Interesting New Government Data Site from Steve Ballmer

Off Topic
#1

Steve Ballmer is the former chief executive for Microsoft. He is making pretty much all publicly available government data available here: http://usafacts.org in a surprising easily way to digest it, especially if you go to “The Big Picture”.

He discusses it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/04/19/steve-ballmer-wants-you-to-know-how-the-government-really-spends-its-money/

I especially appreciated his insight on why the choice was made to source only government data:

Q: Why did you think it was important to only use government data, and not data from nonprofits or other organizations?

A: It is hard to trust, I find. Every university, the professor has a point of view. Every not-for-profit has a viewpoint that they’re trying to sell. The people who prepare government data – these are people who are not political appointees, they do these jobs in and out for years. They’re trained to collect these numbers. They seem the most objective, if you will. They’re also the numbers that, presumably, the government should use to make a decision because they’re government numbers.

There’s a survey out from the American Society of Civil Engineers on the quality of infrastructure in the country. It doesn’t match the Department of Transportation’s numbers. Of course, the American Society of Civil Engineers want a lot of bridges built. It’d be a lot of good business for civil engineers. So I don’t think you can take it with the same credibility.

3 Likes
#2

Another great FREE website for Government Specifications is: http://everyspec.com then hit the library tab to see what is out there.

#3

There’s also www.data.gov

#4

This implies that the Department of Transportation doesn’t have any motives for masking the problems with our infrastructure… Here is a photo of a bridge support for Northwest Highway I took a few years ago. I contacted the city engineer shortly after noticing that several columns exhibited this type of scour… I was told that they were aware of the problem and it was on the schedule to be repaired as funds become available.

This nations funding for our road infrastructure has been declining as a percentage of vehicle miles traveled on those roads (wear) since the 1970’s/1980’s and what funding that has been made has been getting split between the transportation road system and the transit system, leaving even less of the funding proportioned to the road system.

2010_01_26_3946-web.jpg864×576 486 KB

Do you feel comfortable driving over a bridge whose supports look like this?


So, despite Mr. Balmers’ belief that government data is more reliable, I think the evidence is contrary to that at least in this specific case. I wonder how many others? Perhaps, all such sources should be examined with a critical eye?

1 Like
#5

I saw the aftermath of that bridge collapse on I35-W. My son and I were on our way to Canada for a father-son roadtrip. It was freaky!

#6

Agree that even government orgs have some bias and/or skin-in-the-game, but I think Ballmer’s perspective, and therefore his choice, was along the line of at some point. someone has to have the last word on what the actual data, i.e. “the truth” is for a meaningful discussion to be had. If different groups gather, and then argue, debate, or try to set policy from different sets of data or observations, reaching agreement or consensus then becomes far more difficult.

This thought is sort of encapsulated in the well-worn saying that, with respect to the law, the Supreme Court doesn’t get the last say because they are always right, they are always right because they get the last say. Or alternatively, a man with one watch always knows what time it is; a man with two is never quite sure.

You also highlight an important point when you reference “as funds become available.”. Huge difference between the experts (actual or otherwise) determining what the numbers/facts are, vs. policy being discussed and developed on the basis of those numbers/facts, vs. politicians final agreeing on the policy (e.g. what bridges to fix) and then funding it. Three very different activities…

#7

In this specific case, Mr Balmer ‘trusts’ data that comes for an organization that is responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructure that they are telling you is properly maintained. What do you expect them to say? That they have been mis-spending the tax dollars they have been given? In order to have
‘meaningful’ discussion we must first accept reality. It doesn’t take much work to have independent persons review a sampling of our infrastructure. Problems like the one I provided a photograph of above are quire common. Also the characterization of the American Society of Civil engineers as biased because some of their members design and build bridges somewhat trivializes the issue. Many of its members are actually government employees, so they have no ‘profit’ motive in this. And all of them have duties of service to the public. In my experience something they take far more seriously then any politician.

#8

I have just been informed that you are now banned from the usafacts.org site. Way to go…

1 Like
#9

This one is not a lack of money for infrastructure issue, but a homeless issue.

#10

Walter knows trhs, but I would like to remind everyone else that Engineers don’t just make shit up because they get paid to fix stuff. There are standardized methods to inventory and manage infrastructure assets and reports (such as the Infrastructure Report Card) are based on them.

Engineers hold themselves to ethical standards that do not include lying the public about the safety of public infrastructure. Engineering is one of the few fields where the interests of the client (money) are at direct odds with the obligation of an Engineer to protect public safety. Unfortunately, beefier structures and more robust solutions cost more money.

I don’t appreciate the implication that Engineers fearmonger the safety of public infrastructure in the name of drumming up business.

3 Likes