51–60 of 85 posts
I worked on a predictive maintenance project on the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle in a previous job. It was eye opening to say the least.
unless this was an intentional reference, then, whoosh
All the wiz-bang equipment that is too delicate will quickly be abandoned, only the rugged and simple stuff will be useful. Tremendous amounts of money will be squandered, but war itself is an ecstasy of waste.
Not sure how much it matters, Historically more equipment tends to win vs. better equipment.
I always wonder what they will do if there is a big war (maybe one that affects the homeland which is something the US is not used to) and the contractors decide fighting in this war is not good for business or they just want more money? Are they going to suspend IP laws and other contracts? It seems really weird that to have a military that’s dependent on other parties they can’t control. This structure works ok if…
> a military that’s dependent on other parties they can’t control What makes you think the military can't control them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition, while there are fines stipulated in any such contract for breach of SLA, in reality it's almost always cheaper to pay the fine than actually meet the SLA. One would ask "why not increase the fine?". The answer is nobody would sign a contract with you without guaranteed profit. So if the risk outweighs the reward there's no deal.
Couldn't you do something like make (via legislation) any item on commercial sale subject to a minimum 10 year warranty on workmanship [for military purchasers] for repair or replacement, up to a value of X% of company revenue. When you made a lemon, surely it's then cheaper to replace with a current product than it is to go to court; and being a military supplier would be a high status indication so don't companies…
What is the workaround for the New York Times paywall?
Paying for content you want to read. Good journalism isn't cheap, this is one of those things you shouldnt pirate.
Nothing should be pirated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I could pay somehow on a per-article basis, for the articles I stumbled upon - I would. I don’t regularly read NYT and would have no use for a monthly subscription as HN is the only place I see (unfortunately) regularly posting from NYT. What we need is some kind of universal pass for articles that you pay a monthly fee for, and then as you read the articles from the sites it supports, it pays that publisher. Addi…
Dutch startup Blendle tried to do this, working with national newspapers to sell articles on a per-article basis. NY Times was one of their investors.
They still are doing it - the issue of course is blendle wants me to be the portal from which I read all my news - and I want to read it from wherever, my account bring debited when I read a blendled page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't you do something like make (via legislation) any item on commercial sale subject to a minimum 10 year warranty on workmanship [for military purchasers] for repair or replacement, up to a value of X% of company revenue. When you made a lemon, surely it's then cheaper to replace with a current product than it is to go to court; and being a military supplier would be a high status indication so don't companies…
You can't be forced to actually work with the government. So if the governmeny makes it too much of a PITA, no one will bid or they will make the contract costs incredibly high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paying for content you want to read. Good journalism isn't cheap, this is one of those things you shouldnt pirate.
So because it's worth it to you it shouldn't be pirated? As if your opinion on what laws are worthwhile to follow are somehow better than the actual law? Nothing should be pirated.
In those decades SF technology has one thing in common, regardless of the specific narrative: it granted incredible agency to the person who wielded it.
We also constantly tell ourselves that out technology advances forward, sometimes outpacing science fiction... Except the actual properties of our technology "evolve" in the opposite direction. We now have devices that are low-power, utterly fragile and dependent on tons of external services.
Our real technology today takes our agency away. As the article points out, it's often deliberate.
I sometimes entertain the idea of making a web comic where people have science fiction tech (spaceships, tasers, AI) with all our current problems: glitches, constant updates, loss of functionality due to poor connectivity, DRM, incomprehensible setup procedures, etc.
In the 60s science fiction we had all those advanced aliens who had artifacts that were nearly indestructible, worked forever and could output tons of energy. That was our vision of "high-tech". In the 80s we got the idea that maybe advanced aliens would have "smart" devices that could adapt to their environment, repair themselves and be incredibly versatile. In those decades SF technology has one thing in common, re…
But I do get your point. I do miss the days when my iPhone 4s would get horribly damaged, I'd order a part online, and a day later I have fixed it myself.