Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question: why did DARPA work?
If people are genuinely curious, this is the best explanation I've seen of why DARPA worked: https://benjaminreinhardt.com/wddw > The Advanced Research Projects Agency model is of an organization set up to maximize the agency and effectiveness of world-class program managers (PMs) who coordinate external research to midwife technology that wouldn’t otherwise happen (Programs.) > The model has changed over time, but h…
UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
181–190 of 210 posts
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#182I still don't see how any government granting committee can outperform hundreds of private venture funds competing for exposure to new opportunities. Even if you have a government dept. of 10x geniuses, they don't scale to compete with a healthy investment community. As described, the risks I see are that, it has the incentives for a patronage slush fund, there will be selection bias to hedge political risk around pe…
> Even if you have a government dept. of 10x geniuses In Government? I chuckled. > it will just become another grant vehicle for academics in the publish-or-perish regime I can already see the selection committee, all from non-technical backgrounds, getting clear instructions on who to fund and who to reject based on the demographics the party wants to appeal to and existing donors.
DARPA lists biographies of its newest program managers. All but one has a doctorate in a relevant field; the lone exception has a master's degree and aerospace work. They turn over every few years too, so it's not like their experience is stale.
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those doubting the above, here is an example from the recent past of corruption from the Prime Minister, paying his lover with public funds: https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/31/10000-grant-given-boris-johns...
The problem with this line of argument is that it applies to anything and everything done under the current conservative banner. IE, Torrie/Boris corruption is the only topic. Whether it's a British DARPA, new sewage plant, or change to the tax code, the only thing to say is " They're corrupt. This is just another pilfering. " I'm sympathetic to the focus on corruption. Corruption is bad. That said, I don't think the…
A key moral principle for a democratic government is to maintain public trust in democracy and its institutions. By pilfering public funds to enrich themselves and their friends, this government (and Johnson himself) has broken that principle, and until that has been remedied with resignation or impeachment, and ideally jail, it’s reasonable to talk of nothing else.
Except of course in this case we might also want to discuss this government’s appalling record elsewhere: allowing more of its citizens to die than almost anywhere else, per capita, by prioritising “the economy” and ignoring its own scientists; or destroying tens to hundreds of billions of pounds in wealth and tens to hundreds of thousands of livelihoods through their extraordinary scorched-earth Brexit.
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Insiderism exists. It existed yesterday, last year. I'm guessing you're not living in Britain? The last few years have been on a different scale entirely. We've had to get used to a government that delivers contracts free of tender to shell companies owned by friends and donors that fail to deliver and don't even pretend to be legit (have you heard the one about the "ferry company" that thinks it's a takeaway resta…
> have you heard the one about the "ferry company" that thinks it's a takeaway restaurant? As an American, no, so I Googled it. [1] > It added: 'Seaborne Freight (UK) Limited reserves the right to seek compensation through legal action for any losses incurred as the result of hoax delivery requests and will prosecute to the full extent of the law.' > ... > And Bristol North West MP Darren Jones added: 'Hilarious. Gov…
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, corruption and insiderism is an important topic in its own right. Up and down this thread though, it seems that British HNers are insisting that it's the only topic. IE, they're against this agency (and presumably everything else that spends money in any way) because corruption. Is this true for roads? No new schools, parks or research agencies until corruption is gone? It seems over the top to me. The " Boris'…
Ideas that I haven't tested: - Once you leave office, you get a big salary for life, but can't have another job. No working for a bank, or happening into consultancy. No speaking fees, though you are of course free to give speeches to whomever you like. Yeah it's draconian, but there's plenty of people who want the role. - Make all the government's accounts visible to everyone. All the money, wherever it goes, is tie…
What is a job, exactly? How about I do you a favor, and you do me a favor, but no money changes hands? It would probably be an improvement over the status quo, but determined minds will find a way
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#186Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others have commented, I think the animosity against this announcement isn't necessarily that it wouldn't be successful, just that it's a clear attempt to widen and hush up the current government's already large grift pipeline. FWIW, from my experience in UK public projects, I think the question of how to improve their varied success is complex and would take a long time to fairly cover. Though, off the top of my…
The restrictions on FOI may be an attempt to allow the government to directly pay market rates and otherwise do the things they normally have to hide via an outsourcing partner. Look at what happens when the Daily Mail and/or opposition MPs find out that an IT boffin is being paid more than a nurse. They stoke unjustified outrage until the hospital is forced to outsource to Crapita to hide its costs.
It would definitely seem reasonable to shield a high-tech risk-taking organisation from overtly political attacks that ultimately jeapordise its mission - even the need to accept and handle FOI requests, correctly applying an existing exemption, will introduce more friction on an R&D-heavy, tech first organisation. If the programme managers are expected to spend a day a week checking FOIs to ensure the exemption claimed is accurate and valid, this just detracts from the mission.
It's strange this is the aspect people hare focused most on - one easy way to avoid the issue would be to set it up within the MOD as a defence research facility (as DARPA was). Making it more civilian focused may give better outcomes, but you raise a good point that if this initiative is held back by inability to pay market rate (and performance bonuses), it may end up worse in the long run.
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#188The USA's DARPA program funded important research into - The internet - GPS - Graphical user interface and mouse - Onion routing - Voice assistant Hopefully this program executes well. There is clearly a big social payoff to betting big on credible people doing risky research with high potential impact. https://www.itpro.co.uk/technology/34730/10-amazing-darpa-in...
DARPA gets used as an example a lot, so let's take it as a our type specimen. What makes an (D)ARPA? What (besides funding) made it work? Is secrecy and/or low accountability important? Defense/weapons focus? Was the cold war a necessary condition? Do they have an investment philosophy that could be copied? Managerial philosophy? Is high level stuff even relevant or is it details like 5 year PM appointments and selec…
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
The restrictions on FOI may be an attempt to allow the government to directly pay market rates and otherwise do the things they normally have to hide via an outsourcing partner. Look at what happens when the Daily Mail and/or opposition MPs find out that an IT boffin is being paid more than a nurse. They stoke unjustified outrage until the hospital is forced to outsource to Crapita to hide its costs.
In terms of raw salary, I think the current mess is more a result of the government's own "pay cap" crusade over the last decade—I haven't known anyone really be against the idea that public sector salaries should at least have kept pace with inflation, and I feel like there wasn't really any call for the dirty tactics the government has brought to negotiation over the past few years. But you're probably right that p…
A general "pay scale" mindset is also part of the issue - when you try to put everyone on a scale that was designed around a model of generalists, it starts to fall apart when you need specialists skills that industry also wants. Government simply won't get the skills it requires, with the experience needed, if it insists on paying a 10-year experienced senior engineer with niche skills less than their non-technical generalist senior.
> But you're probably right that public visibility has spoiled other perks that are otherwise part of a functioning job—travel to conferences, overnight stays, on-site food outlets; it feels like they've all been cut from fear that they could end up as a bile-filled column in the Mail.
This is definitely a factor too. There is often a culture of cost-cutting in the wider public sector for the purpose of "being seen to be frugal". I've watched people (in their best intentions to be frugal) waste huge amounts of money, through short-sighted attempts to save money through false economies. Think people booking hotels dozens of miles from their destination to get what they perceive to be a cheaper room, without then thinking about the travel cost and time. Think booking a budget airline ticket to get to the wrong side of London, then rushing across London to get to the airport late for an expensive long-haul flight they now had to re-book... Or booking a hand-baggage only fare for a flight they know they'll take hold luggage for, then paying airport rates to check in luggage.
I've seen dedicated public servants doing early morning rush-hour trips to London to avoid staying overnight, because their "hotel allowance" per night wasn't enough to stay in London. The cost-differential between their ensuing peak-time early morning train ticket and an off-peak one the night before was such that they could have covered the "surplus hotel cost", had a nice dinner, and still had change left over. Computer says "no", common sense says "yes". All, as you say, to ensure nobody is seen as benefiting from anything remotely resembling a "perk".
All this makes it really hard to hire in good people, sadly.
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, corruption and insiderism is an important topic in its own right. Up and down this thread though, it seems that British HNers are insisting that it's the only topic. IE, they're against this agency (and presumably everything else that spends money in any way) because corruption. Is this true for roads? No new schools, parks or research agencies until corruption is gone? It seems over the top to me. The " Boris'…
Ideas that I haven't tested: - Once you leave office, you get a big salary for life, but can't have another job. No working for a bank, or happening into consultancy. No speaking fees, though you are of course free to give speeches to whomever you like. Yeah it's draconian, but there's plenty of people who want the role. - Make all the government's accounts visible to everyone. All the money, wherever it goes, is tie…
The UK needs Proportional Representation.