
Back to SF After the U.S. Digital Service - hodgesmr
https://insouciant.org/tech/back-to-sf-after-usds/
======
dnautics
"Helping rich people get taxis easier". As a Lyft and Uber driver, I count
among my rides: getting a rough looking fellow (who has spent years in prison
after accidentally killing someone in a bar fight) get to the only job that
would take him - affordably and on-time (he would have been fired otherwise).
I've given an enlisted navy family from Oklahoma (husband was deployed) get
home from a late night run to a distant Walmart - the military pay for an e-3
is low and I imagine tough to support a family of three and there are few
other options without a college degree.

It's crazy to read about this guy who wonders if this all matters... The
amount of money that the government spends to get a marginal improvement on
society beyond basic functions of the government should be even more
dismaying.

And it's incredibly patronizing to despair from on high that tech doesn't do
any good for society.

~~~
wpietri
The explicit inspiration for Uber's founding was as a "limo timeshare
service": [http://newsroom.uber.com/2010/12/ubers-
founding/](http://newsroom.uber.com/2010/12/ubers-founding/)

I"m glad that some people are also getting easier taxi service. But having
worked in in SF since the last bubble, there is definitely an intense focus
here on solving rich-people problems; when they serve others (e.g., struggling
felons and young military personnel) it is often, at best, a side effect.

~~~
nostrademons
That's often how technological progress works: it's developed to solve either
a pressing-but-not-so-noble problem and then someone adapts it so the average
person can benefit, or it's developed to solve a trivial and useless problem
and someone improves it so it's useful to the average person.

We built radar so we could detect German bombers; we got microwave ovens from
it. We built GPS so we could guide missiles and spy satellites; we got turn-
by-turn navigation and Uber out of it. We built Twitter so we could send
140-character text messages; we got the Arab Spring out of it. We built the
ARPANet to coordinate top-secret military projects; we got the Internet out of
it. We built PCs to play games; we got Visicalc, Word, and all sorts of
productivity boosts from it. We built computers to break German codes and
guide artillery shells; you know where that went.

~~~
timr
I'm so tired of the thoughtless repetition of this talking-point. Yes, _some_
technologies developed serendipitously for luxury products. But when you take
a broader view than the latter half of the 20th century, most of the
technological progress that _actually made our lives better_ were the results
of targeted effort: wastewater treatment, antibiotics, essentially all
medications. We didn't get to these things accidentally.

Maybe those technologies were _expensive_ at first and came down in price with
adoption, but that's _different_ than making the claim that if we just work on
_whatever rich people want today_ , we'll automatically get to places that are
beneficial for society. Want to help the third-world feed itself? Perhaps you
should invest your resources _in that_ , not in a silicon valley nutri-shake
startup.

Hell, most of _your_ examples are cases where the military did something to
solve a _known problem_ that was too expensive (or too speculative) to be left
to private industry. How you turn that into an argument that our best-and-
brightest should be working on ad-optimization eludes me.

This industry, I swear: we whine about the loss of space exploration, and
wonder what happened to our flying cars, but we brush off criticisms when
someone invests millions of dollars in the sixty-seventh niche food-delivery
service for the SF bay area. Perhaps the two things are related?

~~~
angersock
Penicillin was discovered by complete accident, actually.

Also, the jury is still rather out on the long-term impact of medications...it
sure made a bunch of rich folks richer, though!

EDIT:

Also, most of those solutions came through private industry working on .gov
contracts. A better example you might want to use is the innovations out of
Bell Labs, all done basically to further solidify the telephone monopoly. That
in turn _could_ be argued to be a monopoly granted by a state to solve the
communications problem, but still.

~~~
timr
Fleming discovered Penicillin accidentally, but he was a bacteriologist, and
he was doing research into antiseptics. It was a discovery that was entirely
related to his work.

~~~
nostrademons
And he was researching antiseptics because he had served in the Royal Army and
had watched numerous colleagues die from infections following their wounds.

------
carlosdp
I think the US Digital Service is a great initiative and I'll consider taking
a tour myself in the future. That said, I don't really like these kinds of
thinkers who believe the only companies that are doing something "that
matters" are non-profits working directly on a specific problem in healthcare
or poverty.

I have yet to work for a company, from non-profit internet companies to
product-oriented SaaS startup powerhouses, that didn't enable some great
initiative or program that could not have existed without that company
creating and improving their product and making it accessible, via
availability or cost, to the non-profit that needed to worry about doing their
actual work.

Take the author's old company, Google, for example. They don't do anything
"that matters"? I assure you there are many non-profits, charities, and
important initiatives around the world that would have a much harder time if
they didn't benefit from technologies that Google ushered in to the world.
Mass, cheap communication via free email that is highly-available and untied
from specific ISPs. Free, globally available document storage to safely store
records and share documents across the globe, saving on the cost of having an
entire department to handle the same task.

These products may seem frivolous and unnecessary to us, because we can
(maybe) live without them. But there are organizations directly doing
important, charitable work that can't. Saying product companies that don't
directly work on the world's poverty, social, or health (etc.) problems are
not working on "things that matter" is just pretentious, in my opinion.

All that said, the author has the right to feel the way he feels and work
wherever and on whatever he wants to. Just don't tell everyone else what they
do doesn't really matter.

But that's just my two cents =)

~~~
wpietri
> Saying profit-making companies are inherently not working on "things that
> matter" is just pretentious, in my opinion.

Where do you believe he said that?

The things he called out were "helping rich people find taxis more easily,
selling ads more effectively, or building sexting apps". He also said that he
believed "the advancing state of computing technology has overall benefitted
peoples’ lives".

So I think you're mainly arguing against a straw man here.

~~~
carlosdp
I had a feeling that sentence was going to be taken apart and thought I should
change it, but I didn't have the words at the time. By "profit-making
companies", I mean companies that work on products for people that are not
directly designed to help an impoverished people or solve a health or social
problem. That is being implied here. He calls out the "sexting apps" directly,
but most of the article is about him reconnecting with his friends at Google
and the conclusion seems driven from that interaction.

~~~
wpietri
Again, I think you're arguing against something that is not actually in the
article. I read him as pointing at ends of a continuum, and I think you're
falsely constructing a dichotomy out of that.

He says quite clearly: "I’m still a believer in technology, particularly in
the web platform, as a force for good." He also is explicit that for himself
he wants something farther toward the clear-impact end of the spectrum: "I
needed to redirect my energies towards problems that society wasn’t adequately
addressing."

~~~
carlosdp
Forgive me, but you're kind of reframing his remarks a bit. For example, you
cut off the second part of this sentence:

"Even though I’m still a believer in technology, particularly in the web
platform, as a force for good, _society needs more people working directly on
problems that matter._ "

While the author acknowledges in the abstract that the internet has improved
people's lives, I still see the tone implying we should all be directly
working on more worthy causes if we really want to be doing stuff that
"matters".

~~~
dragonwriter
> While the author acknowledges in the abstract that the internet has improved
> people's lives, I still see the tone implying we should all be directly
> working on more worthy causes if we really want to be doing stuff that
> "matters".

Er, no. Again, you are engaging in binary thinking not warranted by what was
actually said. He doesn't say or imply "we should all" be doing any one thing,
he very directly says that "society needs more people working directly on
problems that matter."

Note, particularly "more people" (not "we...all" as you would present it), and
"directly". That is, there are plenty of things that _indirectly_ matter, and
plenty of people working on those, but, in the author's view, _not enough_
people working _directly_ on certain important applications.

The judgement you are reading into it that everyone not working in certain
preferred areas is doing something less-than-ideal and not doing stuff that
matters is simply nowhere in the text.

------
jxm262
Nice read. I don't mean to derail the discussion, but I wonder what sort of
developers they were looking for when recruiting for the program. When I
applied to the US Digital Service, I received a message back - "we are seeking
candidates with skills tightly matched to our current projects. Members of our
team reviewed your application, and we don't have the perfect match for your
background right now". I'm mostly a web developer, so perhaps they were
looking for a different background.

I have many of the same thoughts as the author (feel like my dev skills could
be used to help some greater causes), but not sure where else I could make an
impact. Particularly in government where I have alot of interest.

~~~
ryanSrich
There are plenty of startups and companies working on important, world
changing problems. You just have to look outside of Silicon Valley.

------
Jemaclus
I applied and interviewed with the USDS, but the biggest thing was that they
wanted me to move to DC for 6+ months. I'm quite happy here on the west coast,
engaged to be married, and attempting to buy a house. Moving cross-country is
pretty much a deal-breaker for me.

That said, I really, really want to get involved in something that matters. My
dream, for lack of a better phrase, no matter how cheesy it may sound, is to
change the world. I want to solve what I call Epic Problems: malaria, clean
water, homelessness, HIV, slavery, human trafficking. Or even something as
simple as making a trip to the DMV as painless as picking up a prescription at
the drug store.

~~~
sliverstorm
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think if you want to solve Epic Problems like
malaria and slavery, you are going to have to be ready to put things like
buying a house and living where you like in the back seat.

~~~
davmre
That doesn't seem obvious. There are people working on banking, advertising,
business software development, etc. in pretty much every major city. Why
shouldn't the same be true of Epic Problems?

You can direct your work efforts towards goals that are important/meaningful
to you without necessarily sacrificing everything else in your life.
Conversely you can give up a good deal of your life to work on unimportant
problems, and many people do.

~~~
sliverstorm
I'm not saying you can't have any of those things and pursue your dreams, but
life is not known for putting your dreams comfortably within reach. Banking is
pretty universal (in every city); malaria research isn't.

Odds are at some point you will be forced to make choices; how many people are
so lucky that their dream job is walking distance from their dream house in
their dream city?

~~~
tomjen3
One less if the Op doesn't take advantage of his position.

------
hueving
Something about DC seems to give people the impression that anyone doing
anything else in the world is "stuff that doesn't matter". R&D at these
companies is what actually solves problems at the root cause.

How would all of that healthcare exchange work have gone if the tech industry
didn't build the massive infrastructure it relies on (database tech, network
tech, version control, the Internet)?

It feels like the person that wrote this article is the guy in the war movie
yelling at the people designing new defenses for not being on the front lines
firing a gun. There is a place for both roles, and shitting all over one half
doesn't make you better than them, it just makes you myopic.

~~~
hodgesmr
_Something about DC seems to give people the impression that anyone doing
anything else in the world is "stuff that doesn't matter"._

I see this from people that live in the Bay too.

NYC too.

~~~
schoen
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_G%C3%B6ttingen#C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_G%C3%B6ttingen#Campus_life)

------
beatpanda
I would love it if anyone repeating the tired talking point, that solutions
for rich people's problems will magically transmogrify into solutions for real
problems with actual impact on human potential and quality of life, could name
even _one example of this_ that's come out of U.S. technology startups in the
last ten years.

I would also love it if anyone could explain why so many people don't feel
compelled to do anything about the poverty in Silicon Valley that is becoming
_much, much worse_ and _drastically_ curtailing social mobility for poor
people in the area, and instead promote this idea of "efficient charity" or
whatever to help people far away, instead of _fixing the problems caused by
the kind of people who focus solely on earning a lot of money_. Problems that
exist whether those people spend that money on mosquito nets or hookers and
blow.

These talking points get thrown around over and over again, largely without
evidence, and it's starting to feel like it's just people trying to justify
their desire to make a pile of money without feeling bad about it.

~~~
com2kid
> I would love it if anyone repeating the tired talking point, that solutions
> for rich people's problems will magically transmogrify into solutions for
> real problems with actual impact on human potential and quality of life,
> could name even one example of this that's come out of U.S. technology
> startups in the last ten years.

Android. It was a technology startup purchased by Google.

Stripe, it has enabled small working class merchants throughout the US to make
multiples more money. Every farmers market I go to now days has merchants who
can now accept credit cards (my spending has increased dramatically!)

Multiple other mobile payment and banking solutions have helped people around
the world gain economic freedom.

~~~
beatpanda
Stripe wasn't trying to solve rich people's problems. Stripe was started for
the explicit purpose you just stated -- to enable small vendors who couldn't
otherwise afford credit card processing to take credit cards. It's a great
example of what can happen when you actually apply effort to a real problem
instead of hoping that some side effect of what you're doing will solve a real
problem.

I don't really see where you're going with Android.

------
pdeuchler
Large leaps in technology have always, and will always, benefit the wealthiest
1% at the beginning. This is just the basics of capital in a capitalistic
society.

The internet has already redistributed earth shattering quantities of wealth
in record time. Besides, to actually solve the "real problems" (no true
scotsman, but we won't go down that path) you still need massive amounts of
capital. Where else are you going to get that capital except for individuals
who have gained their wealth through industry?

Can't help but feel that there's a serious holier-than-thou tone throughout
the article just because the author spent 6 months in DC. Thought experiment:
who is helping the 1% more, people who generate products for a public company
or people who work on pet political projects for the DC elite? (Not implying
there's a right answer to that question, and not implying that's all the OP
did with their time in DC)

~~~
cheeseprocedure
> Large leaps in technology have always, and will always, benefit the
> wealthiest 1% at the beginning. This is just the basics of capital in a
> capitalistic society.

What about the Green Revolution?

~~~
pdeuchler
Honest question, do you mean to imply the Green Revolution did not follow this
pattern?

From my understanding it followed the pattern exactly by spawning the creation
of the huge food production conglomerates we have today while also greatly
enriching vestiges of colonial powers as the movement grew to feed the "global
hungry".

The last three paragraphs of this section of the wikipedia page more or less
confirm it fit the pattern:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Criticism)

------
omouse
> _Most social impact projects and organizations are in the east coast, and,
> at least as far as I could tell (but in all likelihood, it’s probably
> because I suck at finding them), most of them don’t seem to have significant
> / meaningful software projects_

That's because they're stuck in the stone-ages and don't have the imagination
to use and create software (aka they're run by marketers, managers and people
who want to feel good about themselves). The charities/non-profits are treated
as non-technical users, the donors are treated as non-technical, the board
members and C-level execs are all conservative. It's a wonder that there's
been any use of software in automating and lowering the costs for non-profits
to operate.

It's more meaningful to work on Uber because at least there you have the
_potential_ to deliver food using the service to more homeless people than any
other food delivery service.

The beginning of this post was good; fighting malaria is a big enough problem
that could use better software (or at least more big-picture thinking). That's
the kind of stuff we should be working on; being able to distribute malaria
nets as fast, as cheap and as efficiently as possible.

I don't know, you can't expect too much from companies and you can't expect
much from non-profits either. At least while working at Google you have the
chance to use some of your time for things like the disaster reporting/mapping
tech or something else that can directly help someone like Gmail (charities
_do_ need a way to communicate!)

~~~
jchrisa
The flip side of "you can't expect much" is that a little help from tech folks
would go a long way. Organize a hack event where non-tech people describe the
stuff they need help with and tech people try to form solutions. The important
thing is the relationships, not the solutions.

~~~
tomjen3
That is probably the only insightful comment on this article, which is sad for
hn, however relationships are based on trust and respect and based on the
other comments here programmers can't even respect themselves.

------
deepdiver16
What would be a good way to find companies that try to address more "pressing
needs" and need strong technical help? I am currently in Indonesia, on a break
after 20y in Silicon Valley, and would have time to help. I've thought about
NGOs but I suspect these may be hard to navigate? Thanks in advance for any
pointers and ideas

~~~
worldadventurer
If you're interested in working in beautiful Cebu, Philippines, to build
products that improve the lives of the poor worldwide, check out
www.engageSPARK.com . We're recruiting for 6+ month Fellows as well as
Permanent hires. We have a talented international team and are looking for
more passionate people who want to leverage their tech skills to do good and
help change lives. We're a not-for-profit business/startup building a
challenging distributed platform that enables NGOs and governments to improve
the lives of millions of people in poverty around the world.

For example, a large international NGO (Mercy Corps) used our platform to do a
financial education program using voice calls & sms soap operas with quizzes
(to reinforce and test comprehension) for 20,000 people affected by a natural
disaster: [http://solutionscenter.nethope.org/blog/view/hitting-it-
home...](http://solutionscenter.nethope.org/blog/view/hitting-it-home-soap-
opera-campaigns-encourage-financial-literacy-in-the-ph)

And Cebu is a great place to live. If you're a diver, you can be diving in
warm tropical waters in less than an hour from the office!

------
acabrahams
I'm sure this is a stupid question, but after a few minutes of googling I am
still unclear on the answer so I thought I'd ask it here. I am about to start
studying in the US (college), so I was wondering if the USDS accepts non-
American citizens? Even without a green card? (I'm British, btw).

~~~
nacin
18F can hire legal permanent residents.

------
pp19dd
I didn't catch this part- why did the author leave? Was it just a term end and
he chose not to renew it?

~~~
gkoberger
They do "tours of duty", since I think they found people had a hard time
moving to DC permanently. Using this, they've managed to get a lot of people
to take sabbaticals from their Google/FB/etc jobs.

"Quit your high paying job and indefinitely work for the government" is a hard
sell; "come do something awesome for 6 months then go back" is much easier.

~~~
pp19dd
So I was aware of their tours of duty, but I thought that was not a carrot for
outsiders to come in, but rather a way to circumvent the traditional hiring
process. Probably doesn't hurt that the commitment is temporary.

From what I understood, rather than go through the job listing process with
position writeups, giving veteran and disability preferences, dealing with HR
on the certification process, getting various new office reorganizations
approved by congress (they literally have to approve each individual office
creation) and so on, they simply got an approval for 200-300 "innovation
specialists" (that's what everyone's job title is there) and then they can
informally cherry-pick whoever they actually want without going through the
red tape. The mechanism is like having a standing approval for hiring 20
French speaking translators at all times, since that's a specialized standing
volume-based need.

Anyhow, guess my question was more about the author's motivation for not
choosing to extend the tour. It wasn't really spelled out in the post.

~~~
nacin
I'd argue it's mostly a carrot. The hiring authority is either one year or
two, with option to renew. Most taking a leave of absence commit to six months
at the onset.

The goal is to get to 500 by the end of next year. [1]

[1] [http://www.fastcompany.com/3046756/obama-and-his-
geeks](http://www.fastcompany.com/3046756/obama-and-his-geeks)

------
singularity2001
The first paragraphs read like cheesy paid promo for jobs in Washington.
Trying to fix government is a great endeavor though, independent of the
articles authenticity.

~~~
wslack
It's sometimes genuinely hard not to sound cheesy when discussing my work in
DC (moved here a few months ago). :) Here's another piece on this sort of work
with a different tone but the same message:
[https://medium.com/@USDigitalService/mikey-dickerson-to-
sxsw...](https://medium.com/@USDigitalService/mikey-dickerson-to-sxsw-why-we-
need-you-in-government-f31dab3263a0)

------
nbevans
I love how after 6 months working for someone he is happily blogging about it
and he isn't ashamed about it even in the slightest. If I saw he'd worked for
someone for 6 months only then I'd want to hear a good reason why he left.
Otherwise I will just assume he was fired, or knew he was struggling against
his peers and decided to move on by himself. You have to read his About page
to realise that is probably not likely to be the case in this instance, but
still.

~~~
kmonsen
You sign up for 6 months ...

------
a-dub
So... Gates Foundation or Google Ideas?

------
alwaysdoit
Why not take rich people's money for taxis, and then donate how ever much of
your salary to charities that are trying to fight malaria you think is
appropriate?

Is making $40K/yr doing something "meaningful" better than making $100K/yr
doing something "meaningless" and donating $60k/yr to meaningful causes?

~~~
wpietri
Have you tried this? I know a lot of people, but nobody who has done this
sustainably.

I've definitely seen people start out on that road. But either they eventually
quit and find jobs with meaning or they gradually end up not caring about
meaning and spend the money on creature comforts.

~~~
nostrademons
Bill Gates is the most prominent public example.

I also know a number of folks at Google who are very charitably active despite
working big-corp jobs. Usually they compartmentalize very drastically, though,
so I never heard about their charitable activities at work and only learned
about them second-hand, through chance encounters with mutual acquaintances.

~~~
rifung
Is Bill Gates really an example of what the person described? Correct me if
I'm wrong but I don't think his motivation for working or making money was to
donate it. It seems like he decided after accumulating his wealth that he
should use it for good.

It seems important to note the difference because I don't find it hard to
imagine how a person whose motivation is to help the public good might not be
passionate about a job which doesn't inherently do "good".

~~~
nostrademons
It's hard to speak of motivation unless you're the person in question. Most
people do things for a number of different motivations. Hence the adage "We
judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior."

I suspect that as far as Bill Gates is concerned, he considers it all a game
and just wants to win. For the first half of his life, the game was maximizing
the money he makes. For the second half of his life, the game was maximizing
the money he donates. This is all just suspicion, though.

~~~
wpietri
Did Gates ever speak of this? If not, it's a terrible example.

Plenty of rich people, after spending their lives in business, eventually
switch to philanthropy. Presumably because they discover, like the OP, that
they value doing something more meaningful than stacking up money. But that's
entirely different than somebody who has that realization young and does
corporate stuff as a way of extracting cash, which is what alwaysdoit was
suggesting.

------
misuba
If there were profit in solving real problems, there wouldn't be any real
problems.

