Live data from Hacker News

Open Letter to the European Commission

nixos.org

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: Open Letter to the European Commission

#11
post #10

NixOS may be legitimate, but the amount of BS funded under these EU programs is atrocious. The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I won't suggest anything here except that there's a lot of favourable conditions here to funnel money into dead-on-arrival projects. EU should just focus on reducing legislation, bureaucracy, regulation and taxatio…

EU is corrupt on all levels (EU, member states, local government) and is deteriorating rapidly with normalization of corruption. They are grabbing as much power as they can, not letting up existing legislation.

Used to be politicians had shame and would get punished for scandals - these days they just double down and shrug it off. I think Trump pioneered the approach but the EU is following suit, as much as us Europeans like to look down on US politics. Shit is just as bad here, we're just smug and pretend we're better on top of it.

Worst part is even if say 10% of the government is egregiously corrupt now - this will be the focus of public discourse and with the bad actors getting rewarded instead of punished it normalizes and encourages their behavior.

Re: Open Letter to the European Commission

#12
post #10

NixOS may be legitimate, but the amount of BS funded under these EU programs is atrocious. The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I won't suggest anything here except that there's a lot of favourable conditions here to funnel money into dead-on-arrival projects. EU should just focus on reducing legislation, bureaucracy, regulation and taxatio…

> The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction.

I was surprised to find a few years back that the big consultancy companies actually have teams dedicate to advising companies on these applications and supporting documents. Helping them navigate the complexity.

If you need to pay consultancy companies to navigate the process then you just killed access to smaller companies and universities in less well off economies.

Re: Open Letter to the European Commission

#14
post #10

NixOS may be legitimate, but the amount of BS funded under these EU programs is atrocious. The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I won't suggest anything here except that there's a lot of favourable conditions here to funnel money into dead-on-arrival projects. EU should just focus on reducing legislation, bureaucracy, regulation and taxatio…

> The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I was surprised to find a few years back that the big consultancy companies actually have teams dedicate to advising companies on these applications and supporting documents. Helping them navigate the complexity. If you need to pay consultancy companies to navigate the process then you just killed acce…

Exactly so, EU has been incredibly hostile towards small business for a while now

Re: Open Letter to the European Commission

#15
post #10

NixOS may be legitimate, but the amount of BS funded under these EU programs is atrocious. The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I won't suggest anything here except that there's a lot of favourable conditions here to funnel money into dead-on-arrival projects. EU should just focus on reducing legislation, bureaucracy, regulation and taxatio…

EU is corrupt on all levels (EU, member states, local government) and is deteriorating rapidly with normalization of corruption. They are grabbing as much power as they can, not letting up existing legislation. Used to be politicians had shame and would get punished for scandals - these days they just double down and shrug it off. I think Trump pioneered the approach but the EU is following suit, as much as us Europe…

wait until we get the politicians dream, the chat control bill, not only will Brussels shrug off everything but you'll enjoy a suitable penalty for criticizing them

Re: Open Letter to the European Commission

#16
post #10

NixOS may be legitimate, but the amount of BS funded under these EU programs is atrocious. The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I won't suggest anything here except that there's a lot of favourable conditions here to funnel money into dead-on-arrival projects. EU should just focus on reducing legislation, bureaucracy, regulation and taxatio…

> The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I was surprised to find a few years back that the big consultancy companies actually have teams dedicate to advising companies on these applications and supporting documents. Helping them navigate the complexity. If you need to pay consultancy companies to navigate the process then you just killed acce…

Disclaimer: I run a Brussels-based startup accelerator which, as part of its program, assists startups in these applications (just like those consultancy companies you mention).

And I completely, entirely agree with you. The process is very, very annoying, long, bureaucratic, uncertain and frustrating.

It's quite transparent actually unlike GP says, but the main problem is that the scale of the complexity involved in those applications means you are going to be paying consultants to help you as part of the process. This means there's a bunch of money flowing towards pure paperwork, and often those consultants also take a success fee which reduces the total amount paid out to the project.

In other words, if you have a 1MM EUR grant, on average 100-150k will be spent ... on the application process across the consortium. And this is just for the winners; given that there's a lot of entities applying to these, I wouldn't be surprised if the "application spend" reaches ~30% of the total. And while not all of it comes out of the grant budget, it's spend triggered by the grant.

Cascade funding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Funding) is .. kind of better? Because it allows smaller projects to exist and apply on their own without as much hassle. The smaller calls are a LOT more competitive however so you don't escape this added work created by the grant application: Many many person-months end up being wasted on the process. But the thing with cascade funding is that every layer of funding that gets cascaded takes a % in operations, and does create additional "work" in the system: It's just spread over more entities and projects. So while it succeeds at "moving more money", a lot of the value-creation is pure busywork.

TBF I don't know a single well-meaning EU civil servant that doesn't think the system needs to be reformed. But into what? How else do you distribute these huge budgets, in open, transparent and democratic way to so many people without creating these huge and complex systems, all while maintaining good checks against fraud? It's easy to say "we can do better" especially here on HN but solving this is magnitudes harder than the types of scale problems Google & Meta face, and it's cross-disciplinary not just engineering. The EU has funded really fantastic and inspiring things, we shouldn't dismiss the whole thing outright.

Re: Open Letter to the European Commission

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I was surprised to find a few years back that the big consultancy companies actually have teams dedicate to advising companies on these applications and supporting documents. Helping them navigate the complexity. If you need to pay consultancy companies to navigate the process then you just killed acce…

Disclaimer: I run a Brussels-based startup accelerator which, as part of its program, assists startups in these applications (just like those consultancy companies you mention). And I completely, entirely agree with you. The process is very, very annoying, long, bureaucratic, uncertain and frustrating. It's quite transparent actually unlike GP says, but the main problem is that the scale of the complexity involved in…

Can you help somehow describe, show, demonstrate what the fuck costs 100K EUR for ... paperwork?

How does this work? Which EU agencies/institutions are involved, what grants are we talking about?

Companies hire groups of developers based on resumes and at best a few hours of vibes. It's good that public funds are spent in a more "evidence based" manner, but it's ridiculous how inefficient this is.

It should be a lottery if it's that hard to judge. It's R&D for fuck's sake. Risk is inherent in the process.

If we want something with a well understood outcomey then use the usual procurement. WTF.

Re: Open Letter to the European Commission

#18
post #10

NixOS may be legitimate, but the amount of BS funded under these EU programs is atrocious. The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I won't suggest anything here except that there's a lot of favourable conditions here to funnel money into dead-on-arrival projects. EU should just focus on reducing legislation, bureaucracy, regulation and taxatio…

But funding opensource projects is by definition transparent. Sure, there might be some politics involved in the selection. However, I see many cool projects when I scroll through the list of NLNet: https://nlnet.nl/project/current.html

Furthermore, the amount of funding for these projects is peanuts for governments.

Re: Open Letter to the European Commission

#19
post #18
post #10

NixOS may be legitimate, but the amount of BS funded under these EU programs is atrocious. The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I won't suggest anything here except that there's a lot of favourable conditions here to funnel money into dead-on-arrival projects. EU should just focus on reducing legislation, bureaucracy, regulation and taxatio…

But funding opensource projects is by definition transparent. Sure, there might be some politics involved in the selection. However, I see many cool projects when I scroll through the list of NLNet: https://nlnet.nl/project/current.html Furthermore, the amount of funding for these projects is peanuts for governments.

I'm not fully qualified to talk of the OS side, however the commercial side has some ridiculous ideas.

For instance, I once looked at a R&D program for commercial software for which one of the cornerstone criteria was that you HAD to build your software on top of some discount "EU-developed" tools like some bespoke databases and such.

I think anyone who has spent any time building actual stuff to sell on the markets will see how detrimental this system is.

Re: Open Letter to the European Commission

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I was surprised to find a few years back that the big consultancy companies actually have teams dedicate to advising companies on these applications and supporting documents. Helping them navigate the complexity. If you need to pay consultancy companies to navigate the process then you just killed acce…

Disclaimer: I run a Brussels-based startup accelerator which, as part of its program, assists startups in these applications (just like those consultancy companies you mention). And I completely, entirely agree with you. The process is very, very annoying, long, bureaucratic, uncertain and frustrating. It's quite transparent actually unlike GP says, but the main problem is that the scale of the complexity involved in…

Worth remembering EU funding is collected from the nations that participate. In other words, our tax money is paid into the money pool, application consultants eat 10-30% of it and then it gets paid back to those who can afford to pay consultants six-figure sums at minimum. EU bureacrats can pat each other in the back for "creating inspiring and fantastic things", per your words.

Altogether a fantastic system. /s

Post reply on HN