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

Announcing the data.gov archive

lil.law.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 148 posts

Re: Announcing the data.gov archive

#111

Post by tristor »

dekhn wrote: post #109
tristor wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research grants. That said, Harvard has the largest university endowment in the world, they'd be just fine operating at their current size off their endowment proceeds effectively forever.

For a while it was controversial whether they would even allow themselves to draw from the account itself versus merely funding things from interest.

To put that into perspective of what it means, conservatively they can spend $2.14B every year and never touch the principle of their $53.6B[1] endowment following the "4% rule".

[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/10/17/harv...

Re: Announcing the data.gov archive

#112

Post by MattGrommes »

marcinzm wrote: post #99
dmd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has strong free speech protection The US literally just told (e.g., [0]) all scientists working for it they are not permitted to publish papers or speak at conferences or travel. What the US "has" is irrelevant when laws are being ignored. [0] https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/revised-and-extend...

That's an employer telling employees what to do? Google can tell the same thing to it's employees and does. I don't see the relevance to the government telling other entities what to do.

The federal government isn't just "an employer", it's an extension of the public will funded with public money and should work toward the public good.

Re: Announcing the data.gov archive

#113

Post by headcanon »

black_puppydog wrote: post #5

Great to see there's some resistance. What I'm missing from this announcement though is any mention of how they intend to secure this "vault" against the current government. I'm assuming good intentions on the part of Harvard, but keeping this data online against the express will of the government is gonna cost (political) capital. And from what I can see, the archive is hosted by US entities on US-controlled servers…

> how they intend to secure this "vault" against the current government

Definitely a concern, if they want to harass Harvard and the other universities they could, but I don't think they'll bother. They know the data will be backed up, that's not the point.

Taking it off of data.gov accomplishes two things:

1) Makes it look like they're doing something, playing to the base. Easy to do

2) Delegitmize any insights the data might have. "Sure you have 'data', is it official data? I don't see it on data.gov. How do we know its not fraudulent?" It makes it harder to use it to justify policy changes. It adds one more tool to the denial crowd.

Re: Announcing the data.gov archive

#114

Post by dekhn »

tristor wrote: post #111
dekhn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a while it was controversial whether they would even allow themselves to draw from the account itself versus merely funding things from interest.

To put that into perspective of what it means, conservatively they can spend $2.14B every year and never touch the principle of their $53.6B[1] endowment following the "4% rule". [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/10/17/harv...

They already fund a fraction (1/3, I think) of their annual operating budget (>$6B) doing something similar to that. Ah, the article you linked says more or less that.

IIUC, The controversy was that some folks wanted to draw down the principal to do capital improvements (new buildings, etc) and other folks wanted to be as conservative as possible (potentially not even using the interest for operations).

Re: Announcing the data.gov archive

#116

Post by scarface_74 »

sundaeofshock wrote: post #89
scarface_74 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s stop applying copium to recent events and making excuses. The American people knew exactly what they were getting and voted for him anyway. He won a majority of the popular vote. The Senate is 2 Senators per state regardless of the population and isn’t as susceptible to gerrymandering. That being said, I don’t feel bad for anyone who voted for Trump and is having buyers remorse. We are already seeing it with Ar…

He did not get a majority of the vote. He won with a plurality of 49.8%.

Does that somehow make you feel better about your fellow Americans? Yes I’m a born and bred US citizen.

The crap that Michelle Obama and the rest of the DNC spew about “going high when they go low” and “this is not who we are” is just that.

This has always been who we are.

Re: Announcing the data.gov archive

#117

Post by milesrout »

Juliate wrote: post #30
milesrout wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm assuming good intentions on the part of Harvard, but keeping this data online against the express will of the government is gonna cost (political) capital. Harvard like other liberal institutions has little to no political capital in a Republican white house in the first place. Why would it cost them any to host data that is in the public domain? This sort of silly overreaction is part of why people voted for Tr…

> Nobody was taken away by the Gestapo Someone forgot the "kids in cages" episodes in 2018 when Trump was only testing the waters... EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_se...

https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/president-obama-want...

Nothing to do with Trump. Also Trump's policy was completely sensible, and no different to what happens when adults are sent to prison anywhere else: you cant put their kids in prison with them obviously.

Re: Announcing the data.gov archive

#118

Post by milesrout »

labster wrote: post #29
milesrout wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

So it’s a delusion that the guy who tried to overthrow the vote last time will prevent the next election this time? Tyrants tried multiple times before succeeding in Athens, why not today?

He didnt try to "overthrow the vote" any more than Clinton did in 2016 or Gore did in 2000.

Re: Announcing the data.gov archive

#119

Post by milesrout »

sofixa wrote: post #93
nxm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same hyperboles were said in 2017 and we were fine, and in fact, economy was booming and there was world peace during his first term.

> was world peace during his first term Cringes hard in the Yemeni civil war. Or the conflict in the Donbass. Or the various insurgencies in the Sahel, or the war in Darfur, or the Syrian civil war. > Same hyperboles were said in 2017 and we were fine Were you fine? The Supreme Court was stacked by blatantly political appointees who then declared that the president has immunity for official business, even if it's bla…

>Were you fine? The Supreme Court was stacked by blatantly political appointees

Supreme Court appointments have been political for decades in the US. Sad? Yes. New? No.

>who then declared that the president has immunity for official business

Not a surprising ruling at all, and not a political one. Not a "disgusting" precedent. It is a very narrow ruling and is consistent with how these things have worked for decades. There is an impeachment process, you know that right?

Post reply on HN