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

After 'coding error' triggers firings, top NIH scientists called back to work

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 318 posts

Re: After 'coding error' triggers firings, top NIH scientists called back to work

#221

Post by bdhcuidbebe »

fastball wrote: post #156
Terr_ wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it's completely destroying an incredibly valuable asset: The reputation of being a stable long-term employer! (This is possibly their corrupt intent.) The immediate "savings" reduced workforce (even assuming the same level of work gets done) can easily be obliterated by the long-term damage of needing to pay more to attract equally-qualified applicants away from the private sector. Some quick napkin-math just t…

Do we actually want "I just want a stable job" people being a significant part of the federal governments workforce? I generally wouldn't want those people to work for my company, so not sure why I'd want them to work in my government.

> Do we actually want "I just want a stable job" people being a significant part of the federal governments workforce?

Yes, absolutely.

Re: After 'coding error' triggers firings, top NIH scientists called back to work

#222

Post by hollerith »

fastball wrote: post #156
Terr_ wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it's completely destroying an incredibly valuable asset: The reputation of being a stable long-term employer! (This is possibly their corrupt intent.) The immediate "savings" reduced workforce (even assuming the same level of work gets done) can easily be obliterated by the long-term damage of needing to pay more to attract equally-qualified applicants away from the private sector. Some quick napkin-math just t…

Do we actually want "I just want a stable job" people being a significant part of the federal governments workforce? I generally wouldn't want those people to work for my company, so not sure why I'd want them to work in my government.

>Do we actually want "I just want a stable job" people being a significant part of the federal governments workforce?

Yes we do.

Software development is unusual in that if a coder's mind goes off the rails and he starts committing bad code, the organization can easily use `git reset` to revert his changes.

Most jobs aren't like that. For example, on the factory floor, if a machine operator gets too creative, inspired or enthusiastic about the work, people tend to start losing limbs. And the managers of the factory floor are keenly aware of that, which is why passion is not a quality they want in their machine operators and neither is wanting to change the world.

Re: After 'coding error' triggers firings, top NIH scientists called back to work

#223

Post by mulmen »

fastball wrote: post #216
flir wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just made an argument about government based on a comparison with the private sector, and now you're agreeing that government and the private secctor have fundamentally different goals. Got to admit, I'm a bit lost.

The argument wasn't based on a comparison to the private sector. The argument is based on the fact that I prefer people who passionate about their jobs vs people who just want a stable paycheck. However the argument also applies to the private sector, which is why I mentioned it.

Have you considered that government employees accept less pay because they are passionate?

Re: After 'coding error' triggers firings, top NIH scientists called back to work

#224

Post by autoexec »

fastball wrote: post #219
autoexec wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we actually want "I just want a stable job" people being a significant part of the federal governments workforce? Yes. People looking for a stable job put down roots and grow communities. They gain deep knowledge of the systems and people they work with, and they gain valuable wisdom from experience. I have no idea why you wouldn't want people looking for a stable job at your company. Why would you want an emplo…

The comment I replied to was holding out the federal government as an especially stable employer, as compared to the private sector. Sure, you don't want a reputation for firing people a week after you hired them, but A. that is not what is happening here B. not doing that doesn't mean it is actually desireable for the federal government to be seen as a more stable alternative to the private sector. Said another way:…

Because most companies don't care about their employees. Many of America's largest private employers like Amazon and Walmart have extremely high turnover, so it's no wonder people are looking for a more stable employer. Government workers are far more likely to be unionized which means they can get better working conditions and actual pensions. Government workers can take far more pride in being public servants than they would peeing in a bottle for amazon. It's no surprise there is less turnover.

Any company could have a reputation for treating employees so well that people want to work there and stick around until they retire, but they usually don't because screwing over their employees makes them more money. Governments are freed from having to prioritize maximizing profits at the cost of everything else.

Re: After 'coding error' triggers firings, top NIH scientists called back to work

#225

Post by [deleted] »

rafaelmn wrote: post #158
jmward01 wrote: post #50

The obvious methodology at work here is 'fire everyone then hopefully re-hire only what is blindingly obviously needed'. There are many, many problems with this approach in a business setting but even more from a governmental setting. The first, and what should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of empathy, is that these are real people who's lives are being toyed with. It isn't like you are trying out a new business…

>It is about total benefit to society, period. Money is the best tool we have to measure that. Sure it has pathological cases, but overall it's the least bad version to assign value. In the government case it's much worse at this since it's not voluntary and measuring aggregate government services vs. tax. The consumption/price is completely unrelated, etc. >I know of several people that are 'employed' but net negati…

[deleted]

Re: After 'coding error' triggers firings, top NIH scientists called back to work

#226

Post by fastball »

mulmen wrote: post #223
fastball wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument wasn't based on a comparison to the private sector. The argument is based on the fact that I prefer people who passionate about their jobs vs people who just want a stable paycheck. However the argument also applies to the private sector, which is why I mentioned it.

Have you considered that government employees accept less pay because they are passionate?

So this begs the question why we need "stable employment" as a hallmark of the government sector in order to attract talent.

Re: After 'coding error' triggers firings, top NIH scientists called back to work

#227

Post by [deleted] »

fastball wrote: post #226
mulmen wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that government employees accept less pay because they are passionate?

So this begs the question why we need "stable employment" as a hallmark of the government sector in order to attract talent.

[deleted]

Re: After 'coding error' triggers firings, top NIH scientists called back to work

#228

Post by salawat »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #35
barbarr wrote: post #11

Is there any proof that they're coding errors? A simpler explanation, to me at least, is that they first blanket fired people by dubious criteria, and are now using this as an excuse to backpedal when they realize they've cut something important.

It's either an actual 'coding error' because DOGE doesn't actually understand WTF they're doing or it's what you're suggesting. So it's Incompetence or Malice. Pick your poison.

Serial incompetence without regard for due caution is indistinguishable from malice. Don't cut yourself with that rust old Hanlon's razor.

Re: After 'coding error' triggers firings, top NIH scientists called back to work

#229

Post by fastball »

autoexec wrote: post #224
fastball wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment I replied to was holding out the federal government as an especially stable employer, as compared to the private sector. Sure, you don't want a reputation for firing people a week after you hired them, but A. that is not what is happening here B. not doing that doesn't mean it is actually desireable for the federal government to be seen as a more stable alternative to the private sector. Said another way:…

Because most companies don't care about their employees. Many of America's largest private employers like Amazon and Walmart have extremely high turnover, so it's no wonder people are looking for a more stable employer. Government workers are far more likely to be unionized which means they can get better working conditions and actual pensions. Government workers can take far more pride in being public servants than…

> Government workers can take far more pride in being public servants than they would peeing in a bottle for amazon. It's no surprise there is less turnover.

See, this is where you're losing me. One the one hand you are arguing that part of what makes working for the government desirable is the job itself / the work being done (which sounds good to me), but then you are immediately conflating that with a reputation for being a "stable employer" (read: not firing people when maybe you should), which is not how I want my tax dollars to be used.

I don't want the federal government to be a jobs program that keeps people on payroll just because it "isn't worried about profits". Profits aren't my concern, spending is, and the federal government should absolutely be worried about spending, because money doesn't grow on trees. I want the federal government to be exactly as big as it needs to be in order to deliver on the democratically decided goals of the American people.

If we can't attract the right talent to run the government, we should either scale back our federal ambitions or we should pay more up front.

Re: After 'coding error' triggers firings, top NIH scientists called back to work

#230

Post by [deleted] »

autoexec wrote: post #224
fastball wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment I replied to was holding out the federal government as an especially stable employer, as compared to the private sector. Sure, you don't want a reputation for firing people a week after you hired them, but A. that is not what is happening here B. not doing that doesn't mean it is actually desireable for the federal government to be seen as a more stable alternative to the private sector. Said another way:…

Because most companies don't care about their employees. Many of America's largest private employers like Amazon and Walmart have extremely high turnover, so it's no wonder people are looking for a more stable employer. Government workers are far more likely to be unionized which means they can get better working conditions and actual pensions. Government workers can take far more pride in being public servants than…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN