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

Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 310 posts

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#31

Post by high_priest »

blunte wrote: post #18

I don't look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of "make love, not war". I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military. Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity? Do we really need a confl…

Life is one big war. Just because you live in a pleasant neighbourhood, doesn't mean there are no malevolent people in the world...

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#32

Post by ljm »

blunte wrote: post #18

I don't look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of "make love, not war". I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military. Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity? Do we really need a confl…

> Do we really need a conflict to be willing to stand behind an expense?

I think not, considering the situation veterans find themselves in.

The US won't stand behind an expense unless there's money to be made from it.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#33

Post by fwip »

paxys wrote: post #4

People on the ground never have use for such tech. These deals are all political and the actual equipment arrives by the truckloads and sits unboxed. When people rant about ridiculous military budgets and spending it isn't about cutting soldiers' salaries but shit like this.

The army has a little under 500K active-duty soldiers. As a gross overestimation, if they were delivering one headset per soldier, napkin math shows: $22B / 500K = $44K per headset.

Even if the tech were super useful and every single soldier got one, that price tag seems absolutely absurd. How can anyone be okay with this?

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#34

Post by blunte »

judge2020 wrote: post #29
blunte wrote: post #18

I don't look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of "make love, not war". I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military. Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity? Do we really need a confl…

If it helps, I doubt the contract forbids MS from using any of its R&D on other projects, ie. Hololens 3/a consumer edition hololens.

I just watched a not-incredibly-terrible Russian (English overdub) Netflix war film that featured a Boston Robotics dog with a mounted gun. Maybe it was a fake (probably).

Either way, it's a bit like selling your sister into prostitution but agreeing that you all get some financial benefits. It's not how humanity should progress.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#35

Post by ryanmarsh »

remarkEon wrote: post #3

Anyone work this technology and can talk about it (without breaking whatever NDA of course)? I'm a former infantryman and ... let's just say I'm _extremely_ skeptical of this kind of technology for all but the most niche use-cases (think, AR for the driver in the hole of the truck). Obviously for pilots stuff similar to this has been around for a while, but the article is not really clear about how exactly this would…

Infantry here too, I think it would be cool for the TC to have the blue force tracker, maps, and any other sensors available in a heads up display.

Also, seems like a no-brainer for tankers.

I do not want to carry this shit on a patrol though.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#37

Post by Enginerrrd »

remarkEon wrote: post #3

Anyone work this technology and can talk about it (without breaking whatever NDA of course)? I'm a former infantryman and ... let's just say I'm _extremely_ skeptical of this kind of technology for all but the most niche use-cases (think, AR for the driver in the hole of the truck). Obviously for pilots stuff similar to this has been around for a while, but the article is not really clear about how exactly this would…

I'm inclined to agree. While it might be nice in theory to have your battlefield painted with where the friendlies are or something, there are so many issues with that in practice I can't imagine it actually getting used by infantry.

Just off the top: All the electronics shit is gonna add weight, bulk, and power requirements.

It's gonna get dirty, fogs up, w/e.

It's gonna not work for one reason or another b/c it can't get a link, or it gets bashed against a humvee/wall. It doesn't get updated information, etc.

If the enemy picks it up it either shows them where to shoot your guys, or it involves some authentication system that will make it useless to guys in a gunfight anyway. (What happens if your guys accidentally switch headsets after lunch?)

It adds a bunch of extraneous bullshit in the form of information you don't need to be dealing with. Ever get lost while listening to the radio? Now raise your hand if the first thing you did was turn the music down. When shit is going south you need to REDUCE cognitive load. Pasting extra information into someone's field of view is likely to be unhelpful.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#38

Post by blunte »

high_priest wrote: post #31
blunte wrote: post #18

I don't look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of "make love, not war". I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military. Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity? Do we really need a confl…

Life is one big war. Just because you live in a pleasant neighbourhood, doesn't mean there are no malevolent people in the world...

I believe that many malevolent people, or at least their followers, would be much less malevolent or active if they had their basic needs met plus a little bit of cushion to enjoy life.

To be more specific, many of the worst people have lived through some truly horrible childhoods (often experiencing war and poverty as a child). Stop the cycle of war and poverty, and then see how naturally malevolent people are.

We have the productivity to afford that; we just have chosen to consolidate it to a relative few.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#39

Post by gundmc »

tmotwu wrote: post #22
mrkstu wrote: post #5

And here, ladies and gents, is why companies like Microsoft, will eternally resist getting aligned with internal employee groups Resisting selling to government entities, whether ICE or the Army. There is way too much money to be lost.

I mean, outspoken internal employee groups exist and higher ups acknowledge them. Satya drives home the empathy and feelings message more than any other CEO. And AFAIK, I don't recall an instance of Microsoft suppressing an employee's voice similar to what happens at Google frequently. They tried getting their employees to participate in their internal social networks but it never caught any attention. Microsoft just…

Google has also had several high profile cases of abandoning pursuit of extremely lucrative military/government contracts due to backlash from employees.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#40

Post by wcarss »

anon_tor_12345 wrote: post #12
paxys wrote: post #4

People on the ground never have use for such tech. These deals are all political and the actual equipment arrives by the truckloads and sits unboxed. When people rant about ridiculous military budgets and spending it isn't about cutting soldiers' salaries but shit like this.

There's a very obvious analogy here that proves you wrong: nvgs

for anyone else who was confused and about to google it: Night Vision Goggles[1].

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device

Post reply on HN