Yet another Hacker News

34 points iamnothere 2 hours ago 19 comments

twodave 54 minutes ago | parent

I realize the title is clickbait. Still, my immediate reaction is, “Yes, because that worked out so well for Haiti.”

throwup238 36 minutes ago | parent

It works for the Gurkhas, who fought in both World Wars. They still “sacrifice” goats for Dashain.

twodave 28 minutes ago | parent

Yes, I’m not disparaging the practice (though I personally think those who do it are deceived). I’m simply making the point that it’s not a real factor in societal change (which is along the lines of the point the article was trying to make).

graemep 53 minutes ago | parent

In most of the examples given the aim is to be seen to be doing something. It is cheaper and/or avoids unwanted change than doing something that actually works.

For example, lots of organisations will have diversity officers and training. Very few do things such as taking names, languages spoken (obviously you would leave any that are relevant to the job) and other clues to sex and race from job applications before shortlisting people for interview.

Avicebron 42 minutes ago | parent

> aim is to be seen to be doing something.

A signal of an act. Not the act itself. Post l-modernisms ugly head rears itself once again.

wduquette 33 minutes ago | parent

"to be seen to be doing something"

In the security realm we have security theater. In the social realm, we have compassion theater. "We are spending money on problem X" shows that the supporters of the spending care about people with problem X. Any proposed cut to that spending shows that the opponents to the spending hate people with with problem X and don't want to help them. Meanwhile, the money actually supports those in charge of the spending and various suppliers of goods and services.

wduquette 38 minutes ago | parent

Seems like every social program should have a verifiable measure of success and a termination clause if the measure indicates that it isn't working.

But as software people we all know that turning a measure into a target yields problems.

stetrain 31 minutes ago | parent

The thing that is missing from most of these government initiatives (in the US at least) is a mechanism and willingness to revisit and iterate. That's how we do software these days, but social programs are developed and shipped in a full waterfall cycle, then politicians just spend decades arguing about whether it should be cancelled due to some flaws or kept exactly as-is. What's missing are real data-driven attempts to close the feedback loop and fix the issues to achieve the stated objective.

Measuring success is good, but we also need to exercise the ability to make small updates and continue measuring, instead of just using that data to argue on the side of "throw it all out!" or "we can't touch it, it's essential!"

enoint 30 minutes ago | parent

These programs are pitched along with statistics, so maybe it’s on us to demand the methods of those statistics continue with the program.

PaulHoule 24 minutes ago | parent

My Hindu friend sacrificed a gourd instead of a goat for the last full moon.

pigpop 21 minutes ago | parent

> Plain packaging — where you strip cigarette boxes of their attractive branding — seems like a no brainer, but in Australia, it looks like the policy caused smokers to switch to cheaper brands and to smoke more

This example provides an easily understood illustration of why so many social programs fail. Simply put, the people proposing and creating the programs have zero understanding of the people whose lives they are trying to influence and control. Like generals ensconced in their offices located not even on the same continent as the front line they study maps and tables and hear the advice of experts with even less direct experience than themselves and then dispatch orders that arrive too late and attempt to command a reality that does not exist. The reports they receive back show nothing has changed or the situation has got worse and yet they never adapt or see their own fault. Why should they? They've suffered no consequence.

ZeroGravitas 12 minutes ago | parent

Maybe we should save the anger for the rich and powerful people selling addictive cancer rather than the ones who need to find some way of reducing their harm without getting sued or voted out.

beatman 10 minutes ago | parent

But this policy has been very successful ... Every policy has some unwanted side effects but smoking overall has seen large reductions since its introduction.

yread 9 minutes ago | parent

If you read the report instead of a blog post with an agenda you will find out that the plain packaging accelerated decline in smoking by about 25% (p<0.01)

https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/study-of-the-i... (page 12)

They also tried quitting more often (p=0.013)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3710988/

braiamp 5 minutes ago | parent

Was about to comment the same thing, even if they smoked more, the program was meant to reduce the trend of new smokers, period. And it was successful about that

kreco 7 minutes ago | parent

Those are inherent to complex systems.

You can still try and revert back if it fails.

bwb 20 minutes ago | parent

Love the title, made me laugh :)

interf4ce 10 minutes ago | parent

I have no comment on the content, but man is it refreshing to read such a well-written article