Why a federal high-tech start-up is a money loser • Hacker News Board

Re: Why a federal high-tech start-up is a money loser

#151

Post by jonstewart » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 12:26 PM UTC

dchichkov wrote: post #84

jonstewart wrote: post #34

Hi Silicon Valley! Thanks for visiting our nation's capitol! kisses, DC -- Seriously, this shouldn't be surprising. It's a noble effort, the work is probably worth the so-called "losses", but the reason the government is the government and not Silicon Valley is that in government, there are a bajillion rules to keep you from screwing up too badly. There's been a fetishization in DC of Silicon Valley techniques, but 1…

It is people that make the difference, not the place or techniques.

Well, the people here in DC are rule-makers and rule-followers. So there are a lot of rules and a lot of people enforcing the rules.

Re: Why a federal high-tech start-up is a money loser

#152

Post by nashashmi » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 12:28 PM UTC

rmason wrote: post #105

tyre wrote: post #25

I don't care if 18F makes money, and in some cases it may make sense for them not to. In a perfect market, they would be able to sell their services at the same price as the value of those services. So if they build a system for the Veterans Administration (VA) that saves $1 million, they should get $1 million for it. Their EOY revenue would reflect their value created. But they are actually selling to themselves. Th…

I smell a hit piece from a mile away. 18F has done a lot of good but in trying to change how government IT does business but they've also made powerful enemies who view them as a threat to their power base.. Find something that can be spun negatively and sell the story to a friendly journalist. That it what appears to have been done here. Next get the head of a budget committee to question 18F spending. It is all don…

I too smell a hit piece. But I kept reading to figure out why.

What got me thinking this was the statement about generating 22 million when there is a goal of 32 million. And that was after a year of zero revenue.

Re: Why a federal high-tech start-up is a money loser

#153

Post by jrockway » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 12:35 PM UTC

barney54 wrote: post #130

rmason wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I smell a hit piece from a mile away. 18F has done a lot of good but in trying to change how government IT does business but they've also made powerful enemies who view them as a threat to their power base.. Find something that can be spun negatively and sell the story to a friendly journalist. That it what appears to have been done here. Next get the head of a budget committee to question 18F spending. It is all don…

The story is reporting on a report from GSA's Inspector General. It's straight reporting. Not a hit piece.

The author comments that he doesn't like their new logo.

Re: Why a federal high-tech start-up is a money loser

#154

Post by jrockway » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 12:43 PM UTC

guessmyname wrote: post #42

JBReefer wrote: post #12

18F gives me the creeps because of https://18f.gsa.gov/2016/01/12/hacking-inclusion-by-customiz... Something about government robots and goodspeak speech correction feels Orwellian, even if it's really tiny.

Ha ha ha this Americans and their political correctness. I cringe every time I see things like this and the HN community doesn't escapes from it, in fact, I have seen more "political correctness" towards sexism here more than in other communities on the Internet (at least the ones I visit) . I still do not understand why people pay so much attention to these things. I can only imagine how people would react in countr…

This isn't about political correctness, it's about using the words you actually mean. If you are addressing a group of people, it makes sense to include them all in your address. So use a word that includes everyone, as the bot mentions, there are plenty.

If you think "guys" is gender-neutral, how about a thought experiment. You're a man, you started dating a woman. Do you tell your friends, "hey, I just started dating this great guy!" Nope. So why use that as your generic pronoun for your coworkers? It unnecessarily makes people feel excluded, even if you don't intend to exclude them.

Re: Why a federal high-tech start-up is a money loser

#155

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 12:52 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #153

barney54 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The story is reporting on a report from GSA's Inspector General. It's straight reporting. Not a hit piece.

The author comments that he doesn't like their new logo.

The greater point is that 727 hours of staff time were spent on it.

Re: Why a federal high-tech start-up is a money loser

#156

Post by jrockway » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 1:02 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #155

jrockway wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author comments that he doesn't like their new logo.

The greater point is that 727 hours of staff time were spent on it.

Is that a lot of time for a logo redesign? I've spent more time brushing my teeth than that.

Re: Why a federal high-tech start-up is a money loser

#157

Post by wpietri » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 1:06 PM UTC

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #111

wpietri wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a money grab, it's a badly designed one. I interviewed with 18F and would have had to take a pay cut even on a cash basis. (Government salaries are strictly limited by law.) They certainly don't give stock, and (gasp) you have to buy your own meals. So financially it's not a good deal at all.

no risk and guaranteed but limited salary...not great incentivization.

They're looking for people with a different motivation than maximizing personal profit. The people I talked to there were motivated by public service, solving big problems, and getting shit done.

Re: Why a federal high-tech start-up is a money loser

#158

Post by stuaxo » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 1:08 PM UTC

Because most startups lost money ?

Re: Why a federal high-tech start-up is a money loser

#159

Post by wpietri » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 1:08 PM UTC

Naritai wrote: post #122

Anasufovic wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your solution for gendered languages?

Regardless of what speakers of those languages do, we can do everything we can to remove gender bias from English. We don't have to keep doing something just because others are doing it.

Yup. I don't have a solution for gendered languages because it's not a problem I deal with much. I'm going to work on English, and I'll trust that other people will find the right solution for their cultures.

Re: Why a federal high-tech start-up is a money loser

#160

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 1:10 PM UTC

I have a unique perspective here, as I helped run a .gov (although not at the Federal level) that aspired to run as a self-supporting business.

It's difficult to do because the government isn't a business, and the decision cycle isn't the same as a commercial. Government is appropriation based, uses cash accounting and loves capital expenses. Businesses are diametrically opposite.

There's also a weird calculus for what factors into an ROI calculation and what doesn't. If money is appropriated, there's little incentive to reduce spending (and incentives to spend unnecessarily!) and rate structures don't influence decisions.

In short, I'm not supportive of government waste, but it's pretty clear that any money appropriated to 18F is delivering a positive return. The OMB people should address the perceived shortfall by just taking money away from targeted programs.