wslack

This has been the case since 2016 at least, I think.

It seems like this model would say that Google should not hire without an ironclad assurance that they will never need to do layoffs. Is that fairer - to never employ people in the first place?

Honestly though, I'm happy he talked more in this situation. We shouldn't decry people who acted horribly unethically digging their own legal grave.

I don't think he wanted "more," exactly - he felt excluded. It felt like something out of the character of friendship he wanted.

Hi, I work at USDS (and have worked generally on the hiring process for technologists). You're right about that for many agencies - the reasons being many and systemic, but it shouldn't apply with USDS.

Yes, and it's been written up. It doesn't have a moderating effect, at least on its own: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/02/upshot/these-...

(It was covered by the Times but paid for by a non-partisan group, with researchers participating)

The provide a fairly clear rationale beyond the ideological concern: users don't know/see who is on SMS and who isn't, and are being hit with high fees, and they are concerned that users may believe they have privacy when they do not.

These are reasonable issues and concerns, so I don't follow why you would question all of the other decisions they make.

If you can get a city/county/state to adopt Condorcet, by all means have at it. IRV is much better than FPTP because FPTP encourages candidates to drop out of a race so that their supporters can unite around one ideologically aligned candidates - meaning we lose the "signal" from those other candidates.

IRV, on the other hand, does not encourage candidates to drop out, allowing the voters to express their views more clearly.

Calling experienced Product Managers and Human-Centered Designers!

The Department of Homeland Security, alongside other federal agencies, is looking for mission-driven technologists within product and design disciplines to help improve customer experiences and digital services used by millions of people every day. Many impactful projects await as government services are transformed and modernized. We need your skills to power these efforts.

Applications will be open for a limited time, and interested candidates are strongly encouraged to apply as soon as possible.

Human-Centered Designers apply here: https://www.usajobs.gov/job/675741500 Product Managers apply here: https://www.usajobs.gov/job/675738800

Visit https://www.dhs.gov/join-dhs-cx-team for more information

Salary: $111,521.00 to $176,300.00

Location: negotiable after selection

There are different levels at the infra/platform/application layer. cloud.gov is built on top of AWS IaaS (though the PaaS could also be deployed on other infra).

By that logic, we should use illegally obtained evidence to record/track criminals. Not sure that's how the courts actually operate.

This is not accurate. There is no fixed annual amounts for anything the US Congress passes, notwithstanding the fact that the LHC is an international project.

Some companies don't do this sort of thing. That others do doesn't justify making this sort of choice with every company.

That isn't what Twitter is banning. There are plenty of academics working to refine our knowledge around the climate. Conservatives who have dug into the full science have concluded that the consensus today has merit.

This is knowable.

It's like the difference between someone researching the exact strength of antibiotics and claiming that medicine doesn't work. One of those isn't science.

A goal to get people into government service? Yes. A goal to enable regulatory capture? Definitely not.

> I've tried to apply to federal positions for years. I won't even get so much as a "fuck off".

Am guessing that you get (eventually) a message that you were "qualified but not referred?"

I'd be interested in hearing more about this if you are willing to share (same username on twitter)

Here's a job on budgeting with a secret clearance and no drug test requirement: https://www.usajobs.gov/job/646472000

Many civil service jobs don't require drug testing at all.

There are many situations where the government isn't managing work well but because that fiscally helps the contractor, the contractor works - hard - to keep the status quo in place. That is to the detriment of all of the other companies that could do it more efficiently.

This is also why we need strong technologists in government to ensure the contracts are written correctly from the start.

I understand this viewpoint but in this situation its not accurate. There are huge communities of people working to improve systems. 18F's github repos are public if you want to see exactly what they are doing: https://github.com/18f

I work at a related office mentioned in this thread (but am posting personally here):

You're 100% right about all of these, and I would emphasize that *the tech is not the hard part.* I would challenge you a little bit about something 10x greater being "beyond objectionable" - a benefit to users may not align with the incentives you named. For example, there's public evidence that some state governments deliberately made benefits harder to access to help even their budgets.

This is region dependent. In the US South its normal to have light conversations with strangers in public spaces (waiting in line, for example).

It's still a breach if an org misconfigures an API, allowing more records to be available than was indended.

Also, to be clear, those incentives aren't coming from within the bureaucracy. For example, let's say that a program tries to do something and it totally doesn't work. A news story about this will be roughly the same if $10,000 is spent as if $100,000 is spent as if $1,000,000 is spent.

That creates an incentive never to label anything a failure and just keep pumping good money after bad - that's how to avoid the negative article.

Not that different! Hi Alex. :)

They accepted edits via pull request when that was in the works! [1] Such a better model of giving feedback or suggesting edits compared to sending in a marked-up PDF.

[1]: https://github.com/usnistgov/800-63-3/pull/576

They neither paid him nor had edit approval on his content besides redacting classified information.

Other sites reusing the code are listed in this README: https://github.com/18F/analytics.usa.gov#readme

Try accessing off of VPN.