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

#171

Post by languagewars » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 1:45 PM UTC

blowski wrote: post #138

languagewars wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying "it's nothing" is a losing argument in every town hall meeting that ever takes place. $32 million is a lot of parks, operations, libraries, and whatever else you like. You have changed the scale by 2 orders of magnitude to make it something. $100 is a 5th of someone people's yearly salary, so how dare you waste it on entertainment every month?

Compare: $100 is nothing so it doesn't matter what I spend it on. to I spend $100 on entertainment every month because I like watching TV. To clarify, the $32 million spent by 18F sounds like fantastic value for money, and we should emphasise that value.

I left out that I meant 2 orders of magnitude in government. Comparing federal spending to what would be waste in a town or county is an example of giving into propaganda steered stupidity as an acceptable norm.

I don't disagree that this is a terrific value. I disagree with it coming up for discussion like this in absolute terms when nothing the federal government does that is blatantly absurd could ever discussed in absolute terms without seemingly like an unworldly statistic at any local level besides, maybe, in NYC.

There are 34,000 $32 million dollar units in federal discretionary spending. I'm willing to bet that if someone randomly samples another one it will be worse than this one.

That 32 million may be enough for a town to redo it its main library if it received it through complex graft using a rider (and then some kind of magic to get it to the town level) is a bizarre distraction from anything meaningful at the federal level.

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

#172

Post by lucideer » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 1:51 PM UTC

msimpson wrote: post #170

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.

First of all, since when did "guys" uniquely refer to the male gender? Second, how was this even worth the time it took to create?

"Guys" is plural for "guy", which literally means "man". The plural has informally been made gender neutral in an attempt to be inclusive, but the connotations will always remain given what the singular means, so it's a pretty regressive attempt at inclusivity.

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

#173

Post by blowski » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 1:52 PM UTC

languagewars wrote: post #171

blowski wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare: $100 is nothing so it doesn't matter what I spend it on. to I spend $100 on entertainment every month because I like watching TV. To clarify, the $32 million spent by 18F sounds like fantastic value for money, and we should emphasise that value.

I left out that I meant 2 orders of magnitude in government. Comparing federal spending to what would be waste in a town or county is an example of giving into propaganda steered stupidity as an acceptable norm. I don't disagree that this is a terrific value. I disagree with it coming up for discussion like this in absolute terms when nothing the federal government does that is blatantly absurd could ever discussed i…

I refer you to Tip O'Neill's observation that "All politics is local".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_politics_is_local

I believe the Government should spend the money, but I also believe that you can't wave away any concerns about it by claiming it's not worth worrying about.

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

#174

Post by jrockway » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 1:52 PM UTC

striking wrote: post #162

jrockway wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you're younger than 29.88 years old: no, you haven't. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(727+hours+%2F+(4+minu... This is assuming you've brushed your teeth for two minutes, twice a day, since the day you came out of the womb.

I'm not. I do know how to do multiplication.

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

#175

Post by noir_lord » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 1:54 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…

This happened in the UK with the GDS (which 18F is modelled closely on), they got savaged in the press by vested interests, it was pretty blatant tbh.

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

#176

Post by lucideer » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 2:03 PM UTC

lsmarigo wrote: post #10

Activities that can’t be billed to other agencies are another drain. One example is staff time totaling 727 hours on a logo change. The old logo was a blue square with 18F in the lower-right-hand corner. The new logo, a black square with 18F centered and a different font, wasn’t worth the time and doesn’t look as good. for anyone else curious: (new) Black Logo: https://18f.gsa.gov/assets/img/logos/18f-logo.svg (old)…

This is almost certainly off-topic, but am I the only one on HN who much prefers the newer logo?

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

#177

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #176

lsmarigo wrote: post #10

Activities that can’t be billed to other agencies are another drain. One example is staff time totaling 727 hours on a logo change. The old logo was a blue square with 18F in the lower-right-hand corner. The new logo, a black square with 18F centered and a different font, wasn’t worth the time and doesn’t look as good. for anyone else curious: (new) Black Logo: https://18f.gsa.gov/assets/img/logos/18f-logo.svg (old)…

This is almost certainly off-topic, but am I the only one on HN who much prefers the newer logo?

It's a much better logo.

From an aesthetic perspective the old one looked like a sign from Studio 54. It was a late-70s throwback font: cool looking, but not really the right connotation for a tech team that is supposed to be dragging the government into the present. The new font and alignment is more neutral and graphical.

From a practical perspective, the new logo retains its legibility better at small sizes on screens, compared to the old logo's smaller thinner font. And making the new logo black and white reduces variants and therefore reduces cost. It's the same logo file whether you're printing 1-color, 2-color, or full-color.

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

#178

Post by forgottenpass » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 2:15 PM UTC

cloakandswagger wrote: post #41

jacobsenscott wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh. I'm sure google spent millions on their logo change, and it was just a font tweak. Hackernews was gushing. God knows what they spend per week on google doodles. There's no winning here for 18f. Either their sites are archaic disasters and they are criticized for not being up to par with the top tier consumer sites. Or they spend some money to bring them up to par and its "OMG! An $800 toilet seat!"

I want government sites and buildings to look like archaic disasters, because it at least implies that my tax dollars aren't being pissed away on frivolous opulence. Google can spend ten billion dollars changing their logo because they're profitable and they answer to their board & shareholders. I don't remember anyone asking me if I wanted to contribute money to a government tech startup.

"I want government sites and buildings to look like archaic disasters"

And what do you propose doing about people who use arguments of the form: "Can you believe this government $thing? It looks like an archaic disaster. Government can't do anything right. Therefore..."

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

#179

Post by 6DM » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

cloakandswagger wrote: post #41

jacobsenscott wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh. I'm sure google spent millions on their logo change, and it was just a font tweak. Hackernews was gushing. God knows what they spend per week on google doodles. There's no winning here for 18f. Either their sites are archaic disasters and they are criticized for not being up to par with the top tier consumer sites. Or they spend some money to bring them up to par and its "OMG! An $800 toilet seat!"

I want government sites and buildings to look like archaic disasters, because it at least implies that my tax dollars aren't being pissed away on frivolous opulence. Google can spend ten billion dollars changing their logo because they're profitable and they answer to their board & shareholders. I don't remember anyone asking me if I wanted to contribute money to a government tech startup.

Government sites that look like archaic disasters are like that because the money was pissed away by people who have no desire to learn and want job security. I watched it happen a lot. Tech leads, with tech lead salaries who don't even know simple things like dependency injection and MVC design patterns. Yeah, that's where your tax dollars are going. I'm hoping that I can start my own business and get into this space. There's a lot of money sloshing around, at least I can bring real value and deliver working products while I'm collecting some of it.

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

#180

Post by striking » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 2:29 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #174

striking wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're younger than 29.88 years old: no, you haven't. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(727+hours+%2F+(4+minu... This is assuming you've brushed your teeth for two minutes, twice a day, since the day you came out of the womb.

I'm not. I do know how to do multiplication.

I didn't mean to insult you, just thought it'd be fun to do the math for anyone else who was scrolling by and didn't care to.

If I offended you, I'm sorry.