Palantir’s product is light years ahead of anything any government IT project has ever, and in my opinion can ever, deliver. They’re not even in the same league.
Counter to that I’ve seen a £37m contract for a form on gov uk with absolutely no change in process, just going from a letter received to a online form
But how many people can you attract, and how quickly can they get the stuff done? There are a lot of sacrifices you have to make working for the gov that not everyone will make.
GDS is amazing. However, unless we double/triple the GDS salary grades, it'll inevitably be hollowed out. From what I heard, that might've already happened.
Look for yourself, GDS is hiring a "Lead Technical Architect" for £67,126–£91,453 https://gds.blog.gov.uk/jobs/ . FAANG (and Palantir) pays up to triple that. How can GDS compete for talent?
Horseshit, mate ... basically just pumped up database software aided and abetted by "consultants" parachuted into the client org ... like the industry has been doing since the 80's ...
Edit: I found the following on Glassdoor and, while I don't know the poster personally, it pretty much sums it up:
"If you are in Business Development (BD) - i.e. Delta or Echo - this job will be your life. They deliberately underhire - they claim it's to maintain the culture, but really it's to squeeze every ounce of productivity out of you. You are thrown into chaotic situations with no way out but to "chew glass and excrete product". Don't let the flat heirarchy and encouragement of confrontation / open debate deceive you. Karp has majority founder shares and calls the shots. The company is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Resourcing is a black box. If you are a U.S person without a clearance, you will be bait-and-switched into defense even if you thought you could avoid it. With clearance, you'll end up on something much worse. Trust your gut - the company's leadership are not wise, nuanced philosophers - they are spineless, shifty edgelords with no ethical red lines. As a FDE, you will spend half your time working around stupid limitations in the platform you could not foresee when making grand promises to the customer. Foundry is not a cutting edge product, just like Microsoft Suite is not a cutting edge product. Its just too broad for any other company to easily copy it. Palantir just brought middle-of-the-road Silicon valley tech to old-school government, slapped some AI integration onto it and shrouded it in a veil of mystery to make it seem cool and mysterious and appeal to retail investors."
This is morally wrong and it should be embarrassing to publish such an article.
It doesn’t surprise me to see such articles coming from academia, in which juniors are treated like dirt to such an extreme that is unimaginable in any other industry, save for maybe Michelin star cuisine.
This is pretty autistic. I kind of agree, being somewhat on the spectrum myself. But I think the world would be a considerably worse place if everyone abided by such rules.
Some people have an attitude to work resembling “I spend most of my day here, so having enjoyable professional relationships with my coworkers is a major determinant of my quality of life.” And there are other people who have an attitude closer to “it’s my goal to deliver value efficiently and get paid. I’m not here to make friends. Any meaningful human interactions happen outside of work.”
I don’t know enough about autism to know if that’s the right label for the second category. (I’ve had coworkers who identified as autistic who seemed to deeply care about whether I enjoyed working with them.) I think these two types of people can work together productively, but I don’t think they’ll ever totally understand each other.
Reading the article, I also feel that all of his examples are poor communication, both the "courteous" and the "direct" ones. You can communicate clearly and succinctly and also be considerate of the person you're talking to.
The problem is that too many people couch pettiness and personal attacks in the philosophy of "being direct" or "telling it like it is". OP specifically mentions that criticism must be made on technical merits. The people that hand-wave this distinction away are absolutely insufferable.
That's the theory, but there's absolutely normative statements in this piece. For example:
> When you spend the first third of your message establishing that you are a nice person who means well, you are not being considerate but you are making the recipient wade through noise to get to signal. You are training them to skim your messages, which means that when you actually need them to read carefully, they might not. You are demonstrating that you do not trust the relationship enough to just say the thing and you are signaling a level of insecurity that undermines the technical credibility you are trying to establish. Nobody reads "hope you had a great weekend" and thinks better of the person who wrote it, they probably just being trained to take you less seriously in the future, or at worse, if they're evil loving of Crocker's [sic?] like myself, they just think about the couple of seconds of their life they will never get back.
This very much sounds like the author believes that everyone who doesn't abide by these rules - not just him, not just people who've agreed to them, everyone - is deficient in some way. And it's not just a slip - this attitude is pervasive throughout the post.
I love this point as much as I hate it in practice. We all have different preferences and it is more helpful to be clear about ours rather than declare them "correct". The way we expect these differences to be navigated can become oppressive.
… I don't know what your incident reports look like, but if there's anywhere it's normal to optimise for communicative clarity rather than social wheel-greasing, it's an incident report!
How do you figure that the author is “developmentally challenged”? It sounds to me like they are able to handle their insecurities in a more mature and emotionally balanced way than most others.
Funny you say that, I actually just did a company tax return and confirmation statement a couple of days in the midst of bad COVID (2 hours sleep per night) and I was still annoyed about the multi-step process:
1) gov.uk, search for 'file confirmation statement'
2) Despite there being a sole autocomplete result and clicking on it, taken to the search results page
3) Click the first result. Turns out it's the guidance page
4) Go back, click the second result. We're getting warmer
5) Click "Start Now"
6) Get redirected to the 'Sign in to WebFiling' landing page. You can't actually sign on on this page.
7) Click 'Continue'
8) Another landing/explainer page! ("We're taking you to GOV.UK One Login to sign in to this service")
9) Click 'Go to GOV.UK One Login'
10) You think we're done yet? Think again. Another landing page!
11) Click "Sign in"
12) Think they'd let you just enter an email and password on one page? Nope! Enter email
13) Click Continue
14) Enter password
Finally...
No idea how anyone who doesn't work for GDS can justify this. It's mad
The cost of a passport is negligible (~£10 per year on average), and it’s not reasonable to expect the UK to spend a lot of money architecting the system around a very small minority of dual citizens who don’t have passports.
Why should any special architecting be required given that I am an EU citizen with an EU passport. On the contrary, effort was expended to prevent me from obtaining an ETA to no purpose that has ever been justified.
Yes, I personally am not deeply inconvenienced by this, but that doesn't make it ok. Others are on much tighter budgets than me.
I’m sorry but this is an awful take. gov.uk’s design is excellent, probably the best government interface in the world. My friends from other European countries are literally shocked at how easy things are to do (often, tasks that in their countries would require going to some bureaucrat _in person_ and waiting hours, sometimes multiple times).
reply