5 ms·

You'd lose that bet. I live in the Bay Area, favor Obama over Romney, and have historically shown plenty of dedication to the startups which I founded or at whi

You'd lose that bet. I live in the Bay Area, favor Obama over Romney, and have historically shown plenty of dedication to the startups which I founded or at which I have worked. If Romney's campaign came to me and said "please work 80-hour weeks at $200/hr to build us the most kick-ass infrastructure you can so that we can win" you can be damn sure I'd be moving to Boston the next day. I know plenty others who would as well.

redthrowaway 14y ago
And if the Obama campaign were making the same offer, which would you choose? The campaign may have relied mostly on volunteers, but it would be foolish to think they wouldn't hire a small team of engineers to do the same work if they had to. The benefits to fundraising alone are substantial enough to warrant the cost.
- misterbwong 14y ago
  And if the Obama campaign were making the same offer, which would you choose? This would be a valid point if there were only enough competent engineers for one party's staff. That isn't the case, though.
- eshvk 14y ago
  > And if the Obama campaign were making the same offer, which would you choose? I think the point is that Romney's campaign would be able to hire engineers at some cost. This cost may be significantly higher than the cost that Obama would have to pay but nevertheless passionate, dedicated engineers can be obtained to produce high quality infrastructure.
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  I would probably work for Obama, and even at a cheaper rate that I would for Romney, but like misterbwong and eshvk said, the point is that if Obama has already hired his whole staff, Romney can offer a certain price where I am willing to ignore my political affiliations and be fully professional (read: not sabotage the effort because I dislike the candidate)
jfoutz 14y ago
But they wouldn't do that. They'd call up their defense contractor buddy who did that great system for the DoD that was only 2 years late and triple the original budget.
- pilom 14y ago
  Beware survivor bias (in this case I guess it is the converse). The only DoD contracts you ever hear about are the ones that are over budget and behind schedule. That doesn't mean that the vast majority of them actually aren't great engineering on time and under budget.
  - jfoutz 14y ago
    I would completely agree that there are projects that are on time and on budget. The argument i should have made in a less pejorative way is, Defense contractors are in the business of selling consulting services. Fundamentally, government contractors economic incentives are more closely aligned with billable hours than shipping good software. When you sell the artifact itself, it has to be good. when you sell time, customers just have to feel good about how the time was spent.
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  They might in the next election, after having read the Nate Silver article and this thread.
temphn 14y ago
Absolutely, they could have done much better by spending intelligently. But tend to also agree with alxp here, in that given finite resources you will be better off with missionaries rather than mercenaries.
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  There are two things with which I take issue in your comment: 1) Finite resources are always the case, so it would follow from your argument that one is always strictly better off with missionaries than mercenaries, which is simply not the case. 2) If there was anyone who could be considered to have infinite resources, it would have been the Romney campaign.

redthrowaway 14y ago

And if the Obama campaign were making the same offer, which would you choose? The campaign may have relied mostly on volunteers, but it would be foolish to think they wouldn't hire a small team of engineers to do the same work if they had to. The benefits to fundraising alone are substantial enough to warrant the cost.

misterbwong 14y ago
And if the Obama campaign were making the same offer, which would you choose? This would be a valid point if there were only enough competent engineers for one party's staff. That isn't the case, though.
eshvk 14y ago
> And if the Obama campaign were making the same offer, which would you choose? I think the point is that Romney's campaign would be able to hire engineers at some cost. This cost may be significantly higher than the cost that Obama would have to pay but nevertheless passionate, dedicated engineers can be obtained to produce high quality infrastructure.
YuriNiyazov 14y ago
I would probably work for Obama, and even at a cheaper rate that I would for Romney, but like misterbwong and eshvk said, the point is that if Obama has already hired his whole staff, Romney can offer a certain price where I am willing to ignore my political affiliations and be fully professional (read: not sabotage the effort because I dislike the candidate)

jfoutz 14y ago

But they wouldn't do that. They'd call up their defense contractor buddy who did that great system for the DoD that was only 2 years late and triple the original budget.

pilom 14y ago
Beware survivor bias (in this case I guess it is the converse). The only DoD contracts you ever hear about are the ones that are over budget and behind schedule. That doesn't mean that the vast majority of them actually aren't great engineering on time and under budget.
- jfoutz 14y ago
  I would completely agree that there are projects that are on time and on budget. The argument i should have made in a less pejorative way is, Defense contractors are in the business of selling consulting services. Fundamentally, government contractors economic incentives are more closely aligned with billable hours than shipping good software. When you sell the artifact itself, it has to be good. when you sell time, customers just have to feel good about how the time was spent.
YuriNiyazov 14y ago
They might in the next election, after having read the Nate Silver article and this thread.

temphn 14y ago

Absolutely, they could have done much better by spending intelligently. But tend to also agree with alxp here, in that given finite resources you will be better off with missionaries rather than mercenaries.

YuriNiyazov 14y ago
There are two things with which I take issue in your comment: 1) Finite resources are always the case, so it would follow from your argument that one is always strictly better off with missionaries than mercenaries, which is simply not the case. 2) If there was anyone who could be considered to have infinite resources, it would have been the Romney campaign.