[stygiansonic]

Some good tidbits from the government perspective on software development:

“Beware of bureaucratic goals masquerading as problem statements. “Drivers feel frustrated when dealing with parking coupons” is a problem. “We need to build an app for drivers as part of our Ministry Family Digitisation Plans” is not. “Users are annoyed at how hard it is to find information on government websites” is a problem. “As part of the Digital Government Blueprint, we need to rebuild our websites to conform to the new design service standards” is not. If our end goal is to make citizens’ lives better, we need to explicitly acknowledge the things that are making their lives worse.”

[dehrmann]

This also very much reads like something from Singapore.

[solveit]

A quasi-Orwellian dystopia Singapore may be, but their government is effective.

[microcolonel]

Indeed, I couldn't live there, and I don't think it's right for humans to not have a choice not to live there, but for those who have chosen to be there and agree with the state, I'm sure it satisfies them.

I like being partially or fully nude in the home, occasionally chewing gum, and having the right to freely criticize or endorse ideology on its own merits; even if it sometimes sucks to see dirty black spots on the sidewalk, or to hear people making weak arguments just to upset eachother.

Certainly a weird cosmopolitan fascist (u|dys)topia.

[bsder]

Only for certain strained definitions of "effective".

And, if you are on the wrong side, it is very "effective" at ruining your life.

Most of us would take a bit less "effective" in order to avoid that, thanks.

[solveit]

I don't understand the point of replying like this. Clearly we agree that the Singaporean government is very good at getting things done, and we agree that the things it wants to get done are horrible. Why are you speaking as if our opinions differ? Why manufacture conflict where none exists? Is calling something a quasi-Orwellian dystopia now too subtle an expression of disapproval?

[ValentineC]

> Clearly we agree that the Singaporean government is very good at getting things done, and we agree that the things it wants to get done are horrible.

Singaporean here. The government's mainly effective for tasks that are on a happy path. If your particular case falls through the cracks, it often takes phone calls, printing, postage, and weeks or months of waiting to get stuff done.

(Personal experience trying to get business stuff done not as a Private Limited company.)

[cuddlybacon]

> If your particular case falls through the cracks, it often takes phone calls, printing, postage, and weeks or months of waiting to get stuff done.

That sounds like the happy path for dealing with the Canadian government. Well, except the months part.

[sethammons]

sounds like lots of govt. and corporate interaction in the US.

[barrkel]

The "but" negates any disapproving effect it may have had, because structurally the latter part acts as a justification for tolerance.

"The tool is squeaky but it gets the job done" - you wouldn't expect the speaker to do anything about the squeaks. Squeaking is tolerable.

"The tool does the job but it's squeaky" - you would expect the speaker to do something about the squeaks. Doing the job isn't good enough.

Your comment is most easily read as not disapproving of authoritarian government when it is effective.

[exhaze]

Comments like this are part of the reason why people like Sam Altman stopped posting here. Can you just give the poster the benefit of the doubt that they just admire the efficiency of the Singaporean government, not that they're endorsing authoritarianism as long as it's effective?

[solveit]

You're probably right. I just get frustrated when people insist on reading value judgments in literally everything. Sometimes the curtains are just blue, you know?

[bsder]

I replied that way because, if we moved this to a tech subject, people here would be horrified at your definition of "effective".

If someone produced an insulin pump that you implanted, worked perfectly for life, but killed 1 person in 1,000 randomly, people would be screaming for the head of the CEO of that company rather than calling it "effective".

[icebraining]

But that wouldn't be effective because it's random, not because it kills people. A better analogy is if the pump worked perfectly, but killed anyone who the CEO disliked. That would be effective, yet monstrous.

Effective just means it achieves the intended outcome, it's not a value judgment on the goodness of that intention.

[coldtea]

>Only for certain strained definitions of "effective".

Have you compared it to others? Strained is the last word I'd use to qualify how effective it is...