Being a Solo Founder: Pros, Cons, Tips and Tricks (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://baremetrics.com/blog/startup-solo-founder <comment><USER2> I am the SOLO Tech/coder guy for a startup. The other part is the salespeople only.

The worst thing is not having anyone to bounce ideas and discuss.

"Should we do multi-tenant?" "Terraform + ansible, or Container?"

"Chef, puppet, ansible?"

Is my code good? or just "enough"? Am I good or lucky?

When you have a team it is easier to answer these questions.

<comment><USER3> Can always get a consultant for a few hours to hash ideas with

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There are so many internal battles that you have; paralysis by analysis, over- optimization, learn/build versus buy, impostor syndrome, waiting too long to do xyz, and on and on. Then you have those days where you get stuck on something and wonder if anyone even cares about or notices what you do. But, would you have it any other way?

</comment><comment><USER5> Loneliness is a big issue for sure. When I started browserless, it was very much that way. In all honesty when I open sourced the project it helped quite a bit, and it's nice to hear both good and bad feedback versus wondering if folks like it.

That said, I think I'd make the same decision again. I like being the decision maker and feeling the weight of those decisions. And like Josh says, you can move so incredibly quick when an idea does surface.

<comment><USER6> Browserless is great! Thanks for a great product - Keep it up!

Disclosure: Paying customer :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been an entrepreneur non-stop for about 20 years. 15 of those as a solo- founder, across a few different start-ups.

I'll echo the common ones: some loneliness (the sense of being in an exhausting fight against terrible odds by yourself); and not having a co- founder confidant to bounce ideas off of and to interrupt your bad ideas or occasional bouts of doubt & skepticism.

You can certainly find people to bounce ideas off of, however, two serious issues will routinely impede that: the occasional need for various degrees of privacy on internal development matters, and deep contextual knowledge of exactly what you're doing. Very few people on the outside are going to understand what you're doing well enough to provide super valuable opinions.

I've spent ~18 months working full-time on a new start-up alone. It was supposed to take half that time, of course. It's the most important work I've ever done by far and it's the last thing I intend to ever build as an entrepreneur. I would have enjoyed having a co-founder on this project, however, realistically few people would be able to go along with something this time consuming and risky (no salary for two years). Sometimes it's just going to be all on you and you have to want it badly enough to persevere.

It's a fascinating situation in the non-VC start-up land these days (that is to say, I'm intentionally not raising VC, I need max control to see it through long-term; a VC would fuck it up by prioritizing profit as the prime motive and their get-big-too-fast mantra). For a good engineer to join me for two years to do this, they might have to forsake $300,000 to $400,000 or more in total compensation. Or you have to take a dilution & control smack to the face up front and go raise a million dollars in VC. In my opinion, having watched the industry closely since the mid 1990s, the huge financial trade-off for engineers in doing non-VC start-ups is an epic problem that dissuades a lot of people (for good, sane reason). It's a simple equation: you're an engineer in a top five tech city, are you going to sacrifice a million dollars (possibly a lot more in SV) in total compensation across three to five years to do a thing, if that's what it takes? That's a monster risk to take, particularly if you're still in prime earnings years.

That equation also enables me and others to do things many other people won't or can't dare to try, they won't eat the shit necessary to do it, or can't rationally take on the risk. It weeds out some competition.

<comment><USER8> If you're open to sharing, what are you building?

<comment><USER7> Sure. It's a new type of knowledge service (broadly in the Wikipedia, Quora, Britannica, Answers.com, wikiHow, Genius, et al. segment).

Like most people I strongly dislike what has happened to the Web. I love the Web, I grew up on the Web, I'll never stop being in love with it (particularly what it once was, and still can be - it's a choice that we get to make in how we build). This service is Web only. It's built to be super fast, so it uses no bloated frameworks. It uses no trackers. It uses no traditional analytics services. It doesn't require piles of personal info and I don't want to know who you are. It has no social media (no social login or buttons or trackers or accounts). The typical large content page weighs in at around 20-40kb in size and loads in 150-200ms with 8 requests, no cookies, 7kb of script, 4kb of css (I can push that further, but it's tight enough for now). There will be no images on the entire service (SEO punishment inbound) other than a small text logo. No ads. No pop-ups. No dark patterns like hiding content. It doesn't require users / readers to use JavaScript. All content is Creative Commons licensed.

The reason traditional VC can't be involved, is because they ultimately destroy all knowledge services they touch. I've been watching VCs (or private equity in the case of Answers.com; or giant corporations in the case of eg Verizon or IAC (eg about.com)) burn them to the ground for two decades now. To do it properly you have to prioritize what I call the knowledge motive, and absolutely minimize the profit motive. If you invert that value order, you'll destroy the service and you must inherently eventually betray the community that builds it up (this will happen to Stack Exchange; it has already happened to Quora). So this service is anti-commercialism; there is no business model going in; there will be no IPO; there is no exit plan; bare threads on expenses; it has to be run hyper thin, hyper optimized against cost and bloat. Doing that properly also helps keeps me independent. I have a ten year time frame allocated (including nearly two years into it so far), during which I'll push it forward and work on it no matter what happens, assuming I don't get hit by a bus or the equivalent. The ideal may or may not be to convert it to a charitable non-profit for long-lived purposes, assuming it works of course (I'm not assuming, I'm just doing it anyway because I want this thing to exist).

I've messed with building various knowledge services going back a decade. This hit me like a bolt of lightning back in April of 2018 and I began to flesh it out. It required a few revisions in concept before full build phase began. I had to take about three months in there to teach myself some new things I had to know to be able to build this to operate very inexpensively from day one and forward (I'm assuming it will never be flush via operations).

I'm probably going to do a Show HN this month or next for it and I'm going to begin showing it to some long-term Wikipedia editors that I know. Only a few people have seen it thus far, which breaks a good common rule - in this case I don't care, I'm not trying to find traditional product market fit, I don't have to desperately obey such concerns (it's solely my dime and my time), I built it because I wanted to, it will exist and persist because I want it to. There's a glorious freedom in that, and it might entirely fall flat initially or long-term - that's ok, I'm going in assuming the worst in terms of response; I'll see what kind of response it gets and decide on any adjustments.

I'm in this for the very long-term and plotted that way from the beginning. It's another reason typical VCs can't be involved, their horizon is short-term oriented. They'll destroy you trying to force you to get big fast, and it won't matter to them if they do it, even if the thing could have succeeded by growing slower. It's just one of many reasons why knowledge services are the anti-VC segment. If you ever see a knowledge service take on big VC, you already know the guaranteed outcome ahead of time: burned to the ground, forced liquidation for pennies on the dollar, or an exit sale before the VC runs out to continue funding the bloat taken on during the get-big-too-fast phase (and then the buyer runs it into the ground or shuts it down, hello Freebase).

So how will it stay afloat financially if it gains traction? Well, first, it's static cached text in the front, so it's dirt cheap to run at a very large scale. Beyond that I have some approaches that I think will work that I'll experiment with over time - it won't require much financially.

<comment><USER9> I'm interested in hearing more about its general design. I've been thinking about knowledge theory since 2012 and my current solution is to attach a broad privately-curated knowledge base (ended up simplifying to a markdown-git repo for now) on top of a high-tech engineering business for results-driven credibility/cashflow.

Consider the modern landscape of information.

Wikipedias are exhaustive and generic. Therefore inefficient (full of low- value ideas, distorted learning curve). Anti-promotion policy against spam also disrupts linking to great resources. Best for basic descriptions and factual details.

Search engines are keyword-dependent and unfiltered. Therefore unfollowable (no idea progression map, ex. index) and requires active trust/relevance/value filtering (volatile, learning-rate-limited by current skill level). Best for targeted navigation (ex. find a local bus route) and first-step wide-index exploration (initial net thrown to catch better keywords/resources).

Forums/Q&A involve waiting for answers within a permitted-QA context. Therefore slow, not guaranteed, indexed chronologically not logically, usually brief/incomplete. Best for popcorn-community exploration and immediate needs for new info.

<comment><USER7> > Forums/Q&A involve waiting for answers within a permitted-QA context.

The question primes the brain for the answer. You can use that socratic lead structure without going with a traditional Q&A wait-and-pray approach (ala Stack Exchange, Answers.com, Yahoo Answers, and so on). It does require a specific system design though. You can induce and control the Q&As around a topic, you don't need to wait. Doing it intentionally and rigidly, in some cases leads to a far superior system, as opposed to the chaos and quality problems of junk filled Q&A sites like Yahoo Answers or Answers.com. In the history of the Web only one major traditional Q&A site has ever gotten it really right over time, that's Stack Exchange (and we'll see yet if their commercial interests don't erode what they accomplished, as the VCs demand their exit). The track record is abysmal because most Q&A sites are beholden to an inherently bad approach: relying heavily (and allowing) on large volumes of people with no specialization or passion for a subject to ask & answer questions (so you get a lot of low quality drive-by answers that have to be moderated away or tolerated). It's the equivalent of walking into McDonald's and expecting a five star experience, and then being surprised when it's not (when it was obvious all along exactly what was going to happen, only one outcome was possible). wikiHow, as one example, has persisted (while nearly all other how-to sites have died off in the age of Google Penguin/Panda/etc) at a modestly sound quality for so long, because they set the hows, rather than just waiting around for junk how-to questions to be asked and answered in a mediocre fashion by low quality drive-by contributors; and they accept a lower level of commercialism and volume. wikiHow worked because they do hows in a similar way conceptually to how Wikipedia does topic pages (it's all rather preordained down a strict funnel, instead of wild flailing). You can do the same thing in other ways in the Q&A segment.

Not to mention of course in most cases a site's desperation for ad clicks and page views causes them to intentionally allow volumes of low quality trash to populate their Q&A systems (what Quora turned to as it became obvious they couldn't fulfill their valuation otherwise), instead of aggressively pursuing only quality. Quality in the knowledge space is very slow, it takes enormous amounts of time and requires aggressive, consistent, persistent moderation. It takes a long time to build a high quality knowledge culture that self- reinforces, self-protects.

I don't personally believe all questions have merit, quite the opposite. This is another core flaw to the typical Q&A site. Few questions - in the grand scheme of all likely human-generated questions - have much wide merit. Numerous low value Q&A sites have overwhelmingly demonstrated that to be true over time. It's millions of people walking by, spitting on the sidewalk, and calling it art.

> Therefore slow, not guaranteed, indexed chronologically not logically

Slow is ok. Very few things of great value are built quickly, that's true today, and it has been true throughout history.

Guaranteed you can heavily influence, by adding source requirements and restricting contribution (stepped barriers to contribution, and site-culture acting as an enforcer). I use a system that adds more friction to contribution than Wikipedia for example (I don't directly compete with them, I'm not building another encyclopedia), however there are aspects to my system that play to that approach better than it would on Wikipedia, so it evens out. You also want to build a culture that regulates low quality contributions, including brief / incomplete; you can do some of that technically, however you ultimately need a human culture involved at the center, I believe it'll still be another few decades at least before AI can do it effectively enough top to bottom.

Indexing order can be influenced and dictated by editors into a logical structure, although this buckles under duress on the standard messy high volume Q&A sites with millions of people spitting on the sidewalk. Those are too disorganized, unstructured for that bottling / silo approach to work. The typical Q&A site is a landfill; landfills are mostly filled with high volumes of low value trash, you don't want to go in there and try to logically order it; it's a large amount of effort for a small payoff because the content isn't very valuable (does this rotten banana peel go before that one). You have to narrow the Q&As in topic, quality and volume, on the basis that not every question matters. If you believe every question & answer matters as a site, you end up as Yahoo Answers or Answers.com (ie worthless in the end).

<comment><USER9> Agreed. I wouldn't want to waste my time reading or organizing trash info. Focusing on high quality info makes sense. Time is limited so we better make and live using efficient systems. Without the clickbait adpalooza value inversion from typical VCs or a high burn rate.

I wonder how far you are in crafting the specific user experience. I create an account with my email/username/password then... I choose a topic to enter? Can anyone add a topic (reddit)? Or admin controlled topics (4chan)? No default topic isolation (hackernews)? Can questions be tagged with multiple topics (robotics, business)? How many sections do I see on the pretopic/posttopic pages (chrono index, logical-curated index, valuable-computed index)? Are normal questions excluded from primary sections (lesswrong)? What can curators/moderators do? How do I become a curator/moderator?

You are right about quality answers requiring passionate experts. And they like it when their great answers STICK. Data persistence (no "erasure after X days"). Higher positional visibility on the question page. Well formed question/tags complementing answer text for on-site/off-site SEO. Natural index that leads guidance-seeking novices/journeymen to learning-curved versatile-valuable answers without additional searching/questioning. Popularity of the infosite itself.

2 key points of consideration. 1. Learn from what existing platforms did right and wrong (stack exchange) and make sure you are sufficiently innovating. 2. Determine your platform design direction/niche by simulating concrete examples (agriculture, Q: tutorials for starting a smallscale commercial fruit/vegetable farm?). I would like to hear your thoughts on how you currently want the site/curation to process/organize that example question.

<comment><USER7> > I wonder how far you are in crafting the specific user experience.

In terms of launch to the public? 96% complete user experience. A few days of work at this point. In terms of the grand scheme of things, difficult to guess how user interaction & input will alter everything over the coming years.

> And they like it when their great answers STICK. Data persistence (no > "erasure after X days").

Contributions are persistent based on their quality. They can be replaced by higher quality content, or removed based on spam / abuse and similar. Otherwise, quality contributions never expire and never lose their value (they don't vanish a billion pages deep, never to be seen again).

> Can questions be tagged with multiple topics (robotics, business)?

Tags are evil (in my opinion) outside of very specific platform types and should largely be avoided. It's an extra distraction, extra friction, extra layer of complexity, extra effort. All negative for the majority of contributors. It can work ok on a site like Stackoverflow, where you have a highly technical audience that will happily nerd out with tags. Less technical persons (most people) will hate dealing with tags. If you can do a thing without tags, it's almost always better to do it without.

> How many sections do I see on the pretopic/posttopic pages (chrono index, > logical-curated index, valuable-computed index)?

Logical curated indexing. Sections (content sections or areas, like categories, I assume) are intentionally avoided for the same reason as tags. I've gone to great effort to avoid complexity. I probably put as much time into that as anything, it requires a constant vigilance to avoid bloat and unnecessary 'features.' It's beautiful in its simplicity, hopefully editors will just get it thanks to that, it functions mostly in an obvious fashion (in part by limiting what can be done to a very clear, small set of actions; small, simple actions producing potent combined outcomes over time, that's the ideal).

> What can curators/moderators do? How do I become a curator/moderator?

Almost anything, in stepped fashion. You join to begin contributing (you can do _this_ thing initially, but can't do _that_ thing yet), and you contribute to acquire granular influence over most everything on the site. As you prove you're not a spammer, a bot, a belligerent asshole, a low quality contributor, you acquire mod 'rank' that gives you permissions and greater influence on content. I can pretty easily change the granularity of the whole system, to adjust as I see how editors impact things, where abuse is happening, or where I need less friction on contribution.

Ranking up is not automatic, so it can't be gamed in automated fashion (which would unleash wild abuse). It works on a system from E0 (editor level zero; read-only punishment) to E5 (me), and starts at E1; editors max out at E4. Once you're high enough you can upgrade other editors in a limited way, which is where I begin to delegate outward to the community of editors. I start it, act as benevolent dictator, try to shepherd a proper self-sustaining culture, and then hand it off increasingly over time.

It has a discussion system built into to its backbone, that enables editors to effectively communicate and give feedback to eachother during content building. It should also further community broadly speaking, including system feedback. I'm debating whether to eventually add an inbox editor-to-editor messaging system, I think I might with enough usage (early on it would just be negative complexity layered on top, one more thing to get in the way); I like the idea of all communication being viewable by editors on the platform, so that goes against the inbox concept.

It has a community hub system that shows all activity, all content creation, occurring on the system at that time or in the past. You can scope in on any given activity and it's all basically permanent record (unless there's something particularly bad that has to be literally removed, doxing for example).

> and make sure you are sufficiently innovating

You know what's interesting about the knowledge space right now? These days it's so barren and filled with piles of rotting corpses (most of which have been rotting for a decade and barely qualify as functioning services now), that that issue (make sure you're innovating) isn't something I've spent much time worrying about. What were the last interesting knowledge platforms? Quora 11 years ago, Stackoverflow 12 years ago. Maybe Genius as well (but it has contracted back into itself, back to lyrics). Wikipedia is almost old enough to drink. Few are doing anything in the space. There's no money in it (better to chase enterprise SaaS or fintech), so VCs aren't very interested (every decade or so they collectively forget the past mistakes they made and fund a new round of knowledge landfills they'll run into the ground) - it's a wonderful time and opportunity because of all of that.

> 2\. Determine your platform design direction/niche by simulating concrete > examples (agriculture, Q: tutorials for starting a smallscale commercial > fruit/vegetable farm?). I would like to hear your thoughts on how you > currently want the site/curation to process/organize that example question.

It doesn't have sections (eg agriculture), it's not a niche service, and it doesn't do how-to questions or stand-alone question answering. This concept has never existed before at scale, it's unusual in its approach, and it'll immediately make sense. I don't know if editors will take to the knowledge format / approach, we'll see.

Let me frame it better: you don't ask questions on this service. You use questions.

<comment><USER9> Junk info removed, mediocre info replaced, tags avoided, logically indexed, curation anti-gaming power-tiered, simplicity focused. I like the principles a lot.

I assume that "using questions" means something like contributors post pre- answered questions, hearkening back to the "questions prime the reader for the knowledge" idea you mentioned earlier. Also was glad to hear you're keeping design elements flexible to upgrade to whatever works better.

Sounds a bit like hackernews for compact knowledge, and I am curious how you will handle the contribution rules without sectioning (what kind of info is allowed) and logical indexing design.

I'd love to take a look and offer my thoughts when you're ready for private review. It's hard to find people who share a proactive passion for the progression of knowledge systems. Couldn't find your email on your hackernews bio, so just email me instead!

<comment><USER7> Your assumption is on the right track. There are ways to use questions, in how they prepare the reader's brain to receive knowledge, that most services are entirely oblivious to. I won't pretend my system is a great advancement, it might fail entirely and accomplish nothing; however, it's absurd how little is actually being done in the space by the major players. I think it's because they largely don't care about knowledge and don't have a true knowledge mission; they're VC businesses playing pretend at it. Quora for example is a clone of a clone of a clone, there's nothing special about it other than it has very modest Silicon Valley refinement. It's the 427th Q&A site in terms of lineage. Their initial one-trick pony was elitism ala FB's Harvard.edu: getting elite people in tech to jump-start it, which pulled in the next tiers of contributors (and they all abandoned it accordingly as it went south, as the elites had no real personal stake in the health of the system; the elites that used to answer questions & interact moved on to posting selfies and stories on Instagram, never thinking about Quora again).

You have the traditional Answers.com Q&A format, which was quasi perfected (maybe as much as possible until AI systems get a lot better) by Stackoverflow. Little has been done with it, mostly what Stack did was aggressively fix moderation and focus on high quality content (and keep the focus there for a long time). You can build a great service just by doing some of those things right, and sticking to it, of course.

You have the knowledge segment technicians, that focus on obtuse, abstract, distant, disconnected technical solutions to structuring knowledge. The semantic Web bullshit (Freebase was a failed product of that) from 10-15 years ago was largely a stillborn spawn of that realm. You still have an army of obsessive knowledge technicians messing with similar semantic Web concepts, having entirely failed to understand the failure of that era and that the knowledge structure isn't even remotely the most important aspect to getting to the proper end goal of maximum knowledge distribution & access. Those hyper technical system efforts almost always die on the lab floor so to speak, and almost never actually impact or benefit the end users: the billions of readers out there on the Internet. It's like living in an ivory tower and never touching the end knowledge consumer. Wikipedia at its heart is a very dumb encyclopedia in terms of its technical structure, and it has done radically more for traditional knowledge access & distribution than just about any other modern service (save Google of course).

The next great knowledge service will probably not be great because it has a revolutionary technical underpinning like a more advanced Freebase or similar. Those efforts will continue to fall flat, because the end reader/consumer does not care about any of that, it's superfluous to what they want. It's like great engineers that can't build great products because they don't understand the user at all and that most people aren't interested in highly technical or complex solutions (tendency toward over-engineering, having no Steve Jobs-like taste or touch for product). Freebase and many technical knowledge solutions put a lot of the technical capabilities in the reader's face in presentation; the key to eg Google succeeding was that it hid all of its incredible complexity behind a single input box of ultimate simplicity. The next great knowledge service will be quasi-dumb in terms of advanced knowledge structure, more like Wikipedia (and or it will otherwise entirely hide its advanced technical structure from the reader and appear dumb / simple on the outside).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am working alone, but at the end, there are many people with similar background around. I can discuss technical topics and applications easily. Of course, co-founder is nice to have. Another engineer at the very beginning and sales person with domain knowledge when rough prototype is on the table (I am in hardware business). The biggest issue with being alone is that nobody is funding single person ventures, bus factor is too high. Though I am not sure, if hardware ideas are easy to align with venture capital growth mantra in general. Maybe I will stay relatively small in small niche, that would satisfy me.

</comment><comment><USER11> I agree with everything except,

> Don't add a co-founder after the fact

Late co-founder makes a lot of practical sense to me.

\- It's less risky for the incoming person to join a small profitable company instead of joining an idea

\- You broadly know the problem space you will be working in (market, customers etc.) and the vision/direction of the company. Less likely to have fallouts a year or two down the line

\- More informed equity negotiation than just splitting it equally

<comment><USER12> While I'm not in the camp that says rigidly that a "founder" has to be there from the very first moment, I would struggle to think of someone as a co- founder who joined long after the company was formed and only after it was de- risked all the way to profitability.

That person would be an early employee in my book, not a co-founder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> That article resonates a lot. Being a solo founder 3 months in, I can agree with basically all of it. Especially the over thinking and over analyzing part. You have the idea, got some initial positive market feedback, got a general direction and plan. But then you have to get _out_ and _actually do it_. Which is a lot harder alone than I had thought. Not being in SV, there is less risk of a startup echo chamber so.

What did help a lot so far in my case was to get out and have concrete discussions with established people in my industry. Luckily I have some great people I can talk to, and bouncing ideas around with them on how to implement it and discuss concrete ways going forward to start a partnership really helped. It also forces you to get get moving.

And as some comment also stated, things tend to take a lot longer when you are alone than, at least I had, initially planned for.

</comment><comment><USER14> Good article. I like it when people share from personal experience, as opposed to theory.

In my case, I've been slowly building something up. It's been taking a lot of time. I'm fortunate, in not having to rush, and in not having to seek money from others.

I also have changed direction a few times. I started off, wanting to save the world, and have had to reduce my scope quite a bit.

I ran head-on into the ageism issue. No one wants to play with an old guy. Even though my particular mix of skills and experience are almost ideal for a startup, the grey hair outweighs it by a lot. It's been rather jarring.

So I just gave up trying to work with others, and am doing it myself. No matter. I have what it takes; it will just take longer.

It's not what I wanted, but it's what I got.

</comment><comment><USER15> Written in 2017 but certainly still relevant today, especially with his blog post from last month about almost selling for $5M:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22013700](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22013700)

</comment><comment><USER16> If you are not a great salesperson you are doomed. 8 hours of your day should be selling. The rest of your day can be focused on tech

<comment><USER17> Ah yes, the myth of the 15+hours of work a day!

<comment><USER16> Not at all just that sales is more important than the shiny tech.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm solo founder making microstartups. My recent one is [https://visalist.io](https://visalist.io) and it's making $7000 per month. I built all my microstartups startups to solve my own problems and that I think is the best indicator for successful product.</comment>


"Brutal" Architecture (2004) - <AUTHOR> http://weblogs.asp.net/kpleas/121407 <comment><USER2> That's from 2004. Here's a review by an architecture critic from 2007.[1] "The shin-high steel fences built around the slanting structural I-beams to avert head-bonking look like improvised fixes for a problem nobody anticipated." "'The building's celebrated splotches of weirdness -- the red sea-monster- bowel corridors on the fourth level, the bile-yellow elevators and escalators, the vertiginous canyon overlooks on the upper levels -- exist to draw attention away from the fact that most of its work and pleasure spaces are actually cheaply finished or dysfunctional." "You and other critics have been had. From the tip of this glass squeeze box to the bowels of its red metal stomach, this library is a joke, a monument to the architects' vanity, to the critics' collective vanity, to a city's greedy desire to be noticed. And noticed not for achievement, not for actually doing anything, but for looking cool."

That last seems to nail it.

However, it does have 4 1/2 stars on Yelp.

12 years on, most of the weirder floor materials are gone, replaced by bare concrete. The badly upholstered chairs have been replaced with PVC. Lots of railings and fences have been installed to keep people from hitting their heads on angled beams. They've probably also gone to LED lighting on those high ceiling lights. So the building is at least workable now. I'm impressed that nobody is complaining about it being too hot or too cold; tall atriums are a huge HVAC headache.

If you're in SF, consider joining the Mechanics Institute library. This is a private library with a good, well-curated collection, with new books coming in regularly. Classic multi-level stacks, columns, wood furniture, and librarians who will hush you if you talk.

[1] [http://www.seattlepi.com/ae/article/On-Architecture-How- the-...](http://www.seattlepi.com/ae/article/On-Architecture-How-the-new- Central-Library-1232303.php?source=mypi)

<comment><USER3> Good God, less than a hundred of your US dollers a year? Bargain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Of course, all of the above is just the "icing on the cake" (or "lipstick on > the pig") [...] The real purpose of any library is to retain and provide > access to the assets within.

I think the quote above underscores how little this critic understands about architecture. Public libraries have a long history as spaces for public gatherings and performance, arguably a more important role than their use as a storage facility. Today, public libraries in the United States are some of the few remaining public spaces we have, with classes for adults and children, spaces for community groups to meet, and free access to computers and the internet. For many people, this is the only place where they can go to apply for certain public services. Public libraries are one of the few places we allow homeless people to without citing them for loitering. A core premise in the design of the Seattle Public Library was that a new library should put greater emphasis on open social spaces than space for the "stacks". A good critique would judge how well it followed through on that premise.

An analogous critique of software would be to look at an enormous, highly- regulated, committee-designed, waterfall-style software project and highlight random technical shortcomings and potential security flaws patched after the initial release. And then never discuss how well the software addresses the core use case.

A better critique would ask: Does the building do a good job of answering the needs of its users?

<comment><USER5> ...and at what price?

In 2008 you could get 5 star luxury hotel with average price of 2600$/square meter. Seattle Central library costed 4922$/square meter. Even airport terminals and hospitals are usually cheaper.

It's true you can't justify that with "holds books nicely". But "has empty space to accommodate people" is neither sufficient. Building empty space with heating and air condition is not that difficult. But I don't think there is anything unusual about it given that it's public building paid by tax money.

[http://tinyurl.com/hv78vd2](http://tinyurl.com/hv78vd2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Central_Library](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Central_Library)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Showy brutalist architecture without an emphasis on pragmatism is kind of ironic: it's got the charm of a fallout shelter with the convenience of anti- cubism.

It's like "utilitarianism theatre."

There were lots of brutalist style buildings from the 50's and 60's where I grew up, but at least they were ugly _and_ practical.

</comment><comment><USER7> A "software architect" runs their blog on ASP.NET and makes drive-by comments at real architecture.

<comment><USER8> Goodness, how dreadful! Running a blog at the domain webblogs.asp.net on ASP.NET! Who would have thought this possible?

<comment><USER7> Also surprising - an engineer's rigid and passionate misunderstanding of architecture (the Vitruvius not Gates kind).</comment></comment></comment>


What Exactly Am I Doing Here At Uncrunched? - <AUTHOR> http://uncrunched.com/2011/09/25/what-exactly-is-uncrunched/

<comment><USER2> >I know a lot of you don't understand why I can't disclose all conflicts of interest. The answer is that if I did, not that many people would want to talk to me in the direct, honest way that I prefer. As a reader you must remain aware of the inherent bias in everything you read, and form your own opinions accordingly.

So at first he admits that he cannot disclose all conflicts of interest, then states that, as readers, his audience must remain aware of his inherent bias. How are we to remain aware of the nature of these biases if all conflicts are not disclosed? And, in turn, how are we to trust anything that he writes when it is known that he has a) biases and conflicts and that b) he will not disclose all of the?

I understand that everyone has biases and conflicts of interest, that they are impossible to avoid and that it is highly impractical to disclose each and every one. But it seems intriguing, to me, to caution us to "be aware" while also telling us that he will not give us the information require for full awareness.

<comment><USER3> He's promising to disclose all _financial_ conflicts of interest, which I feel are the only ones that are vital to disclosing. The idea of disclosing _all_ other conflicts isn't even well-defined. Presumably he'll only ever write about topics he finds interesting, for one reason or another. Sure, he might be friends with the founders of Company X, but if he's genuinely interested in the company he's writing about, does it really matter _why_ he's interested (if it's not because he invested in them)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It takes an impressive amount of hubris to define your lead quality of "TRANSPARENCY" as disclosing _some_ of your conflicts of interest.

<comment><USER5> From the opposite perspective, he is not less transparent comparing to mainstream media. They require their writers to not have direct monetary investment in the things they write about, but other than that, there are more intricate connections and resulting biases. As I see it, Mike is still more transparent that his competition, so it is not hubris he showed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "What Exactly Am I Doing Here At {Hacker News}?". I know that building a business requires getting the word out. And that understanding the media channel is an important part of that. But when the media channel personnel themselves become the story, things are getting waaay too meta.

</comment><comment><USER7> Well, this post certainly contained the substance:bluster ratio I've come to expect from classic TechCrunch.

</comment><comment><USER8> How much of Techcrunch was being in the right place at the right time and how much was Mike Arrington? I've always wondered, and now we get to find out.

<comment><USER9> I can answer this with a healthy dose of confidence: It was Mike Arrington. Passion is difficult to argue against. Why on earth he chose Uncrunched is beyond me, but I'll read along anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hopefully he stays focused on startups and away from the fluff pieces and pandering that pretty much defined TechCrunch at the end.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm curious. How can he start uncrunched? Was AOL that dumb by not putting a non-compete clause on him?

<comment><USER12> Maybe that is why he is wearing an _unpaid blogger_ t-shirt...

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Flagged.

Reason:

WHO CARES?

This post detracts from this site. It contributes nothing.</comment>


REST lesson learned: Avoid hackable URLs - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ploeh.dk/2013/05/01/rest-lesson-learned-avoid-hackable-urls/ <comment><USER2> Dumb idea, IMO. If people can access stuff that they shouldn't, by guessing URLs, then your problem is _access controls_ , not the URLs.

Switching to opaque, meaningless strings for your URLs does not solve your problem. URLs leak, they risk being recorded and published (e.g. Referer: headers on weblogs), and so people will find them anyway.

You still need access controls and all you have achieved by making your URLs complicated is to create more work for you and your users.

</comment><comment><USER3> You should be glad your urls are so intuitive that they are easily hackable. Keep it that way and don't change them (breaking stuff is bad). Nobody really ever follows links with REST anyway. That idea is nice in theory but it's just too much work in practice.</comment>


Deep learning in diagnostic healthcare: The future? - <AUTHOR> http://www.idgconnect.com/abstract/9573/deep-learning-diagnostic-healthcare-the-future

<comment><USER2> I am very interested in this area, if anyone is knowledgeable about it I would love to get in contact and learn more. What is the landscape for bio-data companies? Any thoughts on business plans, exit plans? It seems obvious to me that areas like diagnostics and therapeutics development should be driven primarily by big data rather than traditional research efforts.</comment>


World Startup Report: a Mission to Document Startup Ecosystems in 29 Countries - <AUTHOR> http://worldstartupreport.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Bowei here. I just want to say major thanks to 500 Startups, StartupWeekend, StartupDigest, Dave McClure and Brad Feld for making this all happen!

<comment><USER2> Awesome work Bowei, looking forward to keeping up with this. I'll catch up with you in Nepal!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Very strange and arbitrary selection of cities for Europe, it seems. How were the 29 selected? What often happens for these kind of lists is people assume those reviewed are somehow better than those left out. Hope this will clarified once the report gets published, that many top location were just left out.

<comment><AUTHOR> I polled my 500Startups network to see which countries they were interested in and had contacts in, then narrowed down the list to a manageable size.

Which cities did you think I missed?

<comment><USER3> Wrote a long reply, which HN ate :S

So I'll just say quickly: 1\. Tallinn and #estonianmafia (3 500Startups investments, 6 Seedcamp investments) 2\. Helsinki and the world's leading gaming scene.

Also: if you want to make the review serious, decide on the cities based on statistics. As Seedcamp for Europe, which are their top cities for their investment winners. Don't shoot from the hip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Catch you in Vietnam!

</comment><comment><USER5> Great idea! Hopefully will see you in Sydney.</comment>


How Much Does It Cost to Develop an Android/iOS App Like PayPal? - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/shefali_basu/how-much-does-it-cost-to-develop-an-android-ios-app-like-paypal-534 <comment><USER2> The app is the easy part. I'd be curious to know how much effort is needed for the actual backend financial parts.</comment>


San Francisco gives Postmates permit to test sidewalk delivery robots - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/8/20791926/postmates-robots-sidewalk-delivery-san-francisco-permit <comment><USER2> We had these delivery robots in D.C. last year, but they disappeared. Any ideas on what went wrong in D.C.?</comment>


Linus Akesson: the winning Underhanded C contest entry 2015 - <AUTHOR> http://www.linusakesson.net/programming/underhanded/2015.php <comment><USER2> Main thread is [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11032542](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11032542).</comment>


An Open Note to Naomi Wu (and Makers Everywhere) - <AUTHOR> https://makezine.com/2017/11/06/open-note-to-naomi-wu/ <comment><AUTHOR> For context few days ago, Dale Dougherty, the founder and Ceo of MAKE magazine made a baseless claim that Naomi Wu (for those who don't already know, an extremely popular maker from China[1]) wasn't one person.

Now days after the incident, after malinging her in her community, he issues this half assed apology^Wnote.

[1] [https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg](https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg)</comment>


Huawei Frightens Europe's Data Protectors. America Does, Too - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-24/huawei-frightens-europe-s-data-protectors-america-does-too <comment><USER2> This absolutely is a problem.

US domination of the 'cloud' space is close to total, I've been thinking about building something that involves medical data for a while but I've not pulled the trigger on it yet because amongst many concerns it's hard to host anything in the cloud that in some way doesn't trace back to a US company.

I've actually started compiling a list of companies that provide hosting that aren't US based or US subsidaries in some way.

Of course even if you manage that they are still using US processors and US technology.

Once you start getting a bit paranoid it is quite hard not to get alot paranoid.

Especially when you live _in_ a 5-eyes country.</comment>


SQLBolt: Learn SQL with simple, interactive examples - <AUTHOR> http://sqlbolt.com/ <comment><USER2> This is great, I've been looking for a good introductory resource for SQL in a while!

One thing, though, there's a mistake in exercise 3. While it says "Find all the titles directed by John Lasseter", only a "SELECT * FROM movies" query will make it go green, while "SELECT title FROM movies" (as would be expected from the wording) does not.

Is this Open Source?

</comment><comment><USER3> Super neat. It's a real bummer that you only got a handful of upvotes after two submissions :( I for one will definetely pimp this towards other SQL noobs like me.</comment>


Ask HN: Why do you think YC rejected your application? - <AUTHOR>

Why do you think your application to YC got rejected? <comment><USER2> Fairly certain it was our video. We didn't see the specifics of what they want until it was too late.

our video was scripted and cheesy.. Wasn't genuine. There was also some editing done. We also didn't mention our product or vision at all... We had a separate demo video for that as its an iOS app ( which wasn't even watched).

I'm guess our team video pretty much turned them off, and they didn't even bother with the demo. Which is a shame as we feel ( and have been told) we are doing something really disruptive. Oh well, we will still move forward and depending on where we are in development there is always next time.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a single founder with a non coding background looking to make a website.

These are two things that I can fix and I'm planning on doing so before I apply next time. I already have users waiting to use the system, I just need to make it.

If anyone is in NYC and wants to work on a website to change the way scientific communication takes place, hit me up:) I'm going to start being more aggressive in picking up co-founders soon as I need the technical help.

</comment><comment><USER4> To a great extent it is a sheer supply-demand problem. I would not take it personally. Would be very nice to get reasons but I guess it is the same as in job and college applications. You rarely know why...

</comment><comment><USER5> Reposting from another thread:

I think pretty much all teams are great. Perhaps there isn't a very specific reason for rejection once you get past by the alumni (biased) filters and is evaluated by PG himself.

...

I dare YC to choose 10% of teams at random next time, not even reading their application. I bet the results will be the same, if not, better than the average.

<comment><USER6> "I dare YC to choose 10% of teams at random"

That doesn't sound like a good idea. First, the sample size is going to be pretty small if they do that. Second, there are some team/people that have to simply be made of fail, you can spot from the start that they will simply not make it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Something in my written application or video -- since they didn't try the beta site we've built

</comment><comment><USER8> How about, why did you apply to Y-Combinator? You can get a job, make 20k in about six months, and then fund yourself and enjoy 100% ownership.

<comment><USER9> You're severely missing the point of YC.. it has almost _nothing_ to do with the (initial) money they give the teams.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, what am I missing? In my view if you can start a business, you can start a business. If you need to be incubated... well that kind of takes the fun out of business.

<comment><USER10> Networks. Besides (and I'm arrogant as hell, have several accomplishments under my belt etc...) if you don't think these Judges and their guest speaker can help you then you may be "too" arrogant. It's always heathy to learn. This isn't on of those (excuse my French) "bull poop" HOW TO BE AN ENTREPRENEUR class. It's an elite network for advanced networking and help.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Join the U.S. Digital Service - <AUTHOR> http://www.whitehouse.gov/digital/united-states-digital-service <comment><USER3> I saw Mikey Dickerson (in the video) speak to a group of ~200 people last summer about the work that he and his team did on healthcare.gov. He was at Google for nearly 8 years and left to run the recovery team for healthcare.gov. Their team is the real deal -- they saved the site in just a few months and now over 6 million people have signed up. Read the Time Magazine story for the full account.

He does not seem like the type of guy that willingly puts up with government b.s. He gets it, and after seeing him speak I believe in him.

When their talk was finished they got a ~5 minute standing ovation and even a few stray tears.

I know it's cheesy but the government simply needs to catch up and I think they are finally ready to try.

I applaud the effort and hope to help out in some way.

<comment><USER4> I agree. I wonder if they're willing to take people straight out of college. I'd be interested in doing a short "tour of duty".

<comment><USER5> If I have the chance to work with talented industry veterans, I'd absolutely love to do a tour of duty after I graduate.

<comment><USER6> This not a jaunt to Korea or Vietnam, holy moly.

<comment><USER7> No, but its arguably more important. Less risky, but as a good developer the opportunity cost might be high aswell.

<comment><USER8> I believe parent was balking at the appropriation of "tour of duty" to describe taking a government job for a couple of years.

The phrase carries strong connotations for a certain subset of people and it would be pretty tone deaf of us as a community to repurpose it to mean "writing instructions for computers the government owns."

<comment><USER9> Unpopular opinion that needs to be said: plenty of people spend their military "tour of duty" writing instructions for computers. Even more are glorified paper pushers or janitors. Only a small subset actually ever see their lives at risk--being a fisherman is more dangerous. The main substantive difference is that in theory you can't quit on a whim.

We need to stop promoting an idea of martial valor over all other forms of work, and stop coddling those who demand that everyone grant their line of work more respect than everyone else.

<comment><USER10> This is incorrect - a sizable number get sent to the warzone in a time of war, by far the majority. All who do have received some sort of weapon training, as well as scenario prep when encountering the likes of IEDs or combat situations. This is even more true for the Army and Marine Corps. The risk is pervasive just by virtue of operating in a warzone. In addition, everyone still has to stand post except for higher ranking officers and SNCOs.

While there are plenty of people who spend their deployments behind a computer, don't assume it is so black and white.

Source: I am a Marine grunt

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have met some of the 18F folks here in San Francisco, and I have gradually become convinced that there is a lot of substance to this effort. People, apparently including people at the highest levels, recognize that information technology has made enormous leaps in the private sector, and they are serious about helping government catch up.

One of the most interesting bits to me was something said by Todd Park, a former CTO of the US and still a White House advisor. I was, frankly, suspicious that Washington's culture could really accept a lot of the Agile and Lean notions that are commonplace in the high-tech world. But he pointed out, correctly, that waterfall projects are enormously risky. A big reason Lean Startup advocates place such a strong emphasis on frequent small releases is that it helps us reduce risk by finding and fixing problems early. He pointed out that if bureaucrats really want to play it safe, using agile, iterative approaches is exactly what they'll have to do.

I don't know enough about Washington to say if this really will work, but improving government efficiency through smart use of tech strikes me as exactly the kind of thing people from all parties can get behind. I'm excited to see how it turns out.

<comment><USER12> >suspicious that Washington's culture could really accept a lot of the Agile and Lean notions that are commonplace in the high-tech world.

given my experience with thorough, to the letter, under supervision of no- expenses-spared-top-notch experts implementation of Agile/Lean/Scrum - 2 years non-stop across pretty much the whole company, only very-super-important- critical-projects got exception - the government would love it - a lot of planing, reporting, meetings and other crap boggling down everything with actual product development slowing down to the crawl as a result.

Btw, the original healthcare.gov - the one that failed and required that emergency super-team fixing - was developed using Scrum, and as result it had all the characteristics of a Scrum project, chief among them - bad, to the point of straight failure, integration between components.

<comment><USER11> I share your suspicion of large-company Agile: by and large I think it's at best Mini-Waterfall, and at worst it's the same old bullshit with some new jargon on top.

However, the large amount of bathwater doesn't mean there isn't a baby there. And the places I see doing best at making the necessary culture shift are the ones with a sense of mission. So I have hope.

And honestly, even if this merely means a transition away from pure Waterfall to Mini-Waterfall, I think that will be a step forward. In the commercial world, the rise of the Internet has made 3-year release cycles untenable for most software; people now just scoff. So if we can merely get governments to emulate business in the shift from titanic failures to medium-sized failures, as a citizen I think that's a win. But still, from what I've seen, I'm hoping for more here.

<comment><USER12> >However, the large amount of bathwater doesn't mean there isn't a baby there.

Applying generic systems analysis (where it doesn't matter whether it is protein building, network protocol flow or software engineering process) one can easily see that Scrum is a highly synchronous low-latency process (that is the "baby" that management loves) which comes at the cost of dramatically decreased bandwidth. In addition, changing a team's process inside, Scrum indirectly completely changes how the team interacts with up- and downstream teams/components - in particular on practice eliminating any chance for early integration and for any iterations of the integrations.

That became obvious to me during the first day at the first Scrum course, especially after i tried to ask those questions to the teaching Scrum expert from the consulting company and received blank face with some blabbing in response. Some time later, different company with different consultants - <USER2> first hand 2 year experience i described in the previous post - the Scrum drawbacks on practice happened to be even worse than i thought they may in theory. We actually have great time right now at our BigCo. as after the Scrum fiasco, and quietly dropping the Scrum company-wide as the result, the management still seems to be kind of "in shock", and they haven't brought up any new fad in the process improvement so far, so we're just doing typical old-fashioned per-feature waterfall, and it just works as usual - which is huge achievement compare to Scrum :)

<comment><USER11> I can't really answer for Scrum, especially as taught by consulting companies. I think of Scrum as a set of too-basic but reasonably good ideas that quickly ended up mostly as a certification scam. I wrote more about that a number of places, including here: [http://agilefocus.com/2011/02/21/agiles-second-chasm- and-how...](http://agilefocus.com/2011/02/21/agiles-second-chasm-and-how-we- fell-in/)

I think that's especially true for dramatic company-wide, top-down Agile adoptions, which I have never heard of working. I think people doing that cannot possibly understand Agile philosophy, which promotes local control and continuous improvement of top-down control and giant leaps.

My positive experience is mostly with smaller shops, but I've definitely seen many places where companies have grown up releasing early and often and have no problem working in what I'd consider good Agile style. Wealthfront, Etsy, and Spotify are all explicitly and openly like that. But I think there are plenty of other places that aren't explicitly Agile but ended up that way as a natural evolution.

For example, when I visited YouTube to study their process, there were a great number of developers, designers, and product managers all working in relatively independent small teams. They'd release at least weekly but sometimes more often. There was no overarching plan; each team had particular goals to pursue, and coordinated with other teams as needed. They never used Agile jargon and didn't think of themselves as Agile, but I think they were acting in ways that exactly matched the spirit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I work for the UK Government Digital Service - my views don't necessarily represent my employer.

There are lots of comments here around the idea of whether you would work for a government if you disagreed with their political views.

What I love about working on GDS projects is the potential to improve so many people's lives. People often don't have a choice when it comes to interacting with government - it's often a legal requirement, and there's only one way to do it.

So, even if sometimes I may disagree with aspects of policy, the reality is there is going to be a digital service based on it. And I can help a lot of people by being part of making it as simple as possible.

<comment><USER14> Working for change from within the system is definitely a legitimate position to take.

That said, the objections I'm reading here are centered around supporting a government that actively tortures political activists and captured enemies. I think the phrase "if you [disagree] with their political views" trivializes that position.

<comment><USER15> > That said, the objections I'm reading here are centered around supporting a > government that actively tortures political activists and captured enemies. > I think the phrase "if you [disagree] with their political views" > trivializes that position.

Unless you're designing some kind of torture software, I think you're massive reaching to make one apply to the other.

Nothing about doing better e.g. tax software, road planning, or similar is going to help the US Government torture detainees.

Realistically there are millions of US Government connected jobs, it is just unrealistic for everyone to boycott them because another part of a massive government did something ethically and morally wrong.

<comment><USER16> Agreed. Even if you think the tax code benefits the $interest_group_of_choice, reducing the number of automatically flagged audits, for example, due to better algorithms, is a win for everybody.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Let's say it's January 2017 and President Bush or Rubio or Paul or Walker is being inaugurated. Does the 'U.S. Digital Service' actually keep getting funded? If it does, do the staff actually want to stay? Will any of them be willing to work on government objectives that might not be in line with their personal politics?

I'll believe this is actually what it claims it is when I see it and its staff persist through a change of political control in the White House. Until then, I'm more than a little skeptical.

<comment><USER18> Are there republicans actually criticizing the the Digital Service?(ignoring healthcare.gov) I certainly have no clue why they would, as everyone needs better IT infrastructure. A project like this, run well, would be in line with republican policy objectives.

<comment><USER19> I assume the OP meant the people who are passionate about building a sign-up system for universal healthcare might not be so passionate about building a sign-up system for, I don't know, national concealed carry permits or something.

<comment><USER20> But there are some of us (including me) that would love to work on both

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It would be really great to fix the IRS's digital presence. Make TurboTax obsolete. I hate TurboTax.

<comment><USER22> Same goes for the DMV, as well as countless other citizen-facing government orgs. Math & administration is really the roots of computing.

Edit: I'm rather unclear what is objectionable here.

<comment><USER23> Virginia's DMV offers a ton of its services online. It can take a bit to get around their site, but it is overall a much more friendly experience than needing to go into a brick-and-mortar for plate renewals and the sort.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I would love to see a program like ROTC -- the government pays for you to get a CS degree and then you work for the Digital Service to start your career.

You end up being 26 with a great education and a solid work experience under your belt. Seems like a win-win!

<comment><USER25> Most ROTC cadets do not have scholarships, and for their first two years they recieve no money. Of those students, only during their 3rd and 4th years do they recieve any funding at all, which is a stipend of approx. $300-500 a month and only once they have signed a contract to commission.

<comment><USER26> At my university everyone in ROTC had full tuition as well as room and board paid for for all 4 years. And they received the stipend on top of that. They did have to commit after the end of the first year though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I worked a year on the UK government digital service, they really were trying to do things differently, it was a really great experience with real teams working in a supportive atmosphere. I think the 2 services share some DNA and If you get the opportunity to work at the USDS then you should grab it with both hands.

</comment><comment><USER28> I wish there were something like this akin to the National Guard. If I could serve a weekend a month (or maybe even more, if it were something closer to my civilian skill set), I probably would have opted for this over joining the Army.

Hell, if they did that, I'd probably serve after my time in the Guard is up.

<comment><USER29> You're in luck! In most cities, there are Code for America "Brigades" that are meetup groups where people can work on digital public service projects.

[http://www.codeforamerica.org/brigade/](http://www.codeforamerica.org/brigade/)

For example, I'm in the SF brigade and work on the BallotAPI project.

[https://github.com/sfbrigade/ballotapi](https://github.com/sfbrigade/ballotapi)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The US digital Service should also make and maintain a framework that state and local governments can implement. Paying a parking ticket in Los Angeles is a trip to the 90's.

<comment><USER30> Try applying for a hiking permit. Some CA ranger stations take only snail mail or, wait for it, fax.

<comment><USER31> > hiking permit

Wait, what? Is this like a yearly state park pass? Or is this paid every time you want to go take a walk in the woods?

<comment><USER30> No, it's a free permit to hike in a park for a day. They want to track trail usage, and sometimes implement quotas to prevent overuse. There are occasionally rangers who patrol the trails and check for permits, but it's pretty rare. You may also need a separate parking permit for national forests (adventure pass), but apparently it's been ruled unconstitutional by the CA supreme court. Many trails in national forests/state parks in California require day hike permits (generally the good forested ones do).

You can see what a dayhike permit application looks like at the very bottom of this page: [http://www.sgwa.org/permit.htm](http://www.sgwa.org/permit.htm). Overnight (camping) permits are separate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Would anyone from the Government Digital Service [1] in the UK care to comment on this? GDS is a world-class operation which has many smart people using modern technology to solve real problems for UK citizens. Much (all?) of the work is open source [2].

[1] [https://gds.blog.gov.uk/about/](https://gds.blog.gov.uk/about/) [2] [https://github.com/alphagov](https://github.com/alphagov)

<comment><USER33> I'm not from GDS - however they're one of our customers at ScraperWiki, and I know lots of the people there (via the digital civics NGO mySociety which we started over 10 years ago).

There's been lots of interest in GDS from the US over the years, people over there saying "why haven't we copied it yet?". As far as I can tell the US Digital Service and 18F are that copying in a good way - taking lots of the lessons from GDS and applying to the US situation.

As an example of the kind of thing, see the UK's Service Design Manual [https://www.gov.uk/service-manual](https://www.gov.uk/service-manual) \- there are sections for developers, designers and so on.

So basically, if you're good at tech, and want better Government websites (who doesn't!), go help them :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Here is what worries me:

Right now, the complexity of regulations and procedures is kept in check by the inability for bureaucrats to manually execute them. Full automation might not lead to a simplification of how people interact with the government; it might just result in the ability to add even more regulation, beyond normal human capabilities.

We have a world where bureaucratic complexity means few people can navigate it, but we might just be growing a world where no one can navigate it without paying a lot of money to established software companies to do it for them.

Automation is good, but we shouldn't let it hide the need to simplify.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> While I've been initially skeptical of the White House's digital efforts because of my assumption that tech development, especially when it comes to public information, will always be handicapped by bureaucracy and politics...the 18F group has been doing some great work, the kind that is not at all a bad standard for private startups to follow...certainly much better than the kind of things that were rolling out in 2009-2010 (such as the overhyped petitions.whitehouse.gov and the first CTO's pushing of Drupal)

The 18F Github contains a lot of interesting work, with reliance on contemporary frameworks and practices (Jekyll seems to be their choice for microsites) [https://github.com/18f](https://github.com/18f)

I loved 18F's work with overhauling the Federal Register site ([https://www.federalregister.gov/](https://www.federalregister.gov/))...and even if you think the federal government's data efforts are paltry...then you haven't seen what existed before 2009...which is pretty much nothing. The wide array of data and information that has been machine-readable and public accessible via the Internet is pretty astonishing, and while I doubt that President Obama has made it a point to keep tabs on his IT, whoever has been whispering in his ear has been very effective.

Edit: a cool project I noticed on 18F's github: [https://github.com/18f/mirage](https://github.com/18f/mirage) ...a Django/PostgreSQL project to assist procurement officers in surveying the market for vendors...another 18F repo contains the Chef recipe for its deployment.

<comment><USER35> [https://www.federalregister.gov](https://www.federalregister.gov) is a _favorite_ of mine in the federal government, and an inspiration (they launched with a full JSON REST API in 2010!) -- but just so it's clear, that's not an 18F project.

The code for federalregister.gov can be found here: [https://github.com/usnationalarchives/fr2](https://github.com/usnationalarchives/fr2)

(Disclosure: I work for 18F.)

<comment><USER36> The Federal Register site was developed by the same people that developed Gov Pulse: [http://govpulse.us/about#who](http://govpulse.us/about#who)

Here is an article from the launch of the site: [http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/07/26/meet-the- new-f...](http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/07/26/meet-the-new-federal- register/)

<comment><USER35> I tell this story all the time to people. It's so magically great, and the developers are a national treasure.

I think of 18F and USDS in part as pieces of an effort to make this kind of result less of an anomaly, and the kind of thing you generally expect your government to do. Cause after all, why shouldn't you?

(Disclosure: I work for 18F.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Two things I wonder about:

1) Is an outfit like the U.S. Digital Service considering people who don't have undergraduate degrees, but have a consistent track record or are a part of established teams?

2) Is the salary roughly comparable with what's available in the private sector? I understand that the government might pay less in return for some of the perks of government work, but how close are they coming these days?

<comment><USER38> I have no expertise here, but here's my understanding:

1) Yes, especially if you've worked for some big name, non-government tech companies.

2) Absolutely not. The salary is MISERABLE compared to what you could get in the private sector. That's the real problem.

The government desperately needs world class software engineers, but the private sector can effectively buy them all away. Who would try and fix the busted old immigration system when Facebook or Google will pay you literally four times more money to write way more fun stuff with modern technology, world class perks, and job security that doesn't depend on the next election cycle.

Joining these guys is a sacrifice. It's a service to the country. It's work that literally changes and even saves lives, but it's miserable, boring work, with little or no personal reward.

<comment><USER39> > The salary is MISERABLE compared to what you could get in the private > sector.

That all depends. Many comp sci students are brainwashed to think that if a salary isn't at least 100k then it's not worth their time.

The fact is that it depends on location and cost of living.

For example - if you get hired to work for Google in their HQ in CA then you are guaranteed to get at least 100k salary. However, 90% of that will go towards food/rent (you will most likely rent as houses cost up in the millions...) - which making $60k in a smaller suburb area (where housing is in the affordable $50-$200k range) would arguably be the same net income as if you were working at Google.

I will say that you will earn more in the private sector - but I wouldn't use miserable to describe government salaries (more like underpaid). When I worked for the man it was defiantly an interesting experience but it was a very relaxed environment/startupy feeling.

<comment><USER40> 90%? If you're willing to commute from Redwood City (15min CalTrain ride to MV, 35 minute CalTrain tride to SF), you'll be paying $1500-2000/mo for a 1br-2br/1ba. That comes to 24% of salary, and you'd be hard-pressed to spend more than another 6% on food.

<comment><USER39> Rent alone would come out to about 50% of your take home pay[1] (estimated of course - you would probably get less depending on benefits). Assuming if you hunted you might be able to rent for $1500, but from zillow[2] the rent appears to be from $2-4k+. If you showed me an apartment for $1.5k and the average is $2k I would want to know what is wrong with it.

In my suburban area - I could get a mortgage for a $100k house with at least 2br for about $500/month.

Of course people at Google probably don't get paid exactly $100k but keeping in mind a good sized chunk of that is just going toward living there.

[1] - [http://www.calculator.net/take-home-pay- calculator.html?cann...](http://www.calculator.net/take-home-pay- calculator.html?cannualincome=100000&cpayfrequency=Bi- weekly&cfilestatus=Single&callowance=2&cdeduction=500&cstatetax=9.3&ccitytax=0&cadditionat1=no&printit=0&x=58&y=6)

[2] - [http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_rent/Redwood-City- CA/house,c...](http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_rent/Redwood-City- CA/house,condo,apartment,duplex,townhouse_type/82960648_zpid/20128_rid/days_sort/37.608656,-122.033558,37.407665,-122.394047_rect/11_zm/?view=map)

<comment><USER41> Some easy numbers: 1k/month is ~12k/year, which is ~15-18k of pre-tax salary.

To re-emphasize, 1k/month in lower rent is worth 15-18k of salary.

I have friends paying more than $2k/month more than me, which is around a negative 40k raise (I live in San Francisco, but share).

It's very easy for humans to misinterpret recurring costs.

<comment><USER39> I don't understand your point -

Assuming $2k/month is $40k - that is almost half of $100k. So almost half your salary is going towards just rent.

Let's say you made $50k in a suburb area - using your numbers you would only pay $10k/year for a mortgage ($500/month) - with only $20k difference in salary.

$100k in CA ~ $60k $50k in suburbs ~ $40k

Realistically you would probably make $60-$70k in suburb areas which, according to your numbers, would make the same if not more AND own a house.

Of course this is ignoring other factors like food, utilities, bills and taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Does joining the US Digital Service require a clearance, and if so does occasional marijuana consumption automatically disqualify you?

<comment><USER43> Member of 18F here. Not sure about USDS, but we get "public trust", which is basically the step below clearance. Basically means "stuff that isn't public yet". [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance#Public_Trust...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance#Public_Trust_Position)

<comment><USER44> I am not sure about medium-risk public trust positions, but for high-risk public trust positions (think access to PII, social security # type stuff) they require an in depth personal history, including a meet and greet with an investigator (usually ex-law enforcement, so I was told).

Protip: Contractor or FTE, make sure you specifically ask HR whether or not there will be an additional screening, and whether or not it is a 'public- trust' position and what level that would be following your hiring.

I was pretty miffed when 'they' told me after the fact that my position required an additional background check and that my continued employment would be predicated on the outcome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Remember, y'all: this is the government that brought you PRISM and XKEYSCORE and TAO. This is the government with the department who tortured Manning and is pressuring the UK to illegally interfere with Assange's right to asylum.

Think twice before you provide material aid to the enemy.

<comment><USER46> Also, government is made of people and if good people stop coming into government and try make a difference, you end up with a government-enemy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> So what is this? I love the idea of contributing to something like this, but they don't make the process clear. Is this a job? Can I work part time on specific tasks? There are people willing to leave the private sector to do this work, but that's not always an option. They need to find a way to leverage people's spare cycles. They also don't mention anything about security. The skill gap in security is MUCH larger than development. They are missing an opportunity there...

</comment><comment><USER48> (I've been working on Healthcare.gov for the past year and know some of the people at USDS; I was also YC S11 and appreciate the great parts of startup culture even more now)

PSA: I know it's not easy to tell from the outside, or from a website, but this is the real deal. Things are starting to change; by government standards, at ludicrous speed. The Healthcare.gov crisis really started a useful fire.

Todd Park, Mikey Dickerson, and the team he's building at USDS and the people he's placing into new "digital services" teams at other agencies like the VA-- if you meet them you'll quickly find out why they were superstars at their tech companies.

One important thing to understand is: yes, things really can be vastly improved IRL, not just in theory. It's not that government IT services ("IT") suck because the people responsible for it don't care. They're just in a completely different world, expectations and otherwise, and don't know how much better it could be.

E.g., they don't know there exists a hosting option that is more secure, more reliable, and less risky (and costs 90%/$90M less per year). Or that there exist software people who can build a far better user experience (#1: the worst UX is downtime, #2: product lead needs a) exist, and b) fight for the user on every decision), while still meeting all business requirements (for 80%/$20M less per year).

Some people do know, but they can't do it themselves [0], and they also don't have access to the right people to do it for them; their practical options are Lockheed Martin's "small-business" subsidiary, or ACRONYM's federal IT division.

USDS and 18F are fixing this, and much more. They need your help. I'm not sure what's public, but the progress is incredible. It's still going to take a long time. Most of all it's going to take more software engineers, designers, PMs, etc. The tech gap between Silicon Valley and DC is unbelievable until you've experienced it. Go east! (Or west [1])

It's definitely frustrating to work for/with the government (not sure how it compares to other institutions that provide many real-world services to a diverse 300+ million population), but if you're put in a position where you can actually change things, the impact is enormous. And now you can do that as a software engineer/technologist with no existing clue about government, because USDS/18F has leverage and the ability to place you where you can make that impact. [2]

The federal government deeply impacts all of our lives [3] and whether you think it should do more or less, there's no reason for what exists to be so incredibly inefficient and customer-unfriendly, especially when there's a huge pool of tech people with the skills needed to fix it, and now, a pipeline that can get them (you!) to the right place. Please apply!

(There's also small teams of engineers [4] on the inside tackling this problem, if you prefer that (less direct, but avoids gov. pay being capped at ~$150k or so and the strict background checks.) Contact me if you want more details.)

====

[0] They're also too busy trying to keep their heads above water in a bureaucratic system that seems to function only because many of the people in it work so hard, but I digress.

[1] AFAIK, USDS is based in DC (and I think has positions in Boston), 18F is mostly in SF (Civic Center) and DC, with a few remote people around the US.

[2] Imagine if you could direct and organize a team of people to rescue expanded healthcare coverage in the US (oops, Mikey did that already)

Imagine if you could help 22 million veterans get the care they deserve on time, instead of hundreds of days late

Imagine if you could help "fix" the IRS with auto-prepped tax returns (definitely seems like the hardest one on this list-- but it's also one that everyone wants to see happen. And yes it's a policy problem, but it's also a technical problem-- imagine policymakers having to trust the system that resulted in the original healthcare.gov. And _informed_ engineering opinions have much more weight than you'd imagine.)

[3] Yes I know there's a whole world outside of the US, especially on the Internet :)

[4] "startups" and "small businesses" both have connotations on HN that I'm trying to avoid...

<comment><USER49> > Imagine if you could help "fix" the IRS with auto-prepped tax returns > (definitely seems like the hardest one on this list-- but it's also one that > everyone wants to see happen

Actually, its mostly hard politically, because not everyone wants to see it happen. Particularly, tax preparation firms and tax software sellers want tax returns to be difficult so that their business stays in demand, and lobby heavily against government pre-preparing returns, and the political right wants the personal tax process to be as painful as possible so that they can leverage anger at that process to get behind tax cutting moves.

<comment><USER50> There's also a whole mess of HUGE conflicts of interest and moral dilemmas with the issue of taking a private company's tax dollars, and using those tax dollars to develop and sell a competing product, which would then presumably reduce the revenue (and thus tax revenue) of the private company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'm upvoting this because the issue deserves more attention and discussion. I am somewhat leery of implementation details, having tons of experience working for both large governmental and private organizations. Large organizations are notoriously difficult to deal with -- large government organizations are an order of magnitude (or two) worse. Them's just the facts.

I am completely supportive of any effort to cut through the BS and make the government more transparent and accessible. So easy-to-use portals, apps for accessing benefits, publish-subscribe services to find opportunities? Dang, there's a lot of cool stuff folks could do. Great idea. Let's go do it.

I am completely concerned about the idea of both automating enforcement and the collection/cross-indexing of data. I have a choice whether or not I let Facebook rape my privacy and anonymity online. I do not have a choice about what I report to the IRS. I'm extremely unhappy with the Facebook situation, and the government is a completely different animal.

Laws and regulations -- centuries of them by now -- were made to be enforced by humans, not computers. That's why we have so many of them and they overlap so much. Anything that takes us closer to automatically fining me when I drive 5 mph over the speed limit, schedules an audit if I make a math mistake on my taxes, or tells me what I can do or not do based on data processing that was impossible ten years ago? Screw that. I want no part of it. In fact, I would make a strong case that such activity is antithetical to a free and just society.

I'm also concerned over the difference between a PR move and something tangible. Show me the next idiot in the White House of a different party that's doing this, and I'll be much happier. Otherwise, not only do I have the reservations that I currently have, I've now added a new one: that all of this automation and assistance is only happening by supporters of one political party. Not good.

Don't get me wrong: I like the idea. I want to see some clear ethical guidelines and permanence across political parties before I could support this, however. Right now it looks like a bunch of political BS.

</comment><comment><USER52> I am of two minds here. On the one hand making the onerous task of complying with government regulations, paying taxes, and receiving benefits is all good. It even has the potential of reducing the overal burden the government imposes on our everyday life. On the other hand, anything that reduces the frustration of dealing with the government puts off the time when there will be fewer government bodies, regulations, and inefficiency. I hope that the smart people employed by US Digital Service ask the question: "Do we really need this?" Before they set about fixing particular inefficiencies.

</comment><comment><USER53> Too bad the VA positions are only open in DC and Boston. I'm a veteran and a software developer. I'd love to be able to help out but I'm in Austin and unwilling to move my family again. Bummer.

<comment><USER54> Not so! Not so! Don't let what they say in the advertisement dissuade you. I just completed the full interview process and was offered a position at the end of it. I declined because I'm a Feddie (& like you, a Veteran) and they offered no reinstatement provision if I jumped ship from my current agency to theirs -- i.e., I'm could be completely out of a job anywhere between one pay period to at most six years after joining USDS. THAT was the problem -- no job security. They are severely limiting the type of folks they're attracting with that model (i.e., the unemployed, risk-takers, or those who a family is not relying on for income).

BUT... I was told three times during the interview that teleworking would be o.k. and that I might have to travel about once a month or so.

<comment><USER53> If you ever come back to check up on this, please contact me at the email address in my profile. THanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I would seriously consider joining as a developer. If it didn't mean moving to DC. I couldn't determine if there were any remote opportunities or positions in the Bay Area.

<comment><USER56> There's a two-year fellowship with renewable terms through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I hear that they and their workers are always interested in talking to good developers and designers, and that a large majority of their tech folks work from around the country. [http://www.consumerfinance.gov/jobs/technology-innovation- fe...](http://www.consumerfinance.gov/jobs/technology-innovation-fellows/)

Source/disclaimer: I'm a UX designer with the CFPB who just started said fellowship, who lives and works remotely from Chicago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> While I do not doubt the intentions are honest and government is waking up to the new reality of digital, until the new CTO has any kind of budgetary powers...this is just a dream.

<comment><USER58> As luck would have it, USDS is connected to the Office of Management and Budget =)

Time to dream big.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> But does it require a drug test?

<comment><USER60> Maybe. But they should do congress first. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yT48wiRue4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yT48wiRue4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I just find the name "U.S. Digital Service" to be god damn inspirational. It reminds me of Kennedy creating the Peace Corps. "Ask not what your country can do for you" and all that. I understand that in reality this is essentially a rebranding of the traditional government job, but it seems like it could be so much more.

I know that during the Healthcare.gov debacle, many people with software experience legitimately wanted to help. We look around at our communities, cities and states and see problems that could be fixed and software that's dying to use common sense modern best practices. But government bureaucracy is an impermeable wall, sometimes for the right reasons but often due to turf protection, intransigence and lack of funding. I would be happy to volunteer my time and experience, to work collaboratively with others and to work within strict standards and specifications in order to improve the quality of government technology for everyone. But the information about how to do so is hard to find and the process isn't very encouraging. I understand that this is a bit off topic, but when I hear "US Digital Service" I think "Peace Corps" for technology.

From wikipedia: "The stated mission of the Peace Corps includes providing technical assistance, helping people outside the United States to understand American culture, and helping Americans to understand the cultures of other countries."

WTF aren't we doing this for technology? Provide assistance, help the government to understand tech culture and help tech people understand government culture. If we train volunteers then we don't need to give high priority projects like Healthcare.gov to the contracting firm with the lowest bid and the snazziest powerpoint presentation. Government agencies would have their pick of people who'd proven their technical skills and reliability on projects at the local, state and federal levels. Citizen programmers could feel like they were making a difference for their country, even just a small one, which is something you can't put a price on. Government at all levels would reap huge benefits and improve services for a fraction of the cost, which would increase the general satisfaction of millions of non-technically inclined citizens.

The obvious problem with volunteer labor is that it's hard to hold someone accountable if things go wrong, and the speed and quality of ongoing maintenance and support can vary. But my thought is, the current system isn't exactly working out great either. We have catastrophic disasters at the national level and outdated and incomplete software at the local level. There are millions of people who could help, and working together they can do more good than harm. The greatest asset of the United States has always been the ingenuity and dedication of its human resources. If technology isn't the greatest opportunity and threat of the 21st century then I don't know what is, and it seems like a good time to marshall those resources to make the most of it.

<comment><USER23> > From wikipedia: "The stated mission of the Peace Corps includes providing > technical assistance, helping people outside the United States to understand > American culture, and helping Americans to understand the cultures of other > countries." > WTF aren't we doing this for technology?

It's frustrating that the national face of US technology for so many years now is the NSA and related intelligence agencies.

It would be very, very cool if something like the US Digital Service were externally philanthropic, showing the States is more than what sells newspapers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> -1 for disabling zoom on mobile devices

</comment><comment><USER63> Are there any specifics anywhere regarding the positions, desired skill sets, or anything other than generic descriptions? I've seen a few people comment here about positions being in D.C., but I can't find any details like that.

</comment><comment><USER64> As someone whose gone through the hiring process for the USDA and Dept. of Interior, how is it that the USDS is bypassing the normal usajobs hiring process?

<comment><USER54> I just went through it in VA (had to turn it down, though). That was my question as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I notice the two magical questions on the application page:

"Are you eligible for veteran preference?

"Are you a current or former federal employee?"

Are these civil service positions?

<comment><USER66> These questions are typical for any application for a US Federal job. Preference is always given to current Federal employees and veterans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> That is great. I wish my country has something like that. Is there a way to join as a foreigner and become a US citizen after a time? ;)

</comment><comment><USER68> Will work for fedgov once fedgov stops using tech to violate the people. Until then, GFYS.

<comment><USER69> The oppressive part of government is plenty funded. Hurting the non-oppressive part is just spiting yourself.

<comment><USER68> Spiting myself? I'm sure I make more money in private sector.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> I'm guessing it's not possible for non-US citizens to join this?

</comment><comment><USER71> Really BIG, COMPLEX, DIFFICULT problems! :-o

</comment><comment><USER72> Looks like the entire whitehouse.gov site is built in Drupal, which is about as insecure as a site can possibly be.

<comment><USER73> What's insecure about Drupal?

<comment><USER72> [http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29846539](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29846539)

<comment><USER74> Or, you know, you spent five minutes to apply the free, open source patch when it was released in mid-October and your sites were protected.

Or are you arguing that any software that has ever required a patch is horribly insecure?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> I'd imagine that this is a hard sell given the govts track record. They want to recruit us, but they still don't get it. Why would we want to work for the bad guys? Why would we want to be second class citizens to clueless politicians that dictate directives from above instead of working in an industry that respects us and views us as leaders?

<comment><USER76> Bad guys? What a myopic view of the world. Having seen first hand both industry and government IT, both worlds have their faults.

I'm not going to get sucked into a debate about which is worse, but I'll give you my perspective on working with federal gov't IT. Yes, policy sucks, thats not going to change any time soon but it __is __moving towards something halfway decent. There are plenty of skilled, intelligent and motivated IT professionals who you would actually be working for. You don 't do the bidding of every politician out there, but you do follow directives from offices higher up such as the white house. Btw, the respect these people proffer to devs is immense because they know you could have worked anywhere else and make more money but you decided to work for a cause they believe in as well.

So please be considerate when you make these sweeping assumptions about the govt.

<comment><USER77> > Btw, the respect these people proffer to devs is immense because they know > you could have worked anywhere else and make more money but you decided to > work for a cause they believe in as well.

At best they could be as clueless as you and believe in "the cause", at worst they see how it is in reality and they see you as a sucker working for less than you deserve.

<comment><USER76> By far the people I've interacted with have not been clueless. They haven't been disillusioned to think that everything is perfect. Also if you think that they consider us as suckers for working for less, you might want to consider that is the case for a lot of federal employees [not the suckers bit, but the less money part]. Its not the money that attracts a lot of devs, its the opportunities they present to work with interesting data, people, traveling to different places, etc. If you're going to judge us, don't cast us on the extremes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> > XXX NAME > Engineer, Healthcare.gov

Not sure you actually want to put that on record with your own picture there. Knowing what a massive mess the whole thing is.

<comment><USER79> Actually the team that fixed healthcare.gov got quite a bit of rockstar treatment (deservedly so) and were even on the cover of TIME magazine (sadly the article is behind a paywall now I think: [http://time.com/10228/obamas- trauma-team/](http://time.com/10228/obamas-trauma-team/)).

I think the guy that lead them is now the director of the US Digital Services too: [http://www.wired.com/2014/08/the-white-house- dickerson/](http://www.wired.com/2014/08/the-white-house-dickerson/)

<comment><USER76> I think he might have been referencing the initial build team.

<comment><USER80> That's not this team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> For curiosities sake, I decided to take a look at healthcare.gov, put in a random ZIP code picked from New York in google maps. When I tried to look at individual cover I got an ACCESS DENIED. Is it restricted to US IPs? Seems like an odd thing to lock down.

[http://nystateofhealth.ny.gov/individual](http://nystateofhealth.ny.gov/individual)

[edit] I got to that link from this working site: [http://healthbenefitexchange.ny.gov/](http://healthbenefitexchange.ny.gov/) which I got to from Healthcare.gov

<comment><USER82> Try picking a zip code in a state that doesn't have its own state marketplace. The input element suggests 60647, in Illinois, which lets me continue on healthcare.gov instead of getting redirected.

Edited to add: healthcare.gov, unsurprisingly, is a fair bit nicer than the NY site. I live in NY and was looking at the individual marketplace out of curiosity, and I've (somewhat) read up on how US health insurance works, and I got a bit lost at the website. Healthcare.gov's UI explains a the Obamacare- specific parts (such as the "metal levels") right when you log in, and also lets you filter/sort by monthly cost (premium), which for some reason NY's doesn't let you do.</comment></comment>