21–30 of 124 posts
There's apparently a long history of honorary or symbolic reservist rank being given to civilian advisors; a good starting Google search is "dollar-a-year men".
Grayzone is an extremely unreliable source which frequently publishes false stories with an anti-US bent [1][2]. The past discussion [3] has a WSJ link which should be preferred over this. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone [2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzon... [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44268547
It's how Pete Buttigieg got his commission, for example.
- [Meta] A social media company that has all your personal conversations & pictures, video, audio
- [Open AI] Something many people at work & school are uploading sensitive data to
- All run by acolytes of Peter Thiel
- Current president & vp are bankrolled Peter Thiel
- Top executives formally recruited into US Army.
USA is sleep walking into something very nasty. I still don't know what it is.
But please when it unravels. Let us not pretend we never saw it coming.
I am very worried about this. Something is being set up.
There's apparently a long history of honorary or symbolic reservist rank being given to civilian advisors; a good starting Google search is "dollar-a-year men".
The direct commission program is ordinarily used for medical providers and they are on the same payscale as everyone else that holds their rank.
Does this mean if you’re under them in the org chart you are a troop?
You’ll have to salute, though.
Grayzone is an extremely unreliable source which frequently publishes false stories with an anti-US bent [1][2]. The past discussion [3] has a WSJ link which should be preferred over this. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone [2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzon... [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44268547
It'd probably be a stronger case if you could point out an inaccuracy in the article. In a sense it's implicit agreement to only criticise the identity of the source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The direct commission program is ordinarily used for medical providers and they are on the same payscale as everyone else that holds their rank.
But medical providers aren't commissioned as advisors, they're commissioned to actually deliver services, right?
Genuinely curious what legal waivers they’ve been afforded, since generally speaking “holding a decision-making position in the part of the uniformed services you also sell to” is very much adjacent to profiteering and disturbingly in the vicinity to honest services fraud. How do you disentangle private interests from the public good, even if these guys are operating in good faith? Also, give a brief thought to those…
You probably can’t have both — not they couldn’t pass APFT (with varying degrees of fitness program required) but more likely they cannot commit the time required to do OCS and APFT, and if forced to choose will simply not participate.
It’ll stick in some people’s craw that this is dual standards, however you can’t please all the people all the time — someone concluded the compromise was worth it to obtain access to technology experience.
This seems a little weird to me, but direct commissions like this are pretty common for professionals like lawyers, clergy, and doctors.