"? If someone else feels compelled to work more directly to help those in need, and he or she is perfectly respectful of others' work (as OP clearly…

> I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a pretty privileged sentiment. How does any of the prior statement sound "privileged"? Or was that just a hamfisted attempt at using a dog whistle?

> If you're a programmer and you feel like curing malaria is more important than Uber

Um, this, for one. I see no possible reality in which a disease that kills almost one child every minute[1] could possibly take a backseat to you not being able to get a taxi when you call for one. The above could be put in the dictionary next to "first world problem".

I would love to hear your reasoning if you have some opinion to the contrary.

[1] http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/

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

#119

Post by peteretep »

mikeyouse wrote: post #112
acchow wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wouldn't have developed a smallpox vaccine if it didn't affect rich people.

That's just not true.. There are numerous diseases which only affect the most poor and downtrodden citizens that are being worked on by thousands of 'first world' scientists.

With the obvious axioms that anyone with 1st world single-payer insurance behind them, or, say, the Gates foundation, isn't poor, could you give some examples?

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

#120

Post by nl »

pagingdraltman wrote: post #106
afarrell wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an ineffective comment for a few reasons: 1) The person you are responding to is advocating a course of action (funding work to end malaria) which helps poor people. They are responding to advocacy of a course of inaction (not developing taxi apps). The comment thus has some value, even if you disagree with it's conclusion. 2) You are advocating banning people for saying things. This puts a burden on you to m…

No. You are wrong on so many levels: 1) the comment I responded to was a broad-based insult lobbed at anybody who believed that malaria research is more important than Uber. Calling it 'teen angst' showed it wasn't a serious suggestion, it was just a way to insult people who disagree with him. That comment made INCREDIBLY clear that he wasn't here for discussion, he was here to shit on people who hold a different wor…

I tend to agree that it wasn't a particularly useful comment, although I don't see it as black-and-white as you seem to.

However:

Losers like you are the reason HN is a piece of shit now.

I don't think this is acceptable at all.

I've flagged that comment, though I'm sure you realized that would happen - and I suspect that was the point you were trying to make.

Post reply on HN