Reading the definitions here it looks like France is basically banning 15 year olds from using interactive websites. Platforms like Steam, Xbox Live, Minecraft, the New York Times comment section, etc all fall under the super-vague definition of social media services here: https://www.conseil-etat.fr/avis-consultatifs/derniers-avis-...
It's inordinately difficult and expensive to start an LLC or SA in some EU countries. It's even difficult and expensive to _stop_ an LLC and dissolve it. Huge amount of risk and cost on founders and a huge distraction from running a business.
I think that EU-Inc _could_ be an improvement, but it needs to avoid the committee laundry list of ideas/requirements/form fields that plagues the EU startup ecosystem. My worry is that the end result will require notarized declarations of honour, financial plans stretching decades into the future, 30 page business plan documents, reams of corporate governance documents, and tons of other nonsense to protect against the perceived risk that someone who failed at starting a business once fails a second time.
There needs to be UX requirements on the process from day one against which the end result is judged. (E.g. "a company should be able to register in x days", "a complete application should be no longer than y pages", "application costs should be less than z euros").
Anecdotally, I find you can tell if someone worked at a big AI provider or a small AI startup by proposing an AI project like this:
" First we'll train a custom trillion parameter LLM for HTML generation. Then we'll use it to render our homepage to our 10 million daily visitors. "
The startup people will be like "this is a bad idea because you don't have enough GPUs for training that LLM" and the AI lab folks will be like "How do you intend to scale inference if you're not Google?"
I hear this a lot (that children learn languages faster, or the corollary from various app ads that the best way to learn a language is to do so like a baby does), but is it actually true?
It takes children a very very long time to learn a language and they're quite bad at it for many years. I've even met some teens/young adults who are only borderline literate in their native language after years of schooling and immersion.
Everyone remotely competent in AI in the federal government that I know has quit in disgust over the past 6 months. I know zero talented AI people who are looking to take a cut in pay, benefits, and career stability to sign up for a new job working for this administration.
As a result, there's zero chance even the sensible parts of this strategy won't just end up coopted into multi-billion dollar Palantir contracts to deliver outdated llama models behind some clunky UI with the word "ontology" plastered on every button.
At least to me, loyalty _is_ the benefit. I can't conscience working for someone I hate or someone who I don't feel like I want to help succeed. I've definitely quit jobs before just because the senior leader in my reporting chain was replaced with some smarmy windbag I didn't believe in.
That's not to say it's _much_ of a benefit, but if the only thing a job gives me is a market-rational amount of dollars and health benefits in exchange for life-hours, the invisible hand ensures I can find that virtually anywhere.
Do you think there is a role for the federal government to employ engineers for any purpose? 18F was a general purpose engineering group that built software for many agencies instead of having those agencies pay vast amounts of money to Deloitte/Accenture/Booz Allen etc for a worse quality product.
The data collection isn't even quiet. There's an entire cottage industry of companies that scrape these traffic cam feeds, store everything for x numbers of months in low-cost cloud vaults (e.g. glacier) and then offer lawyers/clients in traffic disputes access to footage that may have captured an accident for exorbitant rates. It's a remarkable little ecosystem of privatized mass surveillance.
True that! I use probably 15 days of "unlimited" leave and still manage to feel guilty about it.
The frustrating thing for people in fed jobs is that if you hit your 13 days that's it (during your first 3 years in government). It can be impossible to get PTO until you build up hours again. You have to either quit, negotiate LWOP (often seen as a performance adverse metric on your record), or work. So if you land a sweet concert ticket, see a flight deal, have a friend get married, etc. you better hope you've banked up the leave for it. Since you gain hours every 2 weeks (4, 6 or 8 depending on service) you also start out in government with virtually no leave and can't actually take a 2 week trip until you've been there almost a full year.
USDS is great! I know people who have made a huge impact there and if I personally were to go into government from tech it's where I'd look. They are situated at the White House which allows them to be hired at a higher level than normal federal jobs (up to GS15, though still lower than comparable private sector work) and then they get sent out to various agencies by the White House to try and fix things. In practice though, USDS is a tiny tiny drop in the bucket compared to what federal agencies actually need. Maybe if every agency had a digital service of their own the model could work.
The federal government is an enterprise with 4 million employees (more than half in DoD as military or civilian). So the handful of people at USDS are basically only sufficient to swoop to fix the most dire of dumpster fires.
In terms of benefits, here's an anecdotal comparison with a senior engineer (5-10 years experience) at a mid-level start up I worked at.
* Federal Pay (GS-12): $100,000
* Startup Pay: $150 base + $25 k bonus + equity
* Federal Health Insurance (United mid-tier plan, no family): $2,500/year
* Startup Insurance (United mid-tier plan, no family): $0/year
* Federal Leave: 20 days (after 4 years in federal government)
* Startup Leave: Unlimited
* Federal Sick Leave: 13 days
* Startup Sick Leave: Unlimited
The pension I'm talking about actually isn't the TSP (which is fine, but slightly more expensive than comparable Vanguard funds).
All federal employees must contribute 4.4% of their salary to the FERS now which is taken out of their base pay just like their health/dental/fegli. It used to be 0.8% but congress gutted it a few years ago.
FERS takes decades before it's more than pocket change and the same money invested in the market would yield higher expected returns without requiring you to work 20 years in gov to benefit from it.
Counterintuitively, scaling government down goes hand in hand with increasing the attractiveness of the civil service.
Right now if a government agency wants to do something like make a webform where you can apply for a passport, they have zero web developers on staff who can do it. Instead they must pay a team of non-technical officials and lawyers to make and adjudicate an RFP. Then pay a contracting firm to put a developer behind a government computer to do the actual work. Putting this contractor in a seat can easily cost the taxpayer $500k a year despite the contractor only receiving $130k of that money. The rest goes to the HR department, IT Department, C-Suite, lawyers, lobbyists, and shareholders at the contracting firm. The government has their own HR/Lawyers/IT too, but the contractor can't use those so the tax payer ends up double-paying overhead and missing out on economies of scale on every contract.
This is one of the many reasons government websites are always $50 million dollar boondoggles that an intern could have done better. The government ends up spending millions of dollars feeding leeching middle-men before they can hand that money to a mediocre dev deep in the bowels of Accenture's cheapest subcontractor.
If an agency just could hire a few strong web developers directly and then assign them to whatever task is needed during a particular sprint, we'd see a massive reduction in cost and increase in the quality of engineers working on our country's most important work. But most agencies are literally not allowed to spend more than $120k on an in-house engineer, while no one bats an eye on them spending 5 times that on an Accenture contract placement.
Totally. I think comp is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for fixing government technology. The actual solutions (good authentication and least privilege systems, robust monitoring, rapid intrusion detection and response, secure by default system architectures) all take talented people to execute and the government doesn't have enough of those in-house. Instead most systems are built with a 7-figure contract to Booz Allen and friends and then maintenance and sustainment is left as an exercise to the reader.
Until the US federal government pays civilian tech talent competitively, this is always going to be an issue.
Your typical hands-on-keyboard blue team engineer in federal government is a GS-12 getting paid around $68,000 per year (or $99k in very high cost of living areas like DC). They have expensive health benefits, 13 days of PTO a year, put a huge chunk of their paycheck (almost 5%) into a mandatory pension plan that consistently underperforms the market, and can literally go to jail for making mistakes at work depending on the statutory context they work in.
The best people in these jobs burn out fast and quit or they end up having to abandon IC work for GS-14/15 jobs (max pay is around $190 for those) in order to keep up with cost-of-living and justify their careers.
As a result, you have almost zero genuinely capable principal/senior engineers in government who have the authority to architect complex IT systems for security. Instead you get contractors who charge the taxpayers enormous overhead costs and cut corners wherever possible.
If there's one letter to write your congress person to improve government - my vote would be for civil service reform to attract and retain actual top tech talent. They've done it for doctors and lawyers (both of whom can get paid well above the $190k GS pay ceiling), but engineering is still not treated as a comparably skilled professional trade.
I've giving "Accept - Minor Revisions" to every paper I've peer reviewed since getting my PhD other than two that were outright plagiarism. Figure it's important to the morale of grad students to get some positive validation and the vast majority of published research is garbage anyways so I don't feel particularly inclined to defend the trash heap as an unpaid reviewer. In practice, I find that I've tipped the scales in favor of a lot of borderline papers over the years and am quite happy about that.
Dan's fantastic. Been interviewed by him in the past and was super impressed by his interest in understanding technical nuance and communicating the story accurately to a lay audience. He's definitely not a headline chaser like a lot of folks I've met in tech journalism. Ars is lucky to have him.
They don't even copy and paste the text! At least in my experience, once done with peer-review I spend a few hours wrestling with the "print ready" LaTeX template provided by the publisher to get my paper and tables to render correctly. Often they'll have an out of date LaTeX compiler or something else in the pipeline, so there's actually quite a lot of unpaid labor involved in getting a paper into a PDF that a journal will host.
The main services they supply are basically document hosting and search functionality. Both at extortionate rates.
Honestly they were just there in the Wikipedia text I copied. I've seen them in more modern texts to help with pronunciations and translation (if I recall correctly some words have different meanings depending on the length of the final vowel but that can normally be determined from context). Romans sometimes used the apex to denote long vowels which would have otherwise been ambiguous but I think it wasn't as commonplace as in textbooks today.
Exactly this! It gets even cooler in this example too because the meter for "Odi et amo" elided to "Od'et amo" directly parallels the scansion for "excrucior" (long syllable, short syllable, short syllable, long syllable). So the two concepts that start and end the poem (love+hate, and torture) are also linked by how they are pronounced. Incidentally, that linkage is also the message of the poem itself.
These two lines are basically just Catulus' being a complete show-off. And IMO, some of Ovid's work makes Catulus look like a bit of an amateur by comparison.
Classical latin poetry is like 10% being able to write down clever ideas and 90% showing off your grasp of grammar and vocabulary such that you can pose and solve incredibly difficult linguistic puzzles. I think Sanskrit is pretty similar in this respect too.