431–440 of 466 posts
To me it sounds clearly like a political move. Technically it's nonsense. I hope now Azure invests that money to actually offer a decent cloud service that can compete with Amazon.
Does anyone else think it's disappointing that an organisation as evil as the Pentagon used the acronym JEDI? Perhaps this proposal should have been called Synchronised Information Technology Holdings.
> an organisation as evil as the Pentagon Given your feelings about the US Military, you probably also don't like the police. The Jedi order were a law enforcement organization, a police force. I'm not sure you would have liked them much if you were living in the Star Wars universe.
I would not align myself with the Jedi or the Sith, if I were lucky enough to be living in the Star Wars universe. I'd rather be a trader in some far flung system, quietly going about my business and exploring the universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the Post is related to this, specifically?
10s of millions of people in US think that Wash Post is colluding with coup orchestrators, trying to overthrow constitutionally elected US president. With the above sentiment, giving Wash Post owner a 10 bln dollar Gov contract for work with military -- would have be borderline absurd. It is difficult to separate these types of discussion from political bias of commenters, but you would have to create your own views…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must contend with politics working for USG at any level for any department/agency. There are plenty of very nasty, bitter politics within each of the intelligence agencies, as well as, across the larger intelligence community (IC). These are massive organizations with very large budgets. Because these battles occur in classified settings, they are not visible to the public. I highly doubt that AWS hasn't had to c…
But they don't care about any political battle invisible to the market. That's the point. It's the shitstorms that generate the tweetstorms that impact their larger bottom line.
A key ammo that Microsoft has to get customers to its cloud is their Windows and Office 365 franchise. It is likely like many traditional companies Pentagon wanted to move their mail, storage, powerpoint/excel/word, etc to this cloud rather than use lambda or other hot features that AWS has.
This contract has nothing to do with Office 365.
https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2019/03/analysts-pe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a big if.
Getting a hold of Texas is a lot easier than getting a hold on pretty much anyplace in the MidWest. That's for sure. But it's irrelevant in modern warfare anyway. The right play is to just flatten most of our states outright. You don't fight hot wars with amphibious landings anymore. Hot wars between major powers would be over in a matter of hours these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The United States military has such a large presence in Texas because the United States Military is such a large organization, generally. There would be no reason for Texas to have such a comparatively large military, nor, I think, would an independent Texas be able to afford one. Texans already pay the federal taxes that purportedly fund the US military, though. I’m not sure if the US has more military assets in T…
Texas is a slight net beneficiary of federal largess. Quick googling found this table. Couldn't find more recent numbers, though another article says as of 2019, Texas now ranks #25. So middle of the pack. https://taxfoundation.org/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spen...
As our “very stable genius” of a President likes to point out, Germany and South Korea don’t exactly pay us back for stationing troops there either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a native Texan, it's weird for a few reasons: a) Pragmatically, separating from the rest of the United States would be devastating to our economy. Much like the United Kingdom from the EU, but on a much larger scale, because the vast majority of our trade, people, and connectedness come from being part of the U.S. Texans like to trot out the factoid that relatively little land in Texas is owned by the federal gove…
I doubt Texas is going to secede from the US any time soon. And I honestly wouldn't care either way if it did or didn't. But, I don't know if some of your arguments necessarily work. > Pragmatically, separating from the rest of the United States would be devastating to our economy. Much like the United Kingdom from the EU, but on a much larger scale, because the vast majority of our trade, people, and connectedness c…
Why is that obvious? Nuclear weapons are state assets like anything else, and if you're going to follow your logic that a seceding state gets its part of the greater federal it should get some proportion of the nuclear weapons stockpile too.
The US is allied with at least three nuclear weapon states whose population is on the order of the population of Texas.
Besides, if you're going to setup a system where states can secede and seceding states have to hand over all their nukes you've created an absurd system where the last state to secede gets all the nukes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any specific reasons to cite for this belief? It sounds like a minority of the population find certain facts inconvenient when they conflict with their world view. This doesn't mean that the way news is being reported is changing, unless you prefer "alternate facts".
I am not from US, so I don't count for minority or majority. Specific reasons... Just watch 5 min of CNN, MSNBC, 30 seconds of Maddow or Don Lemon. Staggering amounts of venom and obsession. This is not news anymore. This is an alternative reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal attacks aren't allowed here, no matter how wrong or annoying another comment is. Would you please review the site guidelines and follow them? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
In regards to 'wrong or annoying,' was there something I could have done or said better, Dan?
When I read your GP comment, though, I can see how some people would find it provocative, because it sort of follows an internet snark template: ", but ". Not saying you intended it that way! But intent doesn't affect much, unfortunately. If your comment had stopped before the "but" clause, it would have been just fine.