Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

251–260 of 310 posts

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

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It totally depends on how authentication would be handled for the headset device. If it's handled like it is for radios, where fills are added on a regular cycle and anyone can pick up and use the device, it's probably fine. If it's made unique-soldier-dependent, I don't think it's a good idea.

> If it's made unique-soldier-dependent, I don't think it's a good idea. Lol well why would we do that? Just inventing random problems at this point.

God forbid anyone would imagine how this would this work. I wonder which scenario is more plausible, the one you responded to, or the one linked below?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26652386

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

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's made unique-soldier-dependent, I don't think it's a good idea. Lol well why would we do that? Just inventing random problems at this point.

God forbid anyone would imagine how this would this work. I wonder which scenario is more plausible, the one you responded to, or the one linked below? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26652386

Well let's get it into troops' hands and give it a go and find out!

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

#254

Technology, useful for the US military and also useful later for US civilians? Are there any examples? (1) US Research Universities. For nearly all the US research universities, a huge fraction of their annual budgets comes from Federally funded research grants via the National Science Foundation (NSF), but, trust me on this, passes Congress and gets signed by the POTUS heavily for US national security, i.e., the US…

as usual, attributing taxed funds to the government, attributing discoveries/development to that funding and assuming it would otherwise not exist, and ignoring completely the concepts of opportunity cost, waste, or fraud. Typical blind government praise riddled with misinformation, meaningless platitutdes, and logical falacies.

> as usual, attributing taxed funds to the government, attributing discoveries/development to that funding and assuming it would otherwise not exist,

We credit Newton, but we don't claim that without Newton we wouldn't have force equals mass time acceleration, the law of gravity, what he did with optics, etc.

We credit Einstein for the photo electric effect, Brownian motion as evidence for rapidly moving molecules, special relativity, and general relativity, but we don't claim that without Einstein we would not have those results. Actually, the transformation between coordinate systems in special relativity was from before Einstein, and Poincare had a shot at doing general relativity.

It goes on this way: Generally we credit the first or most successful, etc. without saying that otherwise we wouldn't have the results.

Or, we are grateful for the results when we get them, know that we've got them, and are not at all sure that we would get the results soon from other sources later.

Point: It is appropriate to credit the US military for the 11 examples I gave.

But for more, some of those military projects were big bucks efforts, and non-military funding sources would have been tough to find. So for those projects, we would have to have waited longer and might still be waiting.

For more, the Internet with TCP/IP was not nearly the first digital communications network or even the first nationwide network. E.g., for a nationwide network, IBM had SNA (Systems Network Architecture) and used it to connect all the airports to a central reservation computer. But compared with TCP/IP, SNA was clumsy -- no way could it do much of what TCP/IP is doing now.

> misinformation, meaningless platitutdes, and logical falacies.

Examples?

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

#255
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.

It's also why they weaponize "wokeism". They can virtue signal around changing the "master" branch to "main", and then pat themselves on the back and show their leftist employees they're on their side all while working directly with DoD, ICE, etc.

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

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The last time the US went into a war because there were malevolent people in the world who posed a direct threat to the nation was in the 1940s

How about the Korean and Vietnam wars? Iraq? Afghanistan? Maybe they weren't officially declared wars like WW1/2 but if sending troops to a country to fight doesn't constitute wars I don't know what does.

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

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last time the US went into a war because there were malevolent people in the world who posed a direct threat to the nation was in the 1940s

How about the Korean and Vietnam wars? Iraq? Afghanistan? Maybe they weren't officially declared wars like WW1/2 but if sending troops to a country to fight doesn't constitute wars I don't know what does.

The implication of my post is that those wars were not "because there were malevolent people in the world who posed a direct threat to the nation". The US could just as well not have not gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

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

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WW2 (at least in europe) was pretty much a result of the harsh on the loosers of WW1 treaty of Versailles. So germany did not feel much love from the world - the world was demanding lots of pay as reparations every year(I think it was originally planned till 1990!). They felt they have to get strong to reclaim what was theirs. (Very simply put)

No matter how much 'love' you give, someone somewhere will want to take more from you. And if you have nothing to defend yourself with they're going to walk all over you. What 'love' do you think the US should have given to Japan to stop them attacking? What do you do when you've given all your 'love' and have nothing left and they ask for more or they'll attack? You need a military and it needs to be good.

> What 'love' do you think the US should have given to Japan to stop them attacking?

Oil and military equipment.

> After the Japanese invasion of China in 1937 and French Indochina in 1940, the United States began to restrict trade with Japan. In 1940, it ceased exporting airplanes, airplane parts, aviation fuel and machine tools to Japan, and in 1941, it stopped the export of oil. This intensified the Japanese need for rubber from Malaya and oil from the Dutch East Indies [0]

[0] https://www.reference.com/history/did-japan-attack-united-st...

I kid though, it was a war situation for the US anyway. They stop supplying Japan, Japan goes to war. They keep supplying Japan, Japan gets stronger and secures more resources until it feels confident in going to war.

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

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter how much 'love' you give, someone somewhere will want to take more from you. And if you have nothing to defend yourself with they're going to walk all over you. What 'love' do you think the US should have given to Japan to stop them attacking? What do you do when you've given all your 'love' and have nothing left and they ask for more or they'll attack? You need a military and it needs to be good.

> What 'love' do you think the US should have given to Japan to stop them attacking? Oil and military equipment. > After the Japanese invasion of China in 1937 and French Indochina in 1940, the United States began to restrict trade with Japan. In 1940, it ceased exporting airplanes, airplane parts, aviation fuel and machine tools to Japan, and in 1941, it stopped the export of oil. This intensified the Japanese need…

> it was a war situation for the US anyway

Right.... so we needed a strong military, right? No point relying on 'love' alone?

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

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the Korean and Vietnam wars? Iraq? Afghanistan? Maybe they weren't officially declared wars like WW1/2 but if sending troops to a country to fight doesn't constitute wars I don't know what does.

The implication of my post is that those wars were not "because there were malevolent people in the world who posed a direct threat to the nation". The US could just as well not have not gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Pretty sure the rationale for Korea/Vietnam was exactly "because there were malevolent people in the world who posed a direct threat to the nation", just targeted towards the USSR/communism
Post reply on HN