5 ms·

OK, if you aren't depressed enough by that story, read this: http://www.wbez.org/news/illinois-losing-more-children-child-abuse-and-neglect-any-time-last-30-yea

by Jun8 12y ago

OK, if you aren't depressed enough by that story, read this: http://www.wbez.org/news/illinois-losing-more-children-child-abuse-and-neglect-any-time-last-30-years-109155 http://www.wbez.org/news/illinois-losing-more-children-child.... The examples can be multiplied ad nauseam. As a first order analysis I file these failings together with the educational ones, e.g. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7738513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7738513. I was downvoted quite a bit in that thread for suggesting that some aspects of that (and I maintain this) problem can be tackled by independent, small entities (startups, if you will) rather than behemoth governmental organizations that are filled with people who are either incompetent or don't care, or if they are neither of those two quickly get depressed to minus infinity, as is the person in this piece. People argued that, no, we have to strike at the root cause of the problem: poverty. Noble as this goal is these institutions keep going on, with what seems to be increasing levels of deficiency. And kids like Gina Presley die. Chris made it through this time due to heroic efforts of a newbie, what do you think will happen (or most probably already have) to him when he instead faces a seasoned SS worker who will be much less enthusiastic?

incision 12y ago
Looking at your linked thread, I don't think it's the concept itself that saw you downvoted so much as the way you stated it. It comes off as an oversimplified 'Everything is better with startups!' Cut out grating phrases like 'ingenious solutions' and 'young, energetic outsiders', articulate the idea more fully, speak with a little humility and I'd wager those posts would have fared much better - like this one [1]. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7739184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7739184
- Jun8 12y ago
  I wasn't complaining about lost karma (although thanks for the thoughtful suggestions) but rather a certain way of thinking which I colloquially refer to as 'Googlism', although it's widely known by a different name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal). I'm all for putting up such a goal for motivation. But one must win small, persistent victories along the way. As an example, Google initially won by superior technology (PageRank, GFS, etc.), they just didn't hope to "organize the world's information" by idealism. Similarly, what is the big game changers we are bringing to the "war on poverty". If we cannot name any such thing its idle talk. I don't believe such new approaches will come from government organizations for various obvious reasons. Note that the author of this piece was a "young, energetic outsider".
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
daltonlp 12y ago
Independent small entities are absolutely a good approach. Here is one: http://www.cyclesforchange.org/ http://www.cyclesforchange.org/ Here is another: http://sisterscamelot.org/ http://sisterscamelot.org/ Here is a third: http://mncee.org/ http://mncee.org/ (disclosure: I work for the third)
gottebp 12y ago
When I saw your first article, a light bulb went on. The huge spike starting in 2011 is also the same year that DCFS declined to renew its contract with Catholic Charities. That connection is not mentioned at all in the article, but it could very well be the root cause. That organization did an awful lot for children.

by Jun8 12y ago

incision 12y ago

Looking at your linked thread, I don't think it's the concept itself that saw you downvoted so much as the way you stated it. It comes off as an oversimplified 'Everything is better with startups!' Cut out grating phrases like 'ingenious solutions' and 'young, energetic outsiders', articulate the idea more fully, speak with a little humility and I'd wager those posts would have fared much better - like this one [1]. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7739184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7739184

Jun8 12y ago
I wasn't complaining about lost karma (although thanks for the thoughtful suggestions) but rather a certain way of thinking which I colloquially refer to as 'Googlism', although it's widely known by a different name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal). I'm all for putting up such a goal for motivation. But one must win small, persistent victories along the way. As an example, Google initially won by superior technology (PageRank, GFS, etc.), they just didn't hope to "organize the world's information" by idealism. Similarly, what is the big game changers we are bringing to the "war on poverty". If we cannot name any such thing its idle talk. I don't believe such new approaches will come from government organizations for various obvious reasons. Note that the author of this piece was a "young, energetic outsider".
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

daltonlp 12y ago

Independent small entities are absolutely a good approach. Here is one: http://www.cyclesforchange.org/ http://www.cyclesforchange.org/ Here is another: http://sisterscamelot.org/ http://sisterscamelot.org/ Here is a third: http://mncee.org/ http://mncee.org/ (disclosure: I work for the third)

gottebp 12y ago

When I saw your first article, a light bulb went on. The huge spike starting in 2011 is also the same year that DCFS declined to renew its contract with Catholic Charities. That connection is not mentioned at all in the article, but it could very well be the root cause. That organization did an awful lot for children.