[graphitezepp]

I would much rather billionaire types take on large issues that governments don't want to touch, like space flight or specific diseases in foreign countries, than something already in service like libraries. Maybe I just have a bias due to having a library just up the street from where I live currently, but I have never not had access to an adequate library in my life time, and only see room for marginal diminishing returns in improving them.

[chickenfries]

Visit a library in a low-income area (where people need them the most) and see the kinds of computers people use to hunt for jobs, do their homework, etc. I've been to a library that was running windows 2000 on TWO ancient Dells with with CRT monitors in 2015. And the two computers they had were being used by adults and students. There is so much to be gained from improving libraries.

[stillsut]

Let me give you a hypothetical company IT department: while you are allowed to work there with any education background, only an MBA can be a manager. How do you think they would perform at IT tasks?

Who runs libraries? People with Masters in Library Science. I expect severe budget and certification crises would come to any library that won't put a certified librarian in a head position.

Or, I'm a working class guy and it's Sunday, my traditional off from work, can I go to the library? No, it is closed because there needs to be Master Librarian on duty and they've negotiated a contract to never have to work Sunday. Now the facility sits there unused 14% of the time, during the most likely time it would be used.

[Blackthorn]

> Who runs libraries? People with Masters in Library Science. I expect severe budget and certification crises would come to any library that won't put a certified librarian in a head position.

And you would be wrong. My local library is considered one of the best small-town libraries in the nation (I believe at one point it literally won an award for being the best) -- and does not have a certified librarian in a head position.

Also, to compare MLS librarians with MBAs in regards to the workings of what's under them is exceptionally unfair. Most librarians I know (a set which includes my father in law, who is a county library director, and two close friends, who hold MLS degrees) are extremely academically curious about new things they can do to make their libraries more accessible and attractive.

[MR4D]

No, he would be right.

Source: https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2014/07/do-librarians-need-a...

[Blackthorn]

Libraries do not all follow those rules. The existence of my local library, as I discussed, shows that.

[MR4D]

My point is that by and large, the parent poster was correct.

A lack of complete uniformity across the industry does not mean he's wrong.

[stillsut]

There are MBA's who are also curious and interested in "going digital", "leveraging big data", etc. Left to initiate programs under these banners, and evaluate themselves I expect the MBA to perform sub-optimally.

My point is not to disrespect MLS, in fact as even as a programmer, I'd probably be terrible as a head sys-admin/tech-support for a library too.

I'm wondering why we've never heard of anyone making a good career move by setting up tech at a library (other than as a fat and easy contract)? If we can all relate to these deficient computer networks being run in public libraries, why has nobody succeeded in this space? I'm suggesting perverse incentives in management structure is why this much needed service isn't being filled by our extremely talented tech workforce.

> it literally won an award for being the best and does not have a certified librarian in a head position.

kind of my point, no?

[johnjhayes]

>>I'm wondering why we've never heard of anyone making a good career move by setting up tech at a library

Because they are underfunded, Bezos seems to be addressing that.

>>kind of my point, no?

No, the provided example seems to be counter to your point.

[stretchwithme]

When you make something free for everybody, instead of just those with a financial need, it's going to be chronically underfunded. We're the richest country in the world, paying trillions in taxes, borrowing trillions more and advocates for every expenditure tell us more funds are needed.

If those with the means paid a fair price for the library resources they are sharing, a library could be open for many more, have better resources AND cost the taxpayer less.

Libraries weren't always free. Like the one Ben Franklin helped establish. These didn't cost the taxpayer anything. And if you wanted to help someone without the means, you would just pay for their membership.

http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/lending-library/

[notfromhere]

Because libraries are underfunded, as is most public infrastructure. Libraries bring a lot of beneficial resources to a community, but they're the first things to be cut

[SolaceQuantum]

Every library I've been to in every town I've been to had Sunday hours. This includes New York City and its surrounding suburbs, Buffalo and its surrounding suburbs, several towns in Conneticut and several more in Toronto Canada and its surrounding suburbs.

Even my university library has sunday hours.

[jnordwick]

Definitely not NY. The NYPL only has a few of locations open on Sunday. The vast majority are not open.

[malynda]

Multiple libraries in small town Iowa do not have Sunday hours. Just to hazard a guess at the nearest place to have a library with Sunday hours probably requires a minimum 60 mile drive.

[mixmastamyk]

In LA only the central library is open Sunday, for 4 or 5 hours.

[qohen]

While most of the 70+ branches are closed Sundays, there are some 8 or 9 that are open from 1-5 on Sundays. E.g. the branch on Robertson, a few blocks south of Pico.

The hours for all branches are on the following page; to find the ones open on Sunday, just search on the page for:

Sun: 1-5

https://www.lapl.org/branches

Also, the Beverly Hills Public Library -- which is, of course, not part of the LA library system -- is open 12 - 6 on the weekends:

https://roxbury.beverlyhills.org/

[alphonsegaston]

Yeah but that's an LA thing, not specific to libraries. Lots of stuff closes way early or has weird hours

Also, the main branches of suburban libraries in places like Glendale and Pasadena are open all weekend too.

[soperj]

Libraries in Canada have the same stipulations, but are actually funded and are open all the time. Our downtown library is open 9am-9pm every day of the year.

[the_unknown]

Hm, I'm East of Toronto and thought my small town library was closed Sunday and Monday... just checked - no, open 7 days a week. Pleasantly surprised.

The small, small, small town north of here though is closed on Sunday.

[jgmjgm]

I live in Canada in a mid-sized city and my library is closed on Sundays. Just as a poster above, it appears to be the case that the librarians negotiated a great deal for themselves. (Closed on Sundays during the summer, open on Sundays during the winter.)

However, it is a great library. No arguments there. It's a pain that its closed on Sundays just when kids want to use it most.

[soperj]

Which city? I'm in a mid-sized city as well. I find it quite surprising since I've lived in many places around Canada from small towns to big cities from Toronto all the way out to the West Coast, and have never had access to at least one library that was open all the time.

[surement]

https://www.vpl.ca/hours-locations

[rubatuga]

That's a severe overgeneralization and I can tell you that is not the case.

[Sumaso]

Please do. Where is that not the case.

[enraged_camel]

Why does here have to be a master librarian on duty? Do you mean it's in the negotiated contract, or are there legitimate reasons?

[throwaway7645]

Being closed on Sunday is a bummer.

[Chardok]

I completely agree. Where I lived at in Houston, trying to find a place to sit and study quietly was near impossible, which is something I certainly took for granted.

Libraries provide so much public good: giving the public internet access, allowing people to read classics and better themselves for free, and giving some quiet space for those wanting to study (and not have to pay for a $5 coffee).

[goialoq]

not paying for a $5 coffee hurts the official GDP metrics. Reading a book in a library contributes $0 to official GDP.

[peatmoss]

Directly speaking, that's right. Indirectly, the latter statement is, of course, false in that libraries provide the means for anyone in society to raise their station and thus contribute more to GDP.

But I think you're making a good point that others are missing: The most valuable things in society are often things that aren't easily measured by straightforward means.

[arkitaip]

The libraries in my city offer legal advice, business advice and much more beyond storing books. Heck, the majority of books are put in storage in order to free up physical space for doing homework, computers, study rooms, etc.

[conductr]

This makes me think a recycle/reuse program should exist. "Our" old hardware is newer/better than what they have. I know this program probably does exists but I usually assume they are just breaking my device apart and pulling out gold/metals. If I knew the library needed a gently used device, I'd have no problem giving them my old stuff.

[KGIII]

The best thing you can do is ask your librarian. Libraries are often poorly funded, very much so in rural areas. They are often partially funded with donations.

Somebody was willing to step up and rehab a local library. Had they not done so, it would have been forced to close. It is staffed entirely by volunteers. The town can barely afford to budget the heat.

Fortunately, the same person now donates regularly and there's no risk of immediate closure. They will have also left a small trust for the library when they pass away.

[WalterBright]

Around here, the library buildings are new, large, modern, and spacious. Those buildings were expensive to construct.

They lack books, though. The shelves are low, widely spaced, and don't occupy much of the floor space.

http://www.buildingwork.design/projects/kenmore-library/

I've long since given up even looking for books there. I just go buy them.

Contrast this with Half Price Books:

http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=ae61a8...

It's crammed with books. (The picture barely does that justice.)

[chupapuma]

The KCLS has a lot of books though and it is super easy to get them transported to the library for pickup. Also the eBook selection is immense.

[KGIII]

I still have a lovely, fairly local, shop. It is called Twice Sold Tales. It's a lovely place. I miss bookstores.

[goialoq]

Thanks to the march of progress, it's cheaper to deliver new tablets and keyboards than to wrangle ad-hoc used hardware.

[chickenfries]

Yeah, I have about 75% of a computer from upgrading mine overtime. Waiting until I have more parts to buy a case to put it in and then donate it to a library or school or something. All of my parts are in good condition and from the last 10 years, I would hate to see them stripped for metals.

[randyrand]

> where people need them the most

On the contrary, even the poor have their own computers and smartphones these days and these libraries don't see much sense in upgrading their rarely used computers.

[chickenfries]

If you're poor, you might have a limited data plan. In which case, you probably make use of public WiFi all the time to reduce your usage of your limited data plan, which should be reserved for when you need it on the side of the road or when you're running late to a job interview.

Using an old android device to browse the internet is browsing as a second-class citizen. When I job hunt, I open many documents, hundreds of tabs, visit hundreds of websites... all of this would be greatly hindered by a mobile device.

Have you been to a low income library where people are not using the computers? My previous neighborhood's library computers were being used almost all the time when I went there.

> even the poor have their own computers and smartphones these days

I'm curious what you've read that informs this opinion. The digital divide still exists, especially in rural areas but in general across socioeconomic class.

https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/state-urbanrural-digital-...

[lnreddy]

Physical libraries seem so inefficient. Can't the same thing be accomplished at a fraction of the cost by distributing laptops with subscriptions to KhanAcademy etc ?

[johnjhayes]

Consider extreme rural areas. I've lived most of my life in rural Alabama and libraries provide an essential resource for many. Giving these people a laptop and a subscription doesn't help much if they don't have a decent internet connection (or one at all).

[ue_]

Perhaps the internet connection could be funded in a similar way to libraries, then.

[chickenfries]

There is still value in WiFi and a quiet place to work, especially if you're not wealthy and you don't have an office set up in your home, or don't have good quality internet, or home internet at all.

[eutropia]

Libraries have such an enormous impact on people that need them! It's as if you read the article and completely ignored all the points the author made -- musical instruments, tools, and art being loaned out. Makerspaces, computers with internet access, free classes, resume help, job applications -- a politically neutral meeting space!

These are actually amazing investments because they're getting incredible duty-cycles out of all of those objects when they're being shared. One purchased instrument or computer for the library is access when it's needed for dozens if not hundreds of people. It's like the argument for self-driving cars being shared because normally cars are idle 95% of the time.

Think of the library as the efficient distribution center of Common Good.

[jasode]

>It's as if you read the article and completely ignored all the points the author made [...] Think of the library as the efficient distribution center of Common Good.

One can agree with all the positives mentioned in the article and your points as well but still question if there is an _even better_ investment than libraries that will result in the most good.

Even Jeff Bezos' wealth is finite so spending it is a zero-sum game. Donating to public libraries means money not donated to researchers needing $1m to find cures/antibiotics that would benefit all of humanity more than upgrading libraries. (Or whatever other recipient you can imagine that could have a greater multiplier effect of that money than libraries.)

Maybe libraries are the best use of his donation money. Maybe not.

[civilian]

Yup, jasode has got the right idea.

The meter-stick to compare all charities (or hell, government programs? Personal spending?) is that we can donate $3000 to the Against Malaria Foundation and save a child's life.

I might be a numbers-first globalist nerd, but $3000 per life? It makes me want to defund most welfare programs in the states because by comparison, they are horribly inefficient. And inefficiency of resources, in this scenario, results in dead children.

[goialoq]

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/#we-are-giving-what-we-can

(The web design is a disaster, but the content is fine once you dig it up)

[eutropia]

An excellent point, there's always the possibility of something better: but there's time and energy invested in finding the better too, not to mention risk. Libraries are most certainly not going to result the highest utilization of that money but I would argue that they should form a stable, low-risk, immediate, guaranteed ROI core to his philanthropic efforts.

[zanny]

I don't think anyone is arguing libraries aren't worth having. The argument is how to spend private money.

If libraries are underfunded, that is a problem you need to push through public channels. In the same vein as why a private company doing infrastructure makes no sense, if we can demonstrably show the benefits of having libraries (and we can) that breaks down the most fundamental barrier to public funding of anything - justifying the expense with demonstrable results.

The government has a hard time investing in space flight because without a demonstrable major goal like beating the Commies it looks to the uninformed like money down a black hole. It is really hard to justify, no matter the degree of information availability, bleeding edge research on the public purse because you have to explicitly detail it isn't a guarantee on results for any given years investment. In politics where the mood changes based on yesterdays news, few can weather a bad year if they are putting large amounts of money into important research.

Libraries, though? We got statistics for that. We are well versed in building and staffing libraries. They are functionally infrastructure - and that is supposed to be what government is good at. If you live in a country where it is not good at infrastructure, you got bigger problems to deal with then.

[monorepoman]

"The government" is virtually the only entity that has ever taken any interest in space flight. The cumulative government investment in space research, development, and operations is orders of magnitude higher than the the cumulative private investment, and even today in the supposed golden age of private spaceflight more than 80% of the money is coming from taxpayers.

[mobilefriendly]

And yet, with a small fraction of just one year of NASA's budget, look what SpaceX has accomplished.

[RivieraKid]

I wish some tech billionaire or rich tech company invested in rethinking healthcare from the ground up (or like Elon Musk likes to say, from first principles) with focus on UX, state-of-the-art technologies and integration. Anytime I use our healthcare (although, this is the Czech Rep, could be different in USA), I feel like it should be easy to design a better service.

Basically, something what Tesla did, apply Silicon Valley tech startup mentality in a non-tech industry.

[volkk]

Many have tried, but my guess is that it's extremely difficult mainly because the government is involved, and decades of archaic systems (and minds) that you need to deal with. The word "fast" isn't in the vocabulary in this industry, and every decision moves at a snail's pace. Granted, there's a reason and you can't simply fuck up and prioritize into the next sprint that you'll fix the previous fuckup.

The other issue (at least in the USA) is a ton of compliance stuff you have to deal with. HIPAA compliance is such a pain in the ass. It's not "cool" or fun, so it doesn't usually attract great devs or people that don't want to deal with constant red tape and permissions for accessing things. Naturally, this business sort of attracts the bureaucratic minded people and the really efficient people end up frustrated/burn out and move into an industry where getting shit done is easily quantifiable in the short term.

Regardless, I work in the healthcare industry currently and it's a shitshow for lack of a better word.

[graphitezepp]

Large part of the issue is any downtime of existing systems is generally considered completely unacceptable in health care.

[volkk]

Yep. The other thing is that generally any sort of screw up (apart from server down time) by a company will cause extreme distrust from partners to the point of failure of your business. It's extremely tricky.

[devmunchies]

I think rethinking healthcare would start with better nutrition education and a focus on preventing disease. Med school has almost no nutrition education and doctors are largely ignorant of food's role on disease. Most cases of heart disease and diabetes are largely preventable.

Preventing those 2 diseases alone would save the country billions, if not trillions, a year in medical costs.

[aqsalose]

One problem that can't probably solved by simply "focusing on the UX and better service" is that the service provider (medical professional) is both responsible for evaluating what's wrong with you (and what services you need) and the administering the treatment.

Judging the quality of the medical service is also often difficult. The true quality and the utility of the service you receive will often be apparent only years or decades later. Did a patient need for antibiotics for a basic viral infection? Probably not but it feels like a better service.

[zanny]

Except you can't just manufacture healthcare in your back yard and win with capitalism. The whole industry is deeply and systemically regulated - trying to stir the pot gets you sued, either by existing hospitals for your threat or by any patient dissatisfied with the results of your treatment. Or by state health agencies that see you not following the extraordinarily rigid rulebook on how healthcare is to be done.

We are as far from a market where you can experiment with healthcare as you can be aside from outright banning private medical practice.

[goialoq]

https://theranos.com/ :-)

[specialist]

FFS. Libraries?!

How about they pay their damn taxes.

I don't want "charity". No, I want these deadbeats to start pulling their own weight. Then we'll buy our own damned libraries.

https://www.l2inc.com/daily-insights/winners-and-losers/tech...

"For economies to thrive, companies need to hand over a quarter of their profits.

But the Four Horsemen – Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook — pay far less than the average US corporate tax rate.

Loser: future generations, who will have to pay off the debt racked up by politicians unwilling to tax the most profitable companies in the world."

[OrwellianChild]

Agree that private money is best used where public money isn't available... Bezos purchased the entire Washington Post - the 8th largest paper in the country with national readership - for $250M. [1] By comparison, the two library systems that service the Seattle area cost a combined $190M to run just in 2017. [2] [3] The reach and impact that can be achieved by strategic investments like the Post surely outweigh what little incremental improvements could be made in existing library systems.

[1] https://goo.gl/QfbJG1

[2] http://www.spl.org/about-the-library/budget

[3] https://kcls.org/budget/

[tracker1]

Libraries serve a very important function, preserving and distributing knowledge. Yes, internet access can mitigate some of the needs, but even then many use libraries to access the internet.

Though an interesting idea would be to combine the roles of a library with a traditional pub house.

[KGIII]

Meandering through the stacks with a pint in hand.

That's either the best idea ever, or the worst idea ever. I'm not sure that it'd be very quiet, either.

[tracker1]

I mean in terms of a larger gathering place of knowledge and ideas... Adding in meeting spaces and coffee/bar for beverages, etc would be a net positive imo. As for quiet, I'm not entirely sure that's always a positive either.

[KGIII]

Oh... Hmm... It was much more awesome in my imagination. I'd even drink, just to make it more amusing. I've consumed alcohol in a library, but not openly.

This should be a thing. It might be a horrible thing, but it should exist.

[cratermoon]

> large issues that governments don't want to touch

Health care for all? Affordable housing? Food security?

[tertius]

How about reducing their size, removing redundant jobs, reducing regulation that does harm, cutting costs...

[cratermoon]

You mean like we've been doing since the Reagan administration? How's that been working for citizens?

[zanny]

How is 600B a year in global imperialism cutting anything?

Unsurprisingly, you can't just stick "size of government" on an axis and say one side is good and the other is bad. The way you spend the money matters way more than how much you spend. One dollar of state spending can mean anything from magnitudes of benefit to a negative impact on the economy or society from the consequences of that dollar.

[WalterBright]

Do you really believe that there are less regulations, is smaller government, fewer government jobs, etc., today than in the 80's?

[specialist]

Rhetoric vs reality. And yet people keep falling for it.

[tertius]

Politics for you.

It's still a good idea.

[cratermoon]

Let's talk about how regulatory enforcement can be compromised without actually shrinking government size, budget, or jobs.

First, there's regulatory capture[1]. In short, the regulated industry ends up writing its own regulations. As a result, the regulations just enshrine business practices as they are. The total size of the regulatory regime can even increase because of the second aspect of regulatory capture. When an industry captures the agency, it can seek to make the rules purposely byzantine and vague, in order to ensure that almost any business practice can be defended, provided one has enough legal muscle.

Regulatory capture is what people who root for Uber's business model demonize. The car-for-hire industry, they say, is regulated in such a way as to keep the taxi industry profitable even if the service is, they claim, subpar.

Second, there's policy that goes under the names "regulatory reform" or "regulatory relief"[2] Here, the regulations themselves are not subject to change or reduction, only the effort by the government to do meaningful enforcement is cut. This is what we see around the US role and reaction to the 2007-2008 global financial crisis. Laws that could have been used to prevent this event, or to prosecute the executives responsible, do exist. Violations are simply not prosecuted.[3]

For others who are asking about measurable ways government regulation has decreased[4], don't look as the size of the CFR, look at the relationship of the regulations with existing business practices and the current low-enforcement regulatory regime.

Finally, one might ask, if the regulations are so business-friendly and enforcement so lax, why hasn't the size of the regulatory workforce shrunk? Well, of course it has, but also, a big regulatory regime is a barrier to entry for competitors. The most profitable companies don't want competition, so they are happy to have regulators help them ensure that what they do is legal, while making sure that compliance is expensive and difficult enough to deter new entries into the markets.

[1] http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/dalbo/regulatory_capture_pu...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1981/11/15/u...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/books/review/the-chickens...

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15023063

[tertius]

> You mean like we've been doing since the Reagan administration?

In what measurable way?

[notfromhere]

not well.

[tryingagainbro]

Bezos doesn't have enough money for that...as much as he has. It will be drained in a very few years IMO.

He could support archive.org to scan all the books for free, or just buy the scans from Google (if they sell them). Of course make that free for all. Eventually almost everyone will have a $50 Android, use some sort of wifi and there's your library.

[thaumasiotes]

> I would much rather billionaire types take on large issues that governments don't want to touch, like space flight or specific diseases in foreign countries

I have no idea what you're trying to express here, since space flight and disease are large issues that governments are really really interested in.

[stcredzero]

It should be acknowledged that public libraries are now defacto places of social work. This actually makes eminent sense, in a way. It should be acknowledged, so that the proper resources and funding can be delivered where it is needed and will do much good.

[icebraining]

Well, Bezos already invests in space flight, so there's no much point in suggesting that.

The article also claims that libraries are getting defunded, so you may not have your library up the street for much longer.

[guelo]

> like space flight

Like NASA? Elon Musk is building on top of decades of government funding.

[sjg007]

Govt should be in space flight and fighting disease.