Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10B Contract

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 466 posts

Re: Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10B Contract

#281

Post by ztjio »

zucker42 wrote: post #178
metaphor wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The effort includes the test article configuration, the test article build, the test plan, the testing itself, and teardown and analysis. Curiously, how long do you think it should take and at what cost?

I'm not sure; that's part of the reason I was asking. I do think, however, that a 12 year timeline seems too long for any project. Usually people can't work effectively toward goals that far in the future. But maybe this contract is more of an extended support contract?

My DESK CHAIR has a 12 year in-home warranty. Twelve years is not that long for a business relationship where reliability is a factor.

Re: Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10B Contract

#282

Post by mattrp »

pm90 wrote: post #275
mattrp wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pentagon is table stakes - everyone has something there. If you’re trying to demonstrate commitment, you invest in the hinterlands... and if you’re trying to justify a decision that otherwise is a deadlock that’s maybe where you find the tie-breakers.

I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted as the point you’re bringing up is a legitimate one. If the assessment of 2 vendors finds them equal in most regards wrt the requirements, that’s when you look at somewhat unrelated factors to make the call. In this case, it’s entirely plausible that the DoD considered the fact that MSFT would be pliable to their concerns as a deciding factor.

exactly. Thank you sir! It’s a rough night out here in hacker land.

Re: Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10B Contract

#283

Post by Rebelgecko »

zucker42 wrote: post #178
metaphor wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The effort includes the test article configuration, the test article build, the test plan, the testing itself, and teardown and analysis. Curiously, how long do you think it should take and at what cost?

I'm not sure; that's part of the reason I was asking. I do think, however, that a 12 year timeline seems too long for any project. Usually people can't work effectively toward goals that far in the future. But maybe this contract is more of an extended support contract?

There are 50 year old planes flying and getting upgrades today. I don't think it's unreasonable for the F-35 to still need testing in a decade.

Re: Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10B Contract

#284

Post by monocasa »

mbreese wrote: post #188
philsnow wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This show felt like so many other shows on American TV in the last decade: somebody had the core of a good idea, but the writers had no idea how to turn that into a show. The first couple episodes of Jericho were tantalizing. The interesting part was the world and the geopolitical situation, but then so little about that actually changed over the course of the following episodes, it was just a bunch of small town pol…

> I'll catch hell for this, but Battlestar Galactica was the same way. I just rewatched the mini-series and first few episodes of Season 1 of BSG. While, I remember thinking the same thing at the time, it was very obvious the second time around that for large arcs, the writers didn't have much of a plan. If I remember correctly though, there was always a lot of uncertainty about how many seasons they show would have,…

Well, the writer's strike was also during the last season. So it was just the producers winging it with no one left who could tell them "no, that's stupid, we need to come up with something for else".

Re: Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10B Contract

#285

Post by Rebelgecko »

p0rkbelly wrote: post #116
slenk wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the integration between the two helps...

What does my word processor have to do with my GPU cluster I use for creating ML models?

They're running in the same Government-only datacenter.

Re: Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10B Contract

#286

Post by Rebelgecko »

z3t4 wrote: post #48

What do the military need 10 billion US dollars in cloud computing for ? Are they going to fork Bitcoin? DDOS attack? If they are for example going to archive video footage, it's probably much cheaper to print it to film.

They spend about a billion a year just on email. Another billion per year of cloud stuff is nothing

Re: Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10B Contract

#287

Post by valleyjo »

jsploit wrote: post #279
pkz wrote: post #274

For a lot of people the thinking will go "ah DoD uses Azure so it is safe to put pur own valuable stuff there". But is the DoD contract actually using the same Azure infrastructure as everyone else or is it running on a physically separated Azure platform with staff w security clearance?

Separate infrastructure restricted to TS/SCI w/ poly.

True. Underlying tech is the same though.

Re: Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10B Contract

#289

Post by exikyut »

DKnoll wrote: post #259
infecto wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be fun to work with.

“But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Bew…

(HTTG: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/40705-but-the-plans-were-on...)

Re: Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10B Contract

#290

Post by riffraff »

oneplane wrote: post #210
SllX wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-Texan, I would like to ask more about point B. I myself am increasingly of the opinion that while government, national and State (I’m a Californian) has a role, it has unfortunately carved out too big of a chunk and allocated itself too many roles, often on the most specious of arguments. The idea of a legislature that meets infrequently, and where politician is a hat, not a job title, actually looks pretty…

I'd say 'being' a politician is a stupid thing as-is, but regarding the 'hat' or 'part-time' thing; that seems to be counterproductive as it probably means people will not be able to specialise as much and people will not be able to keep their multiple 'hats' from interfering with each other. The only reason we have those nice modern things like phones and the internet is specialisation; it makes it possible for peop…

But isn't there a difference between people who administer,who need specialization, and people who give a political direction, who don't need as much?

It seems you'd be ok with a lot of administrators of the public good who do it as a job and a few politicians who do it on the side.

Post reply on HN