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

Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#41

Post by mhb »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #39
mhb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I’m not going to spend my time doing war” (in my case anymore) It's less convenient to indulge that opinion without the protection of the most powerful military in the world.

Ah yes this old chestnut Come back to me after you serve in combat. The dod doesn’t protect anything but investors’ returns. I’ll have two time Medal of Honor winner explain it to you: https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

I don't need a 13 page pamphlet to convince me that people are motivated by making money. But that's orthogonal to wanting a powerful military under whose umbrella you are pontificating.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#42

Post by borski »

rockskon wrote: post #40
nradov wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? The DoD has maintained relationships with many area startups and tech companies for decades. Have you not been paying attention?

I question what specifically you're referring to. Yes, Hack for Defense is a decade old now. But the DoD famously had not done much business with area startups for many decades outside of very specific success stories like the CIA's In-Q-Tel. Turns out that start-ups can't wait several years for a contract award. They tend to die in that time if they have no funding. Additionally - talk of electrical engineering work…

> Turns out that start-ups can't wait several years for a contract award.

This isn’t true. They literally do this all the time. They just need funding. This is also true for biotech.

> They tend to die in that time if they have no funding.

Right. So they raise funding.

Your argument boils down to “the DoD won’t work with startups that don’t have funding,” which is both true and, frankly, as it should be, in my opinion.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#43

Post by borski »

gmerc wrote: post #13

Please, it’s War now, now defense.

Sure, and I’ll totally switch to calling it “X” instead of Twitter and the Gulf of America instead of Mexico.

Nope, hard pass. I’ll use the real names and people can understand me just fine.

If they insist, I have little desire to continue the conversation.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#44

Post by borski »

inigyou wrote: post #28
Aeolun wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the problems seem defense oriented

That's how they try to frame them to make you feel less ethically dissonant.

It is absolutely true that there are people out in the world who would love it if we had no defense. You can argue (validly) that we have made a lot of poor choices, but it’s definitely defense.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#45

Post by rockskon »

borski wrote: post #42
rockskon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I question what specifically you're referring to. Yes, Hack for Defense is a decade old now. But the DoD famously had not done much business with area startups for many decades outside of very specific success stories like the CIA's In-Q-Tel. Turns out that start-ups can't wait several years for a contract award. They tend to die in that time if they have no funding. Additionally - talk of electrical engineering work…

> Turns out that start-ups can't wait several years for a contract award. This isn’t true. They literally do this all the time. They just need funding. This is also true for biotech. > They tend to die in that time if they have no funding. Right. So they raise funding. Your argument boils down to “the DoD won’t work with startups that don’t have funding,” which is both true and, frankly, as it should be, in my opinio…

> This isn’t true. They literally do this all the time. They just need funding. This is also true for biotech.

Thus the sentence I immediately followed the one this was made in response to where I said "They tend to die in that time if they have no funding."

> Right. So they raise funding.

In many, many cases when it comes to the DoD, their wants aren't seen as dual-purpose and start-ups struggle to find funding that isn't from some DoD-aligned and defense-focused investment firm - which haven't historically invested in large numbers of startups. At least not when I last checked several years ago.

And just to get ahead of this - a DoD want not being seen as dual purpose and the tech later being used for a dual purpose are two very different things.

> Your argument boils down to “the DoD won’t work with startups that don’t have funding,” which is both true and, frankly, as it should be, in my opinion.

My argument is that DoD contract law is poorly suited for funding meaningful sums of money to start-ups that do not have significant non-DoD sources of funding. I'm to understand relatively small sums of money can be awarded on a short time scale, but those sums of money are tiny compared to what's needed to execute on most contracts.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#46

Post by e28eta »

jMyles wrote: post #12
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steve Blank has been doing H4D for a decade now

Of course, and it's been discussed on HN several times, but I can't recall seeing that students were being taught "how to sell to the [DoD/DoW]"; I'm pretty sure that's new (whether it was part of the course I have no idea, but I don't recall it being part of any materials or discussions).

From this article, it does sound like it’s a newer development:

> Goals for Hacking for Defense

> A decade ago, our goal for the class was to teach students Lean Innovation methods while they engaged in national public service. We wanted to familiarize students with the military as a profession and help them better understand its expertise, and its role in society. We also hoped the class would show our sponsors a methodology that builds problem understanding before writing requirements.

> The class still does all this, but now that the DoW is buying from startups and defense venture capital is abundant, the class has turned into a national security incubator. Most of our teams form defense companies.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#47

Post by inigyou »

borski wrote: post #44
inigyou wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how they try to frame them to make you feel less ethically dissonant.

It is absolutely true that there are people out in the world who would love it if we had no defense. You can argue (validly) that we have made a lot of poor choices, but it’s definitely defense.

It's both.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#48

Post by borski »

inigyou wrote: post #47
borski wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely true that there are people out in the world who would love it if we had no defense. You can argue (validly) that we have made a lot of poor choices, but it’s definitely defense.

It's both.

Completely agreed.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#49

Post by borski »

rockskon wrote: post #45
borski wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turns out that start-ups can't wait several years for a contract award. This isn’t true. They literally do this all the time. They just need funding. This is also true for biotech. > They tend to die in that time if they have no funding. Right. So they raise funding. Your argument boils down to “the DoD won’t work with startups that don’t have funding,” which is both true and, frankly, as it should be, in my opinio…

> This isn’t true. They literally do this all the time. They just need funding. This is also true for biotech. Thus the sentence I immediately followed the one this was made in response to where I said "They tend to die in that time if they have no funding." > Right. So they raise funding. In many, many cases when it comes to the DoD, their wants aren't seen as dual-purpose and start-ups struggle to find funding that…

I would agree that it used to be more of a challenge than it is today. For what it’s worth, I worked at a defense contractor and have advised / invested in defense startups.

The government is much more open to it today than ever before. Is it still hard? Yes. Does it require funding? Yes.

But unlike before, it’s much easier today.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#50

Post by rockskon »

borski wrote: post #49
rockskon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn’t true. They literally do this all the time. They just need funding. This is also true for biotech. Thus the sentence I immediately followed the one this was made in response to where I said "They tend to die in that time if they have no funding." > Right. So they raise funding. In many, many cases when it comes to the DoD, their wants aren't seen as dual-purpose and start-ups struggle to find funding that…

I would agree that it used to be more of a challenge than it is today. For what it’s worth, I worked at a defense contractor and have advised / invested in defense startups. The government is much more open to it today than ever before. Is it still hard? Yes. Does it require funding? Yes. But unlike before, it’s much easier today.

I'm aware of a relative lessening of cultural aversion in the bay area of having anything to do with the DoD, but what of substance has changed on the gov side, really?

I'm aware of DIU and of greater outreach efforts to the bay area. I'm aware of a greater rhetorical focus within DoD leadership on taking advantage of Silicon Valley's tech expertise.

But I'm not aware of any substantive change to DoD acquisition law to address the fundamental incompatibility in funding models between DoD's traditional contractor base and bay area startups. The significant lag time to award contracts. The risk-aversion for the DoD where civil servants face political and, in some cases, legal liability for granting funding for projects that don't pan out.

Has the DoD's risk tolerance for investments changed recently? As in - accepting the possibility that some investments may not pan out if it means there's a good chance that other investments bear fruit.

Last I checked a few years ago, outreach to the bay area startups has been primarily using the DoD's equivalent of change found in the couch. A rounding error of DoD's overall available funding.

Post reply on HN