Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by _DeadFred_ 429 days ago
Other than, you mean, the next best option of break things and ruin peoples lives in the process because it fits the current software development paradigms? I'm old, I've seen 'the new right way' come then become 'the worst way of doing things on the planet' over at least 5 iterations now.
1 comments
robertlagrant 428 days ago
> the next best option of break things and ruin peoples lives in the process

Lots of software works very well. Including Facebook's, where "move fast and break things" was coined, I believe, which is some of the most scalable and reliable on the planet.

link
_DeadFred_ 428 days ago
Very well isn't good enough when peoples lives/the continuous functioning of society is at stake.

Facebook had a shit ton of teething problems. If social security/Medicaid has teething problems, people die. If Social Security has teething problems, people can't eat/pay rent/property tax, they get kicked out, their credit is ruined, and they can't qualify for new housing. Miss medication. Die. A little different than a blank page on Facebook. Facebook is also 'optional', and people can use other things to replace it. Society has committed to people over their entire lifetimes on Social Security/Medicaid. America should honor it's commitments, even when it's a little bit harder/inconvenient/more expensive. Especially when at the same time it's making 4 trillion dollar optional tax cuts instead of honoring it's promises to it's people.

Should blood bank typing software move fast and break things? Should your bank move fast and break things? Should your car's anti-lock braking system software move fast and break things? But the funds people depend on to live (Medicaid pays for the majority of nursing homes for the elderly, Social Security is many people's entire retirement income) should?

I disagree that that is how the United States should treat it's 'use cases' and 'constraints' in serving it's citizens/honoring it commitments.

And unlike Facebook, the current systems have actually worked for decades. How many times has Social Security needed a major uplift?

Now compare that to how often Facebook has had to overhaul its tech stack.

Lastly, for your comparison to work, you are claiming you are willing to fund government tech on the same level that Facebook funds their tech (otherwise the comparison makes no sense). Are you REALLY saying you are willing to fund government software development at the same expense level as Facebook? That's $60 billion and $65 billion in 2025 alone.

link