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

US Tech Force

techforce.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 320 posts

Re: US Tech Force

#101

Post by ActorNightly »

embedding-shape wrote: post #27

> Participants will work on high-impact technology initiatives including AI implementation, application development, data modernization, and digital service delivery across federal agencies. > The initial roster of private sector partners includes Adobe, Amazon Web Services, AMD, Anduril, Apple, Box, C3.ai, Coinbase, Databricks, Dell Technologies, Docusign, Google Public Sector, IBM, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI,…

>Remember that in just 3 years this will stop helping you to get hired, and will probably look like a blemish on your CV when you eventually need to get a new job.

The worst part about this entire political is that Dems are most likely gonna win, and everyone will just move on.

Im really hoping that Trump lives long enough to actually stage a coup and tank the US economy so hard that things like working for this or DOGE actually do start to matter.

Re: US Tech Force

#102

Post by Jtsummers »

lumost wrote: post #95
jotux wrote: post #58

>What is the expected compensation for participants? Compensation varies based on experience level and agency placement. Annual salaries are expected to be in the approximate range of $150,000 to $200,000. Benefits include health insurance, retirement plans, paid time off, and eligibility for performance-based awards. >Tech Force will primarily recruit early-career technologists So "early-career" but they're going to…

At least in 2010, it was common for new grads to get GS-14/GS-15 pay for in-demand tech skills. It's a bit odd that early career folks would start out at the max of the pay band, but it is what it is. These were for roles which required a clearance.

Not for people with just a BS, at least outside certain areas (DC) and roles (cybersecurity). GS-12 was a more typical "target" position (with GS-13 on occasion, like at some of the labs) back in 2010. A masters or a PhD could have bumped you up to GS-13/14/15 though.

Target: People typically enter, when coming out of college, at a lower grade in the GS-5/7/9 area with a target position of one of GS-11/12/13. IT (not CS) folks were often in GS-11 targeted positions, computer scientists and engineers often in GS-12 positions. They'd get promoted in two grade increases (5 to 7, 7 to 9, 9 to 11) or one grade increases (11 to 12, 12 to 13) until they hit their target grade. At a rate of either one increase per year or per 6 months depending on when they got hired, by what agency, and in what role. An IT person, usually one increase per year; engineer, typically two increases per year. Computer scientists usually got screwed and got one increase per year which meant you had fewer of them wanting to work for the government (they also, at that time, rarely got signing bonuses). This leaves a lot of the software shops in DOD (where I had experience) mostly filled with aerospace and electrical engineers.

"Cyber" roles (security; which could be a couple different job series) in some agencies jumped up faster or had a higher target grade due to the need (or perceived need) for more people.

Re: US Tech Force

#105

Post by alephnerd »

Jtsummers wrote: post #102
lumost wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in 2010, it was common for new grads to get GS-14/GS-15 pay for in-demand tech skills. It's a bit odd that early career folks would start out at the max of the pay band, but it is what it is. These were for roles which required a clearance.

Not for people with just a BS, at least outside certain areas (DC) and roles (cybersecurity). GS-12 was a more typical "target" position (with GS-13 on occasion, like at some of the labs) back in 2010. A masters or a PhD could have bumped you up to GS-13/14/15 though. Target: People typically enter, when coming out of college, at a lower grade in the GS-5/7/9 area with a target position of one of GS-11/12/13. IT (not…

> Not for people with just a BS, at least outside certain areas (DC) and roles (cybersecurity)

Based on the FAQ, US Tech Force roles are located in DC (so they'll get the DC adjustment) and from the sounds of it, this proposal is the AI Washing the "Cyber Service" or "Cyber Exempted Service".

Also, based on Scott Kupor's (former Managing Parter at A16Z turned head of OPM) memo [0] it appears they seem to be using the same approach used to start the USDS back in the Obama admin. And based on their mention of "fellows", I think they'll merging parts of what used to be the Presidential Management Fellows program.

If AI-washing and Trump-washing helps maintain the core of these programs, there's nothing wrong with that.

Edit:

Dug deeper thru the FAQ - it's basically an AI washed version of the PMF and PIF.

[0] - https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/building-the-ai-workf...

Re: US Tech Force

#106

Post by dabockster »

neilv wrote: post #94
jotux wrote: post #58

>What is the expected compensation for participants? Compensation varies based on experience level and agency placement. Annual salaries are expected to be in the approximate range of $150,000 to $200,000. Benefits include health insurance, retirement plans, paid time off, and eligibility for performance-based awards. >Tech Force will primarily recruit early-career technologists So "early-career" but they're going to…

> Before this administration recruiting was extremely difficult and candidate quality was low. I've heard that it's nearly impossible now and in the last 18 months they've only been able to hire a single person. Federal jobs used to be considered stable, with good benefits, but low pay. Now they're unstable, the current administration is actively working to make benefits worse, and the pay is still really low. Also,…

[flagged]

Re: US Tech Force

#107

Post by [deleted] »

afavour wrote: post #29

> Tech Force will primarily recruit early-career technologists > Tech Force will include centralized organization and programming and serve as a recruiting platform post-employment. Be prepared to struggle at the end of your two year placement because you have no idea how this is going to look on your resume two years from now. Maybe it’ll have the gravitas of having worked at the former USDS. But maybe it’ll be the…

[deleted]

Re: US Tech Force

#108

Post by neogodless »

pimlottc wrote: post #55
verst wrote: post #23

How is this different from 18F (a group within GSA which Elon killed), US Digital Service (which Elon kind of converted to DOGE) or Defense Digital Service (DDS)? Is the only difference that the current government can claim they started this (completely ignoring they dismantled the previous programs)?

More seriously, one big difference is that USDS recognized that design is as important as technology. This org only wants engineering-types. > We're looking for expertise in software engineering, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, data analytics, or technical project management. Strong problem-solving abilities and a passion for public service are essential.

https://americabydesign.gov/

Design is separate but equal.

Re: US Tech Force

#109

Post by mbesto »

tptacek wrote: post #70
embedding-shape wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a thing you can only say if you know very little about the talent pipeline for actual espionage technology in the USG Or something one might want to say if they want to still have plausible deniability about not having been there, yet still want to say something. Who knows.

The USG does not want plausible deniability about this. They actively recruit on elite engineering campuses over it. It is super fucking interesting work and candidates compete for the opportunity to do it. If you think otherwise, you're in a filter bubble.

> If you think otherwise, you're in a filter bubble.

Belittling. Excellent way to get your point across.

> They actively recruit on elite engineering campuses over it. It is super fucking interesting work and candidates compete for the opportunity to do it.

This seems like it should be an easy thing to verify with some sort of reference. This is exactly what the parent comment is suggesting and you still flippantly are avoiding it as "trust me bro". I actually believe you, so why don't you share some evidence then?

Re: US Tech Force

#110

Post by dabockster »

ActorNightly wrote: post #92
redbluered wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employers would have to be pretty spiteful to look at it the way you purposed. I wouldn't want a spiteful employer. The flip side is that a lot of government jobs lead to pretty good private sector opportunities working with those same agencies. If you want to contact to DOE, knowing how it works in the inside and knowing people there definitely helps. A lot of military contractors are former military. Who better to…

Yes and no. I have hired people to work under me. Generally, if someone can pass the interview and do the job, I don't care that much about your views unless you are very outwardly with them. The only time I had to filter out a candidate was due to a quick check of his public social media where he was "enthusiastically" pro Palestine with questionable posts. That being said, having interviewed plenty of ex government…

> Most people who work for the government show up expecting to be told what to do, then do it - very few can independently think for themselves.

I see this a lot in the private sector too here in Seattle. It's hurting us badly.

Post reply on HN