Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10B Contract(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10B Contract
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/technology/dod-jedi-contract.html
463 comments
> Texas has a separate electrical grid from the rest of the US.
This is interesting. The Wikipedia article has this gem:
"The Texas Interconnection is maintained as a separate grid for political, rather than technical reasons"
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/08/why-texas-has-it...
This is interesting. The Wikipedia article has this gem:
"The Texas Interconnection is maintained as a separate grid for political, rather than technical reasons"
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/08/why-texas-has-it...
Core to many Texans identity is a belief that someday Texas is going to secede from the Union again and become its own independent country.
Don't get me wrong, I love Texas and I love many of the Texans I've met for being some of the chillest, most down to earth, pragmatic and welcoming people I have ever met, but they are a bit weird about this particular issue sometimes.
Don't get me wrong, I love Texas and I love many of the Texans I've met for being some of the chillest, most down to earth, pragmatic and welcoming people I have ever met, but they are a bit weird about this particular issue sometimes.
~ I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.
Large groups of people are so embarrassingly bad at predicting the future that I'm always impressed when they get it right; but trying to do so often has a lot of positive side effects. Being ready to secede is a stupid one, but as a metaphor for "something goes wrong and we can't rely on people 1,000km away to provide for us" it would lead to some excellent planning.
Modern society is extremely efficient, extremely cheap and profoundly untested. We've had commercial electricity for 15 decades, the internet for 3 decades and quality GPS for 2. These are not long times on the scale that a country's logistics channels operate at; because things so central to how we work need to be ready for 1 in 100 and 1 in 200 year style events. Excessive caution may not actually be excessive.
Large groups of people are so embarrassingly bad at predicting the future that I'm always impressed when they get it right; but trying to do so often has a lot of positive side effects. Being ready to secede is a stupid one, but as a metaphor for "something goes wrong and we can't rely on people 1,000km away to provide for us" it would lead to some excellent planning.
Modern society is extremely efficient, extremely cheap and profoundly untested. We've had commercial electricity for 15 decades, the internet for 3 decades and quality GPS for 2. These are not long times on the scale that a country's logistics channels operate at; because things so central to how we work need to be ready for 1 in 100 and 1 in 200 year style events. Excessive caution may not actually be excessive.
> Large groups of people are so embarrassingly bad at predicting the future.
They are pretty good at creating the future, though. As in - separating the power grid is a step towards separating other things and finally "separating the country". Classic Soros' reflexivity.
They are pretty good at creating the future, though. As in - separating the power grid is a step towards separating other things and finally "separating the country". Classic Soros' reflexivity.
Not sure I understand where reflexivity applies here. It’s a pretty straightforward concept mostly concerned with feedback loop driven price behavior (bubbles).
For example:
Separate the power system -> people's perception about Texas independence increases -> time passes -> let's separate something new, after all we're Texas, we get special treatment. Perception intertwined with action, so that you can't tell what comes first.
Reflexivity is by no means restricted to securities markets. It's an incredibly broadly applicable concept.
Also, in securities markets it's not just that price goes up so more people buy because the price has gone up, so price goes up even more. It's far far worse than that. It's that (for example) stock prices go up, therefore consumer/executive/banks confidence increases, therefore more credit and more spending in the economy, therefore higher corporate profits, therefore higher stock prices. The point is that it affects reality beyond just the securities markets, it affects the "fundamentals" too. I.e. you can't even trust something like a P/E ratio.
Separate the power system -> people's perception about Texas independence increases -> time passes -> let's separate something new, after all we're Texas, we get special treatment. Perception intertwined with action, so that you can't tell what comes first.
Reflexivity is by no means restricted to securities markets. It's an incredibly broadly applicable concept.
Also, in securities markets it's not just that price goes up so more people buy because the price has gone up, so price goes up even more. It's far far worse than that. It's that (for example) stock prices go up, therefore consumer/executive/banks confidence increases, therefore more credit and more spending in the economy, therefore higher corporate profits, therefore higher stock prices. The point is that it affects reality beyond just the securities markets, it affects the "fundamentals" too. I.e. you can't even trust something like a P/E ratio.
Regarding valuations, I hate using price ratios. But, being able to determine the "true" price of something is almost practically useless unless there are other people that at some point in time will agree with you. Otherwise the faux-price is what you will buy and sell at.
Regarding applying reflexivity to Texans, you'd be better off to recognize the long-standing, consistent cultural values of individualism and independence.
Regarding applying reflexivity to Texans, you'd be better off to recognize the long-standing, consistent cultural values of individualism and independence.
> long-standing, consistent cultural values of individualism and independence
Cultural values are a product of reflexivity. The very fact that they differ between places even in the absence of any difference in genetic material of individuals is very good evidence. After all it's clear there's no "Texan Gene".
And I'm not saying it's bad! It just is a part of reality.
Cultural values are a product of reflexivity. The very fact that they differ between places even in the absence of any difference in genetic material of individuals is very good evidence. After all it's clear there's no "Texan Gene".
And I'm not saying it's bad! It just is a part of reality.
Isn’t the future inevitably created
It is, of course. But I'm talking about this, specifically:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_(social_theory)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
Which can be summed up as "if you think this hard enough it may just come true".
Soros developed this idea after studying under Popper and put it to test in his ridiculously successful hedge fund manager career.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_(social_theory)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
Which can be summed up as "if you think this hard enough it may just come true".
Soros developed this idea after studying under Popper and put it to test in his ridiculously successful hedge fund manager career.
One if my favorite season finales ever: https://youtu.be/xFgNZG3gmqc
The people with this view are also a big and growing minority: https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/texan-first-american-s...
> Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 40 percent identify as Texans before they identify as Americans, far outpacing any other age group.
The people with this view are also a big and growing minority: https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/texan-first-american-s...
> Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 40 percent identify as Texans before they identify as Americans, far outpacing any other age group.
I feel the same way about CA. I suspect this isn’t that uncommon — many people put family first, then community, then country.
The Economist had an edition this summer on TX and CA:
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/06/20/texafornia-drea...
https://www.economist.com/special-report/2019/06/20/californ...
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/06/20/texafornia-drea...
https://www.economist.com/special-report/2019/06/20/californ...
Def the same in NYC
Indigenous Americans, Netherlands, GB, the US, … and then? And when? Ich bin ein New Yorker.
When I am abroad I say I am from NY, not the USA. Not that I dislike the USA, but I am proud of where I am from, and identify with being from there first. I wouldn't knock Texans for that either. I also would not be for NY leaving the USA either.
[deleted]
Wait what – they made a second season of Jericho?! You sir just made my day!
Prepare to be disappointed at a season ending cliffhanger... all over again.
This show felt like so many other shows on American TV in the last decade: somebody had the core of a good idea, but the writers had no idea how to turn that into a show.
The first couple episodes of Jericho were tantalizing. The interesting part was the world and the geopolitical situation, but then so little about that actually changed over the course of the following episodes, it was just a bunch of small town politics and side stories among a few uncompelling characters.
I'll catch hell for this, but Battlestar Galactica was the same way. The mini-series and the first episode of season one are a completely different animal from the rest of the show. The rest of the show was just the writers releasing dribs and drabs of what the Cylons actually were and actually were planning, among a bunch of side stories between characters (okay these were more compelling characters for the most part, though largely unsympathetic).
The first couple episodes of Jericho were tantalizing. The interesting part was the world and the geopolitical situation, but then so little about that actually changed over the course of the following episodes, it was just a bunch of small town politics and side stories among a few uncompelling characters.
I'll catch hell for this, but Battlestar Galactica was the same way. The mini-series and the first episode of season one are a completely different animal from the rest of the show. The rest of the show was just the writers releasing dribs and drabs of what the Cylons actually were and actually were planning, among a bunch of side stories between characters (okay these were more compelling characters for the most part, though largely unsympathetic).
This phenomenon arises from the way that TV shows are produced. The creators write ~6 episodes to showcase the concept and the funding/production decision is made based on these 6 episodes. So the shows are engineered for maximum drama during these 6 episodes, and the rest of the show’s run is trying to maintain a 100 meter sprint pace for sometimes up to 10 years.
This is particularly bad for “conspiracy” type shows where the protagonist uncovered some massive conspiracy in the first six episodes. The rest of the show usually ends up escalating the conspiracy to the massively absurd. “Oh this goes way above the President... it’s a shadowy cabal with an underground lair in Biarritz that is manipulating the entire world for... reasons.”
This is particularly bad for “conspiracy” type shows where the protagonist uncovered some massive conspiracy in the first six episodes. The rest of the show usually ends up escalating the conspiracy to the massively absurd. “Oh this goes way above the President... it’s a shadowy cabal with an underground lair in Biarritz that is manipulating the entire world for... reasons.”
Out of all the shows in this vein that I've seen, Person of Interest was the only one that managed to maintain its pacing.
The key seems to be recognizing the season-long and multi-season arcs, making them both satisfying, but never getting to an "Oh, what do we do next?" point.
Well, it and of course Babylon 5.
And maybe Lost. I know it gets nerd hate, but I respect it from a show-running perspective.
The key seems to be recognizing the season-long and multi-season arcs, making them both satisfying, but never getting to an "Oh, what do we do next?" point.
Well, it and of course Babylon 5.
And maybe Lost. I know it gets nerd hate, but I respect it from a show-running perspective.
Why am I thinking about Designated Survivor right now?
> I'll catch hell for this, but Battlestar Galactica was the same way.
I just rewatched the mini-series and first few episodes of Season 1 of BSG. While, I remember thinking the same thing at the time, it was very obvious the second time around that for large arcs, the writers didn't have much of a plan. If I remember correctly though, there was always a lot of uncertainty about how many seasons they show would have, so it was difficult to plan more than a season at a time. It was also SciFi's most expensive show at the time, IIRC. They had a similar problem with Farscape... it was a big (and expensive) show, which stressed the network financially.
BSG is a great premise, but hard to come up with an overarching story arc that makes sense or offers closure. But sometimes you just have to let the writers go with things to see where they end up. There were some really good episodes later in the series, even with the filler.
I just rewatched the mini-series and first few episodes of Season 1 of BSG. While, I remember thinking the same thing at the time, it was very obvious the second time around that for large arcs, the writers didn't have much of a plan. If I remember correctly though, there was always a lot of uncertainty about how many seasons they show would have, so it was difficult to plan more than a season at a time. It was also SciFi's most expensive show at the time, IIRC. They had a similar problem with Farscape... it was a big (and expensive) show, which stressed the network financially.
BSG is a great premise, but hard to come up with an overarching story arc that makes sense or offers closure. But sometimes you just have to let the writers go with things to see where they end up. There were some really good episodes later in the series, even with the filler.
The pattern seemed to: great story, engaging arc, high viewer ratings, sneak in individual episodes where there is a crisis that is resolved in a single show and the arc doesn't move so we can stretch the overall story. Lastly, I either stop watching or the show ends mid-arc.
Well, the writer's strike was also during the last season. So it was just the producers winging it with no one left who could tell them "no, that's stupid, we need to come up with something for else".
I'm surprised Farscape would've been expensive. I originally didn't watch that series because the production values didn't look much better than Andromeda (which I didn't like). Course Farscape ended up being one of my most favorite shows.
Took me a bit of time to learn that Texans have this exceptionalism attitude, especially for those who were descendants of the original 300 families. I can’t confirm it broadly but I witnessed preferential hiring treatment for those that were part of that clique.
Why "weird"? Texas is a great country.
I've had the (mis? Fortune) of living in that one state in every country - Texas, Quebec and "Tamil Nadu" in India
To be fair to Quebec, there are major linguistic, cultural
and historical differences with the rest of Canada. /rant over :)
What about Catalonia? They seem to actually want independence more than the ones you list.
And it would probably be one of the best things that happened to them if they could manage to do it peacefully. They are a completely different culture, language, economic prospects, etc. Spain just wants to keep taxing them to support the rest of the country. But how is that ever a good reason for keeping an entire culture subject to historical imperialism?
rubbish. completely different culture and language? I lived in Barcelona and you could do everything in Spanish.
The same can be said about various regions in Italy. Have you been to Sicily? Very different language, culture, food etc.
And by the polls ~50% of Catalonians don't want independence.
And by the polls ~50% of Catalonians don't want independence.
Of course you could do anything, it is a very touristic city and Spain forces Castilian spanish to be taught in schools.
Also, you can tell the polls are not that favorable or the central govmt would have made a referendum on the issue.
Also, you can tell the polls are not that favorable or the central govmt would have made a referendum on the issue.
Many is a stretch.
It's a running joke for sure, but being fiercely independent does not mean we actually want to secede from the Union.
It's a running joke for sure, but being fiercely independent does not mean we actually want to secede from the Union.
“Many” is not a stretch. Nationwide polls consistently find upwards of a quarter of the population supporting secession of their state. (That’s about the same percentage os households that own a cat.) In the Southwest, it’s a third. Hispanic people in particular are relatively strong supporters of secession: https://mises.org/power-market/reuters-poll-shows-hispanics-.... (In the Southwest, opposition to secession among hispanics only slightly outweighs supports.)
Yeah, many of us do. TX isn’t just a state, it’s a state of mind, and also a former independent state. Besides, if TX secedes, how is Trump supposed to build his border wall?
Around Texas?
> and also a former independent state
All of America used to be independent. Especially Hawaii and Alaska. Should they secede?
All of America used to be independent. Especially Hawaii and Alaska. Should they secede?
If it meant they improved their prospects for economics, culture, etc. then sure, but it wouldn't. And currently it wouldn't for Texas. But if at some point people thought it would be a better deal to be independent for economic or ideological reasons, why should violence determine whether they stay? Might as well just put it to a vote. Britain has got that right, they have let their former colonies leave (mostly) peacefully. And in the case of Scotland, they have even stronger historical ties and integration than a lot of US states, but it was actually put to a vote.
The US is a truly gargantuan country; large states like Texas are already richer, bigger, and more populous than many or most independent countries. In fact Texas once was an independent country.
Right - was it not Mexico?
Texas existed as a self-proclaimed sovereign nation for the better part of a decade.
It began with the Texas Revolution and independence from Mexico. (Remember the Alamo!)
Texas immediately wanted to be annexed by the U.S., but the U.S. was reluctant about a potential war with Mexico. (Which when Texas was finally annexed, is exactly what happened.)
It began with the Texas Revolution and independence from Mexico. (Remember the Alamo!)
Texas immediately wanted to be annexed by the U.S., but the U.S. was reluctant about a potential war with Mexico. (Which when Texas was finally annexed, is exactly what happened.)
"Texas: Greatest Nation On Earth"
It's still a bit weird to have a separate interconnection. Even if Texas was an independent nation, it wouldn't necessarily harm anything to be synchronized with another interconnection. The western and eastern interconnections already straddle international borders.
The implication is that the new Republic wouldn’t secede peacefully (not unreasonable, considering what happened the last time it tried seriously) and will be on its own for a little while.
You can call them weird but they may be right.
Why is that weird?
As a native Texan, it's weird for a few reasons:
a) Pragmatically, separating from the rest of the United States would be devastating to our economy. Much like the United Kingdom from the EU, but on a much larger scale, because the vast majority of our trade, people, and connectedness come from being part of the U.S. Texans like to trot out the factoid that relatively little land in Texas is owned by the federal government because the feds didn't get any when Texas joined the Union, but the land that is owned by the feds contributes a massive amount to our economy. Metro areas like Killeen and a good chunk of San Antonio would simply cease to exist if the military left. (Never mind that a lot of that oil that Texans are so proud of us dragging out of the ground has to go on pipelines that cross the U.S.)
b) It promotes an "us vs. them" philosophy that's not healthy. Texas tries to hold itself out as separate and, to some extent, "above" the rest of the United States. Yet we get the same two Senators and elect representatives to the same federal House as everybody else. Our way of doing things is not necessarily the right way simply because it's the Texan way. (Our legislature, proudly to some people's way of thinking, only meets once every other year and only for a couple of months. That's a terrible way to govern a state of several million people, especially with a phenomenally weak executive.)
c) When do we move on from trying to live history to remembering it? In order to graduate from college, I had to take courses in both federal and state history (3 credit hours of "HIS 1024 History of Texas I" is on my transcript), just because we're so wrapped up in our own mythology. Yes, Texas was its own country. So was California, and Alaska, and Hawaii. Those are things for the textbooks and to explain weird language on deeds and why so many flags fly over the state capitol. It's not the basis for some inexplicable "independent" streak.
Texas needs to get off its predisposition with its past and look towards its future, preferably being one that doesn't embrace fossil fuels--good job on the wind production, thanks T. Boone Pickens--and a car-focused, sprawling development culture.
I hope it does, though I'm watching from afar, having decamped to Washington State many years ago.
a) Pragmatically, separating from the rest of the United States would be devastating to our economy. Much like the United Kingdom from the EU, but on a much larger scale, because the vast majority of our trade, people, and connectedness come from being part of the U.S. Texans like to trot out the factoid that relatively little land in Texas is owned by the federal government because the feds didn't get any when Texas joined the Union, but the land that is owned by the feds contributes a massive amount to our economy. Metro areas like Killeen and a good chunk of San Antonio would simply cease to exist if the military left. (Never mind that a lot of that oil that Texans are so proud of us dragging out of the ground has to go on pipelines that cross the U.S.)
b) It promotes an "us vs. them" philosophy that's not healthy. Texas tries to hold itself out as separate and, to some extent, "above" the rest of the United States. Yet we get the same two Senators and elect representatives to the same federal House as everybody else. Our way of doing things is not necessarily the right way simply because it's the Texan way. (Our legislature, proudly to some people's way of thinking, only meets once every other year and only for a couple of months. That's a terrible way to govern a state of several million people, especially with a phenomenally weak executive.)
c) When do we move on from trying to live history to remembering it? In order to graduate from college, I had to take courses in both federal and state history (3 credit hours of "HIS 1024 History of Texas I" is on my transcript), just because we're so wrapped up in our own mythology. Yes, Texas was its own country. So was California, and Alaska, and Hawaii. Those are things for the textbooks and to explain weird language on deeds and why so many flags fly over the state capitol. It's not the basis for some inexplicable "independent" streak.
Texas needs to get off its predisposition with its past and look towards its future, preferably being one that doesn't embrace fossil fuels--good job on the wind production, thanks T. Boone Pickens--and a car-focused, sprawling development culture.
I hope it does, though I'm watching from afar, having decamped to Washington State many years ago.
As a non-Texan, I would like to ask more about point B.
I myself am increasingly of the opinion that while government, national and State (I’m a Californian) has a role, it has unfortunately carved out too big of a chunk and allocated itself too many roles, often on the most specious of arguments.
The idea of a legislature that meets infrequently, and where politician is a hat, not a job title, actually looks pretty ideal from where I’m standing. Why should I be disabused from this notion?
I myself am increasingly of the opinion that while government, national and State (I’m a Californian) has a role, it has unfortunately carved out too big of a chunk and allocated itself too many roles, often on the most specious of arguments.
The idea of a legislature that meets infrequently, and where politician is a hat, not a job title, actually looks pretty ideal from where I’m standing. Why should I be disabused from this notion?
I'd say 'being' a politician is a stupid thing as-is, but regarding the 'hat' or 'part-time' thing; that seems to be counterproductive as it probably means people will not be able to specialise as much and people will not be able to keep their multiple 'hats' from interfering with each other.
The only reason we have those nice modern things like phones and the internet is specialisation; it makes it possible for people to pursue things other than basic needs to survive. Sadly, that also means that people can pursue things that many people might find useless or repulsive, like being a professional liar as some 'full-time politicians' seem to be called by the various journalistic outlets. (let alone the opinionated internet - look, it's us!)
If we were to leave out the 'politician' and just say "person assigned by people who are busy doing other things, to govern those people that choose them". The politician part that would normally be in there would ideally only be scoped to the candidate phase of things and the interaction between different governing persons/positions to get stuff done. If you put it that way, it suddenly makes much more sense to have someone do a governing job full time as you'd want such a person to actually get stuff done.
The only reason we have those nice modern things like phones and the internet is specialisation; it makes it possible for people to pursue things other than basic needs to survive. Sadly, that also means that people can pursue things that many people might find useless or repulsive, like being a professional liar as some 'full-time politicians' seem to be called by the various journalistic outlets. (let alone the opinionated internet - look, it's us!)
If we were to leave out the 'politician' and just say "person assigned by people who are busy doing other things, to govern those people that choose them". The politician part that would normally be in there would ideally only be scoped to the candidate phase of things and the interaction between different governing persons/positions to get stuff done. If you put it that way, it suddenly makes much more sense to have someone do a governing job full time as you'd want such a person to actually get stuff done.
But isn't there a difference between people who administer,who need specialization, and people who give a political direction, who don't need as much?
It seems you'd be ok with a lot of administrators of the public good who do it as a job and a few politicians who do it on the side.
It seems you'd be ok with a lot of administrators of the public good who do it as a job and a few politicians who do it on the side.
Who fills the vacuum?
I now think elected politicians should be full time, full paid, professional service workers, with fully staffed offices.
Before, I was for term limits. Until I started lobbying on my pet issue. Watching the grizzled, wily bureaucrats run circles around the part-time amateur politicians was illuminating. Whereas the longer serving electeds had enough experience, knowledge to hold the bureaucrats accountable.
I know almost nothing about Texas, or its government. But its drive-by policy making concerns me. I'd rather have my elected representatives sitting on the levers of power, keenly aware of what's what.
I now think elected politicians should be full time, full paid, professional service workers, with fully staffed offices.
Before, I was for term limits. Until I started lobbying on my pet issue. Watching the grizzled, wily bureaucrats run circles around the part-time amateur politicians was illuminating. Whereas the longer serving electeds had enough experience, knowledge to hold the bureaucrats accountable.
I know almost nothing about Texas, or its government. But its drive-by policy making concerns me. I'd rather have my elected representatives sitting on the levers of power, keenly aware of what's what.
Given our respective points of origin, I don't know if I'll be able to give you an explanation that will be satisfactory, but I'll try.
First, the Texas government was designed, post-Reconstruction, to give as little authority as possible to the state government and to move government as close to the citizens as possible. That's all well and good. Had we stuck with that model, I would have few complaints, but we didn't. The Legislature has, over the intervening hundred years or so, routinely chipped away at the ability for cities and counties to run themselves as their citizens see fit. To pick on a popular thing to get riled up about, as soon as Austin and Dallas tried to regulate plastic bags and Uber-style taxi services, the Legislature fell all over itself to prohibit cities from enacting ordinances of such a type. When Denton wanted to regulate (but not prohibit) fracking, the Legislature yanked that, too.
I take the view that there must be some government and that, in a state with as varied of interests and as many moving parts as Texas has, a rural-style, infrequent central government with a weak executive (the Texas Governor has some of the most limited authority out of all 46 states and 4 commonwealths in the United States), and limited home-rule city authority is not a desirable state. Running such a large entity should be a full-time job, both for the executive and the legislative, because a government should be able to react to changing conditions and the needs of its citizens. That stands separate from the scope of authority that a government should or should not have. If the government is not even present most of the time, how does it serve the oversight and governance functions? And if we wish to have limited central government, why should cities not be able to do what their citizenry wants with limited exceptions? Why can Dallas voters not tax themselves for all of the light rail they want (DART can only exercise the tax authority granted it by the state)?
Another example of "we've always done it like this" is the sunset bill. Most Texas agencies sunset after a specified time, usually 10 years. There's always a scramble in the legislative session to reauthorize some minor agency like the Texas Department of Prisons or, my personal favorite, the Railroad Commission (which, despite its name, has not regulated railroads for generations; it is the oil and gas regulator for the state). Yet, somehow this mad dash to get the work done before the Legislature goes sine die is seen as a useful exercise.
I don't understand the thinking that makes the word "politician" a pejorative, nor that it should be something that someone does in his or her spare time. Running a system that directly impacts the lives of almost thirty million people should be the singular focus of the people we send to do it. Maybe not their entire lives, but for sure while they're in office.
First, the Texas government was designed, post-Reconstruction, to give as little authority as possible to the state government and to move government as close to the citizens as possible. That's all well and good. Had we stuck with that model, I would have few complaints, but we didn't. The Legislature has, over the intervening hundred years or so, routinely chipped away at the ability for cities and counties to run themselves as their citizens see fit. To pick on a popular thing to get riled up about, as soon as Austin and Dallas tried to regulate plastic bags and Uber-style taxi services, the Legislature fell all over itself to prohibit cities from enacting ordinances of such a type. When Denton wanted to regulate (but not prohibit) fracking, the Legislature yanked that, too.
I take the view that there must be some government and that, in a state with as varied of interests and as many moving parts as Texas has, a rural-style, infrequent central government with a weak executive (the Texas Governor has some of the most limited authority out of all 46 states and 4 commonwealths in the United States), and limited home-rule city authority is not a desirable state. Running such a large entity should be a full-time job, both for the executive and the legislative, because a government should be able to react to changing conditions and the needs of its citizens. That stands separate from the scope of authority that a government should or should not have. If the government is not even present most of the time, how does it serve the oversight and governance functions? And if we wish to have limited central government, why should cities not be able to do what their citizenry wants with limited exceptions? Why can Dallas voters not tax themselves for all of the light rail they want (DART can only exercise the tax authority granted it by the state)?
Another example of "we've always done it like this" is the sunset bill. Most Texas agencies sunset after a specified time, usually 10 years. There's always a scramble in the legislative session to reauthorize some minor agency like the Texas Department of Prisons or, my personal favorite, the Railroad Commission (which, despite its name, has not regulated railroads for generations; it is the oil and gas regulator for the state). Yet, somehow this mad dash to get the work done before the Legislature goes sine die is seen as a useful exercise.
I don't understand the thinking that makes the word "politician" a pejorative, nor that it should be something that someone does in his or her spare time. Running a system that directly impacts the lives of almost thirty million people should be the singular focus of the people we send to do it. Maybe not their entire lives, but for sure while they're in office.
I'm very much on the left, but I can see a benefit to the sunset bill, as a heartbeat to ensure liveness of the legislature. Congress has been profoundly gridlocked this decade, but they absolutely must keep reauthorizing the budget, or the nation grinds to a halt. Although we've had a few short government shutdowns caused by this, passing a budget has been effective at forcing all parties to sit down and vote together. It guarantees at least one bill passes.
Am also on the left. Huge fan of expiration dates.
I now have near religious reverence for the internet's notion of renewable leases.
I now have near religious reverence for the internet's notion of renewable leases.
Your explanation was excellent and satisfactory. Thank you! From where I'm sitting, any and all of my stipulations are academic in nature because as far as I can tell from your description, Texas has a form of governance which is essentially the worst of all worlds. A weak executive instead of a strong vigorous one, a strong legislature which is largely absentee and has centralized a lot of authority, and local governments which are not free to fully govern themselves locally because once the legislature is in session, it will screw with them for the lulz.
I will try to explain my viewpoint succinctly, and note that it isn't exactly applicable to all States everywhere, but it is definitely applicable to the Federal Government.
I don't see politician as a pejorative per se, but I do think that politicians as professionals have strong incentives to find stuff to do so they can show their voters that they are out there doing stuff, whether or not stuff needs to be done. What's great about the three-branch system of government is that even if you have a non-persistent central legislative branch, you can, in theory, have an active and vigorous Executive, or alternatively and practicing the principle of subsidiarity (or just Federalization really), have responsibility over a given thing handled by the lowest level of government capable of dealing with it, to the extent that it needs to be handled by a government at all anyway. Either way, you at least get to have active courtrooms available.
Communities can live, and let other communities live. The extended order of Liberty.
When you have an active and vigorous Legislature, and an active and vigorous Executive, you have two branches of government actively looking for things to do, so they can say to their voters "Hey, I'm out here doing these things and if you like what I'm doing, vote for me the next time around too!"
I have been questioning whether that is actually beneficial for society these last few months though, and to be honest, I'm leaning towards "No." I think the platonic ideal of a well functioning government is that it's there for the things you need it for, and no more. It still has the gun to your head taking tax revenue, but it puts it to use defending the Nation from actual (not abstract) threats, putting people in prison for a shorter list of crimes than we have now, building the roads and railways communities have decided they should have, and keeping the lights on in the Courts. (This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, just give you an idea where my mind is at lately).
When you break it down, for those kinds of jobs, you need construction workers and people signing off on the contracts. You need Judges and their clerks and bailiffs and some form of prison guard in the jails. You need a tax authority which means you need accountants and a Treasurer. You might need an Army at least sometimes, and you almost certainly need an active Navy if you're on the Ocean, and all the soldiers and sailors and airmen and crews this entails. Nowhere in there, do I see a role for an active and vigorous legislature other than to set the budget, raise the taxes it needs to support the budget, and make some bureaucrats very uncomfortable or remove them entirely when they abuse the powers of their office.
That's why we have a Civil Service (and a Military Service, and a Diplomatic Service), and why the President has the power to call Congress into session at the drop of a hat to do something that the President and his entire Executive branch doesn't have the vested Constitutional authority or budget to do on his own. What else is a legislature to do all day other than debate the merits of various lobbyist proposals, and step on the toes of governments lower on the totem pole, and pass out handouts to important power brokers and constituencies in their home districts like candy? I don't think it is meant to be a glorious job, and maybe it's not even meant to be a full-time job the way the Taxman or the Soldier or the Diplomat is supposed to be a full-time job.
I guess the long and the short of it is, it's a matter of incentives. If you're a full-time legislator, you will look for (and find!) stuff to do, even if it isn't the best use of public funds, because this job is what pays your bills. If you're not a full-time legislator, you at least have to consider the impact that legislation has on your own life when the legislature isn't in session.
I will say, I wouldn't wish for the governance structure that Texas seems to have, nor would I wish to inflict California's on anyone else. I appreciate the lessons on Texas tonight, it's given me a lot to think about.
I will try to explain my viewpoint succinctly, and note that it isn't exactly applicable to all States everywhere, but it is definitely applicable to the Federal Government.
I don't see politician as a pejorative per se, but I do think that politicians as professionals have strong incentives to find stuff to do so they can show their voters that they are out there doing stuff, whether or not stuff needs to be done. What's great about the three-branch system of government is that even if you have a non-persistent central legislative branch, you can, in theory, have an active and vigorous Executive, or alternatively and practicing the principle of subsidiarity (or just Federalization really), have responsibility over a given thing handled by the lowest level of government capable of dealing with it, to the extent that it needs to be handled by a government at all anyway. Either way, you at least get to have active courtrooms available.
Communities can live, and let other communities live. The extended order of Liberty.
When you have an active and vigorous Legislature, and an active and vigorous Executive, you have two branches of government actively looking for things to do, so they can say to their voters "Hey, I'm out here doing these things and if you like what I'm doing, vote for me the next time around too!"
I have been questioning whether that is actually beneficial for society these last few months though, and to be honest, I'm leaning towards "No." I think the platonic ideal of a well functioning government is that it's there for the things you need it for, and no more. It still has the gun to your head taking tax revenue, but it puts it to use defending the Nation from actual (not abstract) threats, putting people in prison for a shorter list of crimes than we have now, building the roads and railways communities have decided they should have, and keeping the lights on in the Courts. (This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, just give you an idea where my mind is at lately).
When you break it down, for those kinds of jobs, you need construction workers and people signing off on the contracts. You need Judges and their clerks and bailiffs and some form of prison guard in the jails. You need a tax authority which means you need accountants and a Treasurer. You might need an Army at least sometimes, and you almost certainly need an active Navy if you're on the Ocean, and all the soldiers and sailors and airmen and crews this entails. Nowhere in there, do I see a role for an active and vigorous legislature other than to set the budget, raise the taxes it needs to support the budget, and make some bureaucrats very uncomfortable or remove them entirely when they abuse the powers of their office.
That's why we have a Civil Service (and a Military Service, and a Diplomatic Service), and why the President has the power to call Congress into session at the drop of a hat to do something that the President and his entire Executive branch doesn't have the vested Constitutional authority or budget to do on his own. What else is a legislature to do all day other than debate the merits of various lobbyist proposals, and step on the toes of governments lower on the totem pole, and pass out handouts to important power brokers and constituencies in their home districts like candy? I don't think it is meant to be a glorious job, and maybe it's not even meant to be a full-time job the way the Taxman or the Soldier or the Diplomat is supposed to be a full-time job.
I guess the long and the short of it is, it's a matter of incentives. If you're a full-time legislator, you will look for (and find!) stuff to do, even if it isn't the best use of public funds, because this job is what pays your bills. If you're not a full-time legislator, you at least have to consider the impact that legislation has on your own life when the legislature isn't in session.
I will say, I wouldn't wish for the governance structure that Texas seems to have, nor would I wish to inflict California's on anyone else. I appreciate the lessons on Texas tonight, it's given me a lot to think about.
[deleted]
I doubt Texas is going to secede from the US any time soon. And I honestly wouldn't care either way if it did or didn't. But, I don't know if some of your arguments necessarily work.
> Pragmatically, separating from the rest of the United States would be devastating to our economy. Much like the United Kingdom from the EU, but on a much larger scale, because the vast majority of our trade, people, and connectedness come from being part of the U.S.
If Texas seceeded from the United States, it could always do so as part of a customs union, or even single market, with the United States. That assumes the US of course that agreed to that (but it would be in the economic best interests of the US to agree). It would take away Texas' ability to run an independent trade policy, and Texas would basically have to accept various policies being dictated to it by the much more powerful and bigger US. But, there is nothing in principle impossible about such an arrangement. Indeed, the UK could end up with such an arrangement with the EU ("Norway plus customs union") – the latest Brexit deal doesn't have such an arrangement, but that is not because the EU is opposed, it is because the Johnson government is opposed. (If Corbyn was PM, it might actually happen.)
Likewise, freedom of movement of people and absence of border controls could be maintained if Texas and the US agreed. See the Schengen agreement, or the British-Irish Common Travel Area, for existing examples.
> Metro areas like Killeen and a good chunk of San Antonio would simply cease to exist if the military left.
If Texas seceeded from the US, it would need its own military. Given it has roughly 8% of US population, why could it not claim roughly 8% of the US military's assets and personnel? Obviously, the US would have to agree to that; but, it seems plausible to me that in a peaceful and legal secession, the US and Texas governments would sit down and negotiate a transfer of some US federal assets and personnel to Texas, including sections of the US military. Probably, any individual service member who had personal connections with Texas would be given the choice between transferring to Texas or remaining in the US. It wouldn't necessarily be exactly 8%, but it probably wouldn't be 0%. (Obviously certain capabilities, such as nuclear weapons, would be entirely excluded.)
> (Never mind that a lot of that oil that Texans are so proud of us dragging out of the ground has to go on pipelines that cross the U.S.)
International oil and gas pipelines are not unheard of.
> Pragmatically, separating from the rest of the United States would be devastating to our economy. Much like the United Kingdom from the EU, but on a much larger scale, because the vast majority of our trade, people, and connectedness come from being part of the U.S.
If Texas seceeded from the United States, it could always do so as part of a customs union, or even single market, with the United States. That assumes the US of course that agreed to that (but it would be in the economic best interests of the US to agree). It would take away Texas' ability to run an independent trade policy, and Texas would basically have to accept various policies being dictated to it by the much more powerful and bigger US. But, there is nothing in principle impossible about such an arrangement. Indeed, the UK could end up with such an arrangement with the EU ("Norway plus customs union") – the latest Brexit deal doesn't have such an arrangement, but that is not because the EU is opposed, it is because the Johnson government is opposed. (If Corbyn was PM, it might actually happen.)
Likewise, freedom of movement of people and absence of border controls could be maintained if Texas and the US agreed. See the Schengen agreement, or the British-Irish Common Travel Area, for existing examples.
> Metro areas like Killeen and a good chunk of San Antonio would simply cease to exist if the military left.
If Texas seceeded from the US, it would need its own military. Given it has roughly 8% of US population, why could it not claim roughly 8% of the US military's assets and personnel? Obviously, the US would have to agree to that; but, it seems plausible to me that in a peaceful and legal secession, the US and Texas governments would sit down and negotiate a transfer of some US federal assets and personnel to Texas, including sections of the US military. Probably, any individual service member who had personal connections with Texas would be given the choice between transferring to Texas or remaining in the US. It wouldn't necessarily be exactly 8%, but it probably wouldn't be 0%. (Obviously certain capabilities, such as nuclear weapons, would be entirely excluded.)
> (Never mind that a lot of that oil that Texans are so proud of us dragging out of the ground has to go on pipelines that cross the U.S.)
International oil and gas pipelines are not unheard of.
It could, but the thing I think you and the others who are replying to say "but what about..." are not fully considering is just how tight the entanglements are even though Texans don't seem to want to acknowledge them. 174 years of trade, legal, cultural, financial, and infrastructure policy would be astoundingly difficult to untangle. Given that any business of any size currently operating in Texas would have 51 (including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) other jurisdictions from which to immediately operate with virtually no change in legal or financial policy, I predict that a staggeringly high number of them would do just that. (Just as several businesses have relocated away from the UK to remain wholly within the EU.)
To continue the analogy, the United Kingdom has "only" been a member of the EU and its predecessors for 47 years and it retained direct, non-delegated control over far more areas even after joining the EEC. Texas has been completely subservient to United States policy for four times as long and even if such a split were amicable, it would still be very messy.
The United States military has such a large presence in Texas because the United States Military is such a large organization, generally. There would be no reason for Texas to have such a comparatively large military, nor, I think, would an independent Texas be able to afford one. Killeen, for example, would probably still be an incorporated city but its population would be cut by two-thirds at best.
But the point of the thought exercise isn't to say whether or not it could happen; it's that Texans take an outsized view of whether it should happen and hold them/ourselves up on a false pedestal propped up by the idea of Texas being above/different/better-than the rest of the country when we're one of "the several States which may be included within this Union."
To continue the analogy, the United Kingdom has "only" been a member of the EU and its predecessors for 47 years and it retained direct, non-delegated control over far more areas even after joining the EEC. Texas has been completely subservient to United States policy for four times as long and even if such a split were amicable, it would still be very messy.
The United States military has such a large presence in Texas because the United States Military is such a large organization, generally. There would be no reason for Texas to have such a comparatively large military, nor, I think, would an independent Texas be able to afford one. Killeen, for example, would probably still be an incorporated city but its population would be cut by two-thirds at best.
But the point of the thought exercise isn't to say whether or not it could happen; it's that Texans take an outsized view of whether it should happen and hold them/ourselves up on a false pedestal propped up by the idea of Texas being above/different/better-than the rest of the country when we're one of "the several States which may be included within this Union."
> The United States military has such a large presence in Texas because the United States Military is such a large organization, generally. There would be no reason for Texas to have such a comparatively large military, nor, I think, would an independent Texas be able to afford one.
Texans already pay the federal taxes that purportedly fund the US military, though. I’m not sure if the US has more military assets in Texas than Texas itself can afford to pay for, but Texas is a big, rich state so I’d say there’s a chance that they’re effectively subsidizing some of the military bases in other states.
Texas could and likely would contribute military forces to various US-led coalition efforts at times.
Texans already pay the federal taxes that purportedly fund the US military, though. I’m not sure if the US has more military assets in Texas than Texas itself can afford to pay for, but Texas is a big, rich state so I’d say there’s a chance that they’re effectively subsidizing some of the military bases in other states.
Texas could and likely would contribute military forces to various US-led coalition efforts at times.
Texas is a slight net beneficiary of federal largess. Quick googling found this table. Couldn't find more recent numbers, though another article says as of 2019, Texas now ranks #25. So middle of the pack.
https://taxfoundation.org/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spen...
https://taxfoundation.org/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spen...
Part of that is because things like eg NASA mission control or military bases have to be somewhere. And that might even stay in Texas similar to Roscosmos still operating from Baikonur in Kazakhstan. It’s not just transfer payments to programs that are designed to benefit Texans.
As our “very stable genius” of a President likes to point out, Germany and South Korea don’t exactly pay us back for stationing troops there either.
As our “very stable genius” of a President likes to point out, Germany and South Korea don’t exactly pay us back for stationing troops there either.
Texas would need to take their share of the federal debt as well.
Doesn't all of that simply mean Texas (and the UK) are basically only giving up their seat at the table but still have to do all the things the other party wants in order to stay connected?
Unless the leaving party has a lot of somethings that the party they are leaving from wants, they don't really have much of a position to bargain.
Everyone seems to think that a (relatively) small unit of land and their people can 'take care of themselves', but unless you want to go back to just before the industrial revolution it really doesn't work that way. Almost everything everyone touches every day has some form of link to 'the outside world'.
Giving up interconnectivity really doesn't give anything back in return. (including self-regulation, unless you'd start living under a dome, or on the moon)
Unless the leaving party has a lot of somethings that the party they are leaving from wants, they don't really have much of a position to bargain.
Everyone seems to think that a (relatively) small unit of land and their people can 'take care of themselves', but unless you want to go back to just before the industrial revolution it really doesn't work that way. Almost everything everyone touches every day has some form of link to 'the outside world'.
Giving up interconnectivity really doesn't give anything back in return. (including self-regulation, unless you'd start living under a dome, or on the moon)
A "soft Brexit" would mean the UK would still have to follow the majority of EU rules, yet give up their say in the making of those rules. It sounds rather unfair, yet it is basically the EEA arrangement which Norway/Iceland/Liechtenstein already have, and appear happy with overall (they don't want to move toward full membership which would give them an equal say, nor do they want to leave the EEA which would give them greater independence in decision-making). Given the political constraint that full EU membership is no longer an option (absent a second referendum reversing the first), such a "soft Brexit" might actually put the UK in a better economic position than a "hard Brexit" in which they have more of a say in things but also have greater barriers to trade with the EU.
An independent Texas might find that an unequal deal with the US, in which the US gets to make all the major economic decisions and Texas just has to accept them, might actually put them in a better economic position than a more equal deal with greater trade barriers.
It isn't clear that Texas has that much of a say at the present anyway. For the last twenty to thirty years, it has been considered safe Republican territory, which given the nature of the US political system means it gets far less say than a swing state does. (That said, Texas used to be a swing state, and probably is going to become one again at some point, which will restore to it a lot of the political power it currently lacks.)
An independent Texas might find that an unequal deal with the US, in which the US gets to make all the major economic decisions and Texas just has to accept them, might actually put them in a better economic position than a more equal deal with greater trade barriers.
It isn't clear that Texas has that much of a say at the present anyway. For the last twenty to thirty years, it has been considered safe Republican territory, which given the nature of the US political system means it gets far less say than a swing state does. (That said, Texas used to be a swing state, and probably is going to become one again at some point, which will restore to it a lot of the political power it currently lacks.)
There about 10% away from being a swing state.
> If Texas seceeded from the US, it would need its own military. Given it has roughly 8% of US population, why could it not claim roughly 8% of the US military's assets and personnel?
Absolutely not. The US has a huge military with a budget that exceeds the next top-8 or so military spender states in the world. And - almost all of its activity is foreign deployment for proto/pseudo-colonialism, occupations, pressuring other states with the threat of force etc. Texas wouldn't need any of that stuff. Now, obviously it would not be able to militarily defend itself from the US, so if it seceded at all its military would be mostly focused on Mexico, if at all. So - try 1% of asset and 2% of personnel maybe.
Absolutely not. The US has a huge military with a budget that exceeds the next top-8 or so military spender states in the world. And - almost all of its activity is foreign deployment for proto/pseudo-colonialism, occupations, pressuring other states with the threat of force etc. Texas wouldn't need any of that stuff. Now, obviously it would not be able to militarily defend itself from the US, so if it seceded at all its military would be mostly focused on Mexico, if at all. So - try 1% of asset and 2% of personnel maybe.
> Obviously certain capabilities, such as nuclear weapons, would be entirely excluded.
Why is that obvious? Nuclear weapons are state assets like anything else, and if you're going to follow your logic that a seceding state gets its part of the greater federal it should get some proportion of the nuclear weapons stockpile too.
The US is allied with at least three nuclear weapon states whose population is on the order of the population of Texas.
Besides, if you're going to setup a system where states can secede and seceding states have to hand over all their nukes you've created an absurd system where the last state to secede gets all the nukes.
Why is that obvious? Nuclear weapons are state assets like anything else, and if you're going to follow your logic that a seceding state gets its part of the greater federal it should get some proportion of the nuclear weapons stockpile too.
The US is allied with at least three nuclear weapon states whose population is on the order of the population of Texas.
Besides, if you're going to setup a system where states can secede and seceding states have to hand over all their nukes you've created an absurd system where the last state to secede gets all the nukes.
[deleted]
Fair enough, sounds mostly like a matter of opinion, with the exception of point #1, which sounds more like a matter of fiscal priorities that aren't necessarily set in stone.
I'm not a Texan but I do see the rationale behind freedom to associate or not associate with people based on shared values or a lack thereof.
I'm not a Texan but I do see the rationale behind freedom to associate or not associate with people based on shared values or a lack thereof.
This seems to assume the US would close its borders to an independent Texas.
I would expect there to be a free trade agreement at least as good as for Canada and Mexico.
Canada has similar population as Texas and does very well outside the US. I don't see why Texas couldn't do the same.
I would expect there to be a free trade agreement at least as good as for Canada and Mexico.
Canada has similar population as Texas and does very well outside the US. I don't see why Texas couldn't do the same.
Let me get this "Texit" referendum started
Sounds a lot like Alberta right now, except it was never it’s own country and the federal government, Crown, and native treaties own much of that land.
a. That depends on the relations with the US afterwards. For the UK example - think of their relations with Europe after 1945, before they'd entered the EU. It was fine. I mean, after 500 years or wars, but, you know, bygones.
b. Isn't it more that the supremacist attitude fuels the secessionism, rather than the other way around?
c. Secession from the US empire of some of these states might not be such a bad idea for those states.
It was kinda a whole todo the last time some people tried to secede from the Union. It's weird to think it's a good idea to try again.
It was a whole todo for myriad reasons at a particularly fragile time for the union.
I think it's weird to reject the idea out of hand in 2019. Practically, I doubt there'd be much difference between living in Texas in 2019 and living there one year after independence.
As globalism increases in the wake of colonialism, I actually think this could be a very positive thing. Empires and consolidated power are a problem. Tribalism is a problem. Nationalism is a problem.
I think it's weird to reject the idea out of hand in 2019. Practically, I doubt there'd be much difference between living in Texas in 2019 and living there one year after independence.
As globalism increases in the wake of colonialism, I actually think this could be a very positive thing. Empires and consolidated power are a problem. Tribalism is a problem. Nationalism is a problem.
Texas is a special case in this context, although highly contentious.
Is it really that weird to believe that one day the country might fall apart? Wouldn't it be weirder to believe that the country will last forever? There is absolutely zero historical precedence for the later belief.
In which case I guess it's good that they already have a significant part of the US military C&C under their control.
> Core to many Texans identity is a belief that someday Texas is going to secede from the Union again and become its own independent country.
This is an overstatement.
This is an overstatement.
It’s not that we will, it’s that we have the option.
No, you don't. That notion has been debunked numerous times. It's just folklore and something drunk people say at sporting events against non-Texan teams.
Technically _all_ the states have that option. The Constitution doesn't prohibit it, tenth amendment reserves all other powers to the states; they entered voluntarily into the Constitution believing it would help them each individually. The reason it's "debunked" is because of the might makes right attitude that took hold because of the Civil War. That attitude doesn't take people to good places...
A future hypothetical has been debunked?
I lived in Texas during both the big northeast blackout and during the (previous) electricity crisis in California. Both times it was a big point of pride among Texans that their grid was independent of the coasts.
Wouldn’t you be proud of the fact that your state government hadn’t mismanaged its infrastructure into the dark ages (pun intended)?
Very proud :) I think more local government means people can have more control over the things that they value. People can actually influence the priorities of government nearby; far away governments don't tend to reflect my priorities.
During my years as a temporary Texan, I found many reasons to be proud of Texas, but the electrical grid thing seemed a little over-jingoistic.
The separate grid is pretty much purely political.
It may be non-sensical to people outside of Texas, but inside Texas there are a significant number of people who believe in, let's call it, "Independent Texas".
And it would actually make a lot of sense for more states to have completely independent grids. Problem of course, is that most states are far too poor for such an extravagance.
It may be non-sensical to people outside of Texas, but inside Texas there are a significant number of people who believe in, let's call it, "Independent Texas".
And it would actually make a lot of sense for more states to have completely independent grids. Problem of course, is that most states are far too poor for such an extravagance.
How is that non-sensical? The entire purpose of states is to be independent. Texas just actually takes it to heart to act like an actual separate entity wherever it can.
In order to form a more perfect Union...
The entire purpose of states is not to be independent, the purpose of states is to provide a level of government closer to the People. The United States is an agreement between the States.
Secession from the United States is against the law. It was ruled on in 1869. There is nothing in the Constitution allowing for secession, as opposed to Article 50 in the EU law that is specifically about how a member State can leave the EU after joining.
The entire purpose of states is not to be independent, the purpose of states is to provide a level of government closer to the People. The United States is an agreement between the States.
Secession from the United States is against the law. It was ruled on in 1869. There is nothing in the Constitution allowing for secession, as opposed to Article 50 in the EU law that is specifically about how a member State can leave the EU after joining.
There doesn't need to be something in the Constitution to allow for secession. There needs to be something in it to disallow it, otherwise it falls under the rights given by the red-headed step-child known as the 10th amendment. Regardless of that it generally just goes with where you fall in the compact-contract debate.
Why does it make sense to have independent grids?
In Europe most of our grids are already connected and there are plans to create a supergrid that stretches all the way from Finland down to North Africa (mainly to get connected to the future Saharan solar plants).
Usually the bigger the grid the more resilient it is and the less dispersion there is in demand.
In Europe most of our grids are already connected and there are plans to create a supergrid that stretches all the way from Finland down to North Africa (mainly to get connected to the future Saharan solar plants).
Usually the bigger the grid the more resilient it is and the less dispersion there is in demand.
Yep, and this is why electrical grid issues never take down entire regions of the US!
Like the 2003 Northeast blackout, for instance. [0] Things like that, where an error in one part of the grid cascades into massive issues elsewhere - those don't ever happen.
Sometimes, being big is a danger. Even when that's not the case, it can be worth accepting the same risk of each individual point on the map losing power if it means that (for instance) Ohio still has power while Indiana's in the dark and vise versa. I'd rather have one state in the Northeast lose power each year than have every state lose power at the same time every 15 years, if that makes any sense.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003
Like the 2003 Northeast blackout, for instance. [0] Things like that, where an error in one part of the grid cascades into massive issues elsewhere - those don't ever happen.
Sometimes, being big is a danger. Even when that's not the case, it can be worth accepting the same risk of each individual point on the map losing power if it means that (for instance) Ohio still has power while Indiana's in the dark and vise versa. I'd rather have one state in the Northeast lose power each year than have every state lose power at the same time every 15 years, if that makes any sense.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003
Well the Northeast Blackout of 2003 had quite a few lessons learned, but the fact of the matter is over time the US grid has become more interconnected - just like Europe - and through the interconnections brings more stable and cheaper power. Sure one off events happen, but the grid is more stable now than in the past when it was less isolated. Part of that is high voltage DC to DC links that allow for sharing of electrical over production, while at the same time isolating grids. Even within ISO grid regions these links are used.
The main benefit from having one ISO in the US would be a reduction of rules. If you wanted to build solar or gas or wind in California, it would be subject to the same grid rules as Texas (e.g. how to handle a fault on a line - how quickly it recovers from fault, from frequency or voltage deviations, etc.). The fact that a particular power grid is isolated from others means they can't benefit from cheaper power due to overproduction of say wind power in Kansas. That electricity goes to someone else or goes to waste.
Finally if anyone here cared to read, the FERC doesn't regulate the Texas grid.. it's ISO has its own rules (which I'm pretty sure are similar to the rest of the ISOs in the US which are subject to meeting the FERC regulations or going beyond them). The Texas grid is connected to other grids.
"The Texas Interconnection is tied to the Eastern Interconnection with two DC ties, and has a DC tie and a VFT to non-NERC systems in Mexico. There is one AC tie switch in Dayton, Texas that has been used only one time in its history (after Hurricane Ike).
On October 13, 2009, the Tres Amigas SuperStation was announced to connect the Eastern, Western and Texas Interconnections via three 5 GW superconductor links.[2] As of 2017, the project was reduced in scope and only related infrastructure was constructed for nearby wind projects connecting to the Western Interconnection." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Interconnection
The main benefit from having one ISO in the US would be a reduction of rules. If you wanted to build solar or gas or wind in California, it would be subject to the same grid rules as Texas (e.g. how to handle a fault on a line - how quickly it recovers from fault, from frequency or voltage deviations, etc.). The fact that a particular power grid is isolated from others means they can't benefit from cheaper power due to overproduction of say wind power in Kansas. That electricity goes to someone else or goes to waste.
Finally if anyone here cared to read, the FERC doesn't regulate the Texas grid.. it's ISO has its own rules (which I'm pretty sure are similar to the rest of the ISOs in the US which are subject to meeting the FERC regulations or going beyond them). The Texas grid is connected to other grids.
"The Texas Interconnection is tied to the Eastern Interconnection with two DC ties, and has a DC tie and a VFT to non-NERC systems in Mexico. There is one AC tie switch in Dayton, Texas that has been used only one time in its history (after Hurricane Ike).
On October 13, 2009, the Tres Amigas SuperStation was announced to connect the Eastern, Western and Texas Interconnections via three 5 GW superconductor links.[2] As of 2017, the project was reduced in scope and only related infrastructure was constructed for nearby wind projects connecting to the Western Interconnection." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Interconnection
That blackout was caused by a tree limb in Ohio, but it always seemed likely to me that the Blaster/Welchia worm either was a contributor or magnified the impact of the grid issues.
I worked next to a power plant that shared some network components with my employer at the time. They did an emergency shutdown minutes before we were impacted by blaster. Some of our upstream providers operating backbones in NY also were impacted and had capacity issues due to the worms. At least one of those providers had issues for days after the initial incident.
I worked next to a power plant that shared some network components with my employer at the time. They did an emergency shutdown minutes before we were impacted by blaster. Some of our upstream providers operating backbones in NY also were impacted and had capacity issues due to the worms. At least one of those providers had issues for days after the initial incident.
No it was caused by poor grid management at First Energy. If your high voltage lines start to sag because you don't know how to distribute your load and you don't maintain your right-of-way because all you want is profit that is what you get. Ohio is now bailing these idiots nuclear plants out on its citizen's dime, along with coal plants that should have been shut down years ago.
You can be sarcastic all you want, it doesn't make you right. I never said connecting grids makes them invulnerable, just more resilient. Connecting the EU grids has made them more stable, made electricity cheaper, made energy production more efficient (no more hydro going to waste), etc. etc.
There is indeed risk for cascading failure but it is very rare (how long have the US grids been interconnected vs. how many times has there been a massive, multi-state blackout?) and with EU countries higher attention to infrastructure maintenance the risk is even less.
There is indeed risk for cascading failure but it is very rare (how long have the US grids been interconnected vs. how many times has there been a massive, multi-state blackout?) and with EU countries higher attention to infrastructure maintenance the risk is even less.
You asked "Why does it make sense to have independent grids?" and I provided a reason. "But that'll never happen to us!" feels rather naive, personally - I think massive, deliberate power outages have a decent chance of occurring over the next 50 years. Future of cyberwarfare and all.
(And sometimes a system being extremely stable just means it's brittle, not strong)
(And sometimes a system being extremely stable just means it's brittle, not strong)
The word you're looking for is resilience. That is basically all the regulators and grid ISOs do for the most part, make sure the grid is stable with different power sources of all types - be it gas generators and wind turbines that exist within a region under their control, or connections to outside grids. Regulators, national security people and others are definitely looking at what a hacking event might look like. The various grids, connected to each other or not, are definitely not as well designed to be resilient to something like a deliberate malicious act to damage power equipment by essentially hacking into the control systems to do something that they never were intended to do.
The design of electrical power grids is such that their control systems are by their very nature suppose to keep frequency and voltage within tolerances no matter the unpredictability of the grid. This is the definition of stability and resiliency that you're talking about. And the design takes into consideration failures of any device on the grid.
That being said, even being a minor power grid, it isn't actually isolated. Its just not subject to FERC regulations. But for the most part, its own regulations are similar to that of what other grid operators are doing, because it makes sense to do for grid stability reasons.
"The Texas Interconnection is tied to the Eastern Interconnection with two DC ties, and has a DC tie and a VFT to non-NERC systems in Mexico. There is one AC tie switch in Dayton, Texas that has been used only one time in its history (after Hurricane Ike).
On October 13, 2009, the Tres Amigas SuperStation was announced to connect the Eastern, Western and Texas Interconnections via three 5 GW superconductor links.[2] As of 2017, the project was reduced in scope and only related infrastructure was constructed for nearby wind projects connecting to the Western Interconnection."
The design of electrical power grids is such that their control systems are by their very nature suppose to keep frequency and voltage within tolerances no matter the unpredictability of the grid. This is the definition of stability and resiliency that you're talking about. And the design takes into consideration failures of any device on the grid.
That being said, even being a minor power grid, it isn't actually isolated. Its just not subject to FERC regulations. But for the most part, its own regulations are similar to that of what other grid operators are doing, because it makes sense to do for grid stability reasons.
"The Texas Interconnection is tied to the Eastern Interconnection with two DC ties, and has a DC tie and a VFT to non-NERC systems in Mexico. There is one AC tie switch in Dayton, Texas that has been used only one time in its history (after Hurricane Ike).
On October 13, 2009, the Tres Amigas SuperStation was announced to connect the Eastern, Western and Texas Interconnections via three 5 GW superconductor links.[2] As of 2017, the project was reduced in scope and only related infrastructure was constructed for nearby wind projects connecting to the Western Interconnection."
An assessment of resilience requires an assessment of the threat model. The U.S., as a superpower and direct rival to both Russia and China, as well as a country with comparatively low regulatory oversight of cyber security, has a very different threat model than Europe.
Because some generating units require electricity themselves before they can be brought online. A good example is a nuclear station - you need electricity to run the cooling pumps and withdraw (carefully!) the control rods, before steam generation starts and the turbines start spinning.
While nuclear plants do have diesel generators for this, it'd still be a good idea to have one or maybe two sections of the country which could bootstrap the rest of the North American grid(s) should there be a continental blackout.
While nuclear plants do have diesel generators for this, it'd still be a good idea to have one or maybe two sections of the country which could bootstrap the rest of the North American grid(s) should there be a continental blackout.
Usually the bigger the grid the more resilient it is and the less dispersion there is in demand.
Except when it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_European_blackout
Except when it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_European_blackout
It will help during a war for sure.
It could backfire I'm the case of war, if an enemy gets control of Texas the US can no longer cut their energy supply.
That’s a big if.
Getting a hold of Texas is a lot easier than getting a hold on pretty much anyplace in the MidWest. That's for sure.
But it's irrelevant in modern warfare anyway. The right play is to just flatten most of our states outright. You don't fight hot wars with amphibious landings anymore.
Hot wars between major powers would be over in a matter of hours these days.
But it's irrelevant in modern warfare anyway. The right play is to just flatten most of our states outright. You don't fight hot wars with amphibious landings anymore.
Hot wars between major powers would be over in a matter of hours these days.
Cities are beside the point. Occupying Texas (or admittedly the Midwest) would be like occupying Afghanistan or Iraq except the insurgents would have even more technicals and many of them would have US military training.
I mean, as I said, the planet's great powers don't plan wars with other great powers around the idea of an occupation. But as far as ease of implementation, it's obviously easier to conquer Texas because of the ginormous warm water coastline. Multimodal landings are not even possible in a place like Minnesota. You'd have to fight just to get there, and just like Russia, you'd likely freeze to death trying to take the place. Fighting is infinitely more easy in places like Texas or the south in general, than it would be in, say, Minnesota or North Dakota, with 4 to 6 months of bitter, far northern winter per annum.
But again, completely irrelevant anyway, because total war means total war.
If it weren't for the fact that most of them would be dead at the time, I'd argue that people who think in terms of occupations would be disagreeably surprised after the next war between great powers. A pretty common mistake in military thought has always been "fighting the last war" so to speak.
But again, completely irrelevant anyway, because total war means total war.
If it weren't for the fact that most of them would be dead at the time, I'd argue that people who think in terms of occupations would be disagreeably surprised after the next war between great powers. A pretty common mistake in military thought has always been "fighting the last war" so to speak.
Texas has coastlines, bayous, deserts, hills, and wide-open plains. It’s entirely possible to make that amphibious landing, sure, but then you’re in wetlands. If you’re hand waving an adversary capable of amphibious operations on the Gulf Coast, they could just use helicopters to insert into Minnesota, too.
But my point is that even if you allow, for the sake of argument, that the “great power” phase of the war entails a two-week blitzkrieg, that still doesn’t get you out of the counterinsurgency business. And Texas is land that an enemy would definitely want to hold just for natural resources and logistics.
As for fighting the last war, the last great-power war had blitzkriegs that resolved themselves within weeks, protracted operations along broad fronts, irregular partisan warfare, and every other form of conflict one could envision. The Battle of France is just as much “the last war” as the Eastern Front was. I think the only sure thing is that we don’t know what the next great power war will look like, unless it’s merely a catastrophic nuclear exchange.
But my point is that even if you allow, for the sake of argument, that the “great power” phase of the war entails a two-week blitzkrieg, that still doesn’t get you out of the counterinsurgency business. And Texas is land that an enemy would definitely want to hold just for natural resources and logistics.
As for fighting the last war, the last great-power war had blitzkriegs that resolved themselves within weeks, protracted operations along broad fronts, irregular partisan warfare, and every other form of conflict one could envision. The Battle of France is just as much “the last war” as the Eastern Front was. I think the only sure thing is that we don’t know what the next great power war will look like, unless it’s merely a catastrophic nuclear exchange.
>* unless it’s merely a catastrophic nuclear exchange.*
That's exactly what the next great war will look like, because you just nuke enemy formations and flotillas. Then you move on to nuking their cities when you realize they did the same to you and you no longer have an army or navy to fight with. Like I said, maybe a matter of hours. Days if we get lucky. No way it would last 2 weeks though.
That's kind of why our entire discussion is irrelevant. It would never happen. You don't really fight against nukes, you just die.
But for the sake of our hypothetical discussion:
As far as sending helicopters to Minnesota, those better be fairly long range helicopters. And then what's your attrition getting there? That's on top of the attrition getting enough helicopters for an invasion force into position to even be launched. Texas, you just take the attrition getting into position, but the beaches you can hit easily and with everything at your disposal without taking much additional attrition.
Minnesota, North Dakota, all that northern stuff is just bad business. Take the coastlines, and starve the midwest out, that's the best course of action. Going to Minnesota to fight through to Washington is just really bad business. If you can't even handle Texas, Minnesota will literally freeze you to death.
That's exactly what the next great war will look like, because you just nuke enemy formations and flotillas. Then you move on to nuking their cities when you realize they did the same to you and you no longer have an army or navy to fight with. Like I said, maybe a matter of hours. Days if we get lucky. No way it would last 2 weeks though.
That's kind of why our entire discussion is irrelevant. It would never happen. You don't really fight against nukes, you just die.
But for the sake of our hypothetical discussion:
As far as sending helicopters to Minnesota, those better be fairly long range helicopters. And then what's your attrition getting there? That's on top of the attrition getting enough helicopters for an invasion force into position to even be launched. Texas, you just take the attrition getting into position, but the beaches you can hit easily and with everything at your disposal without taking much additional attrition.
Minnesota, North Dakota, all that northern stuff is just bad business. Take the coastlines, and starve the midwest out, that's the best course of action. Going to Minnesota to fight through to Washington is just really bad business. If you can't even handle Texas, Minnesota will literally freeze you to death.
> As far as sending helicopters to Minnesota, those better be fairly long range helicopters.
The range needed to fly helicopters from the Gulf of Mexico to Minnesota is fairly comparable to the range needed to fly helicopters from the Arabian Sea to Afghanistan, which has been done. This would require air supremacy and effective SEAD, but so would an amphibious landing in Texas (though admittedly, you need air supremacy and SEAD over a smaller area if you're only invading Texas). You might even end up using helicopters even for your "amphibious landing" in Texas; landing in boats like Normandy these days can be a dubious notion. Even so, you have the exact same set of questions re. landing craft that you do re. helicopters.
I dunno about Minnesota, but an enemy would occupy North Dakota for the same reason they would occupy Texas and the Gulf Coast: to secure the oil and gas supply. Even if Washington has already surrendered, The Bad Guys would need oil, and that means they would need Bad Guys on the ground to secure it. But they would need a lot of Bad Guys, because there are a lot of Texans with the inclination and ability to fight back.
The range needed to fly helicopters from the Gulf of Mexico to Minnesota is fairly comparable to the range needed to fly helicopters from the Arabian Sea to Afghanistan, which has been done. This would require air supremacy and effective SEAD, but so would an amphibious landing in Texas (though admittedly, you need air supremacy and SEAD over a smaller area if you're only invading Texas). You might even end up using helicopters even for your "amphibious landing" in Texas; landing in boats like Normandy these days can be a dubious notion. Even so, you have the exact same set of questions re. landing craft that you do re. helicopters.
I dunno about Minnesota, but an enemy would occupy North Dakota for the same reason they would occupy Texas and the Gulf Coast: to secure the oil and gas supply. Even if Washington has already surrendered, The Bad Guys would need oil, and that means they would need Bad Guys on the ground to secure it. But they would need a lot of Bad Guys, because there are a lot of Texans with the inclination and ability to fight back.
[deleted]
Connecting local electricity that powers local homes, businesses and factories so that it can be run and prioritized by someone not local might also be seen as "political".
Well, one big reason is that Texas cannot be forced to sell electricity to another state since it is not connected. The politics of electricity generation are rather odd in the US.
My buddy described it like this: Texas is a bootloader.
It isn't really separate...there are several DC ties where AC power flowing from or into the Eastern Interconnect is exchanged. This gets them out of FERC jurisdiction, but not NERC.
Texas interconnect long predates cloud computing!
MS business has long been built around large corporations and government yes, but this is putting the cart before the horse.
MS business has long been built around large corporations and government yes, but this is putting the cart before the horse.
Long live the rolling brown outs.
You sound like a smart guy, but most of your considerations are not as important as you think they are.
1) The San Antonio data center: yes, it's a big and shiny one, but you don't pick MSFT vs AWS because of a shiny data center. AWS has amazing DCs across the US, and if you talk to people in the industry, AWS and Google have the most advanced DC technology out there, with Microsoft lagging a bit (but not too far off).
2) San Antonio has 4 military bases: not much to do with picking MSFT, again. The only argument for "human proximity" is Langley Virginia, and it is still a weak one. You don't need physical proximity, actually you try to avoid it (in case of an attack, you don't want to wipe out both the DC and the smart security people using it for the government).
3) Texas has a separate electrical grid: true, but most modern data centers NEED to have built-in redundancy in relation to: power grid, flood plains, supply routes, etc. Which means this is not really a big advantage anymore.
1) The San Antonio data center: yes, it's a big and shiny one, but you don't pick MSFT vs AWS because of a shiny data center. AWS has amazing DCs across the US, and if you talk to people in the industry, AWS and Google have the most advanced DC technology out there, with Microsoft lagging a bit (but not too far off).
2) San Antonio has 4 military bases: not much to do with picking MSFT, again. The only argument for "human proximity" is Langley Virginia, and it is still a weak one. You don't need physical proximity, actually you try to avoid it (in case of an attack, you don't want to wipe out both the DC and the smart security people using it for the government).
3) Texas has a separate electrical grid: true, but most modern data centers NEED to have built-in redundancy in relation to: power grid, flood plains, supply routes, etc. Which means this is not really a big advantage anymore.
In regards to proximity, I felt the prior commenter was saying that aws had not made a physical investment inside a military state.. meaning the pentagon prioritized bidders that aligned with existing pork/spending priorities. I don’t know if that’s true but it’s an intriguing assertion.
I mean Amazon's HQ2 is pretty darn close to the pentagon itself, less than a mile away.
The pentagon is table stakes - everyone has something there. If you’re trying to demonstrate commitment, you invest in the hinterlands... and if you’re trying to justify a decision that otherwise is a deadlock that’s maybe where you find the tie-breakers.
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted as the point you’re bringing up is a legitimate one.
If the assessment of 2 vendors finds them equal in most regards wrt the requirements, that’s when you look at somewhat unrelated factors to make the call. In this case, it’s entirely plausible that the DoD considered the fact that MSFT would be pliable to their concerns as a deciding factor.
If the assessment of 2 vendors finds them equal in most regards wrt the requirements, that’s when you look at somewhat unrelated factors to make the call. In this case, it’s entirely plausible that the DoD considered the fact that MSFT would be pliable to their concerns as a deciding factor.
exactly. Thank you sir! It’s a rough night out here in hacker land.
Soooo... Iowa?
The electrical grid is one of the more subtle, but critically important points I hadn't considered.
I think the DoD's decades long reliance on AD and Windows in general gave MSFT a pretty huge advantage as well. Imagine trying to shift away from that Windows only world in any meaningful way in an organization and bureaucracy of that size. What a nightmare.
I think the DoD's decades long reliance on AD and Windows in general gave MSFT a pretty huge advantage as well. Imagine trying to shift away from that Windows only world in any meaningful way in an organization and bureaucracy of that size. What a nightmare.
Our AD, private org, is made up of 1.4 million user accounts. We are locked into AD forever and ever and ever...
I imagine it is the same for the DoD.
I imagine it is the same for the DoD.
Amazon does provide seamless AD integration into the cloud though. It's just that Microsoft has the advantage of being the creator of AD and thus the automatic name association.
In term of data center importance, you miss a big point that Augusta, GA is becoming the NSA and USA center for information warfare. The NSA has been moving more and more staff from Maryland there. In recent years. Hell, Comcast even dumps a significant budget to “upgrade” their infrastructure near and around Ft. Gordon. So, I don’t believe San Antonio is as significant as Augusta.
the entire IC uses AWS. They have their own private AWS.
https://aws.amazon.com/federal/us-intelligence-community/
https://aws.amazon.com/federal/us-intelligence-community/
The IC has been backing away from AWS exclusivity even before this contract. The NSA and CIA shifted some of their budget and awarded MSFT a cloud contract.
Microsoft gets the contracts because they do lots of lobbying (i.e. corruption), marketing to government, lock-in tactics that keep government agencies stuck on them, and probably some side deals with NSA since that stuff goes way back. It pays to pay off or help the right people. They pay you back. Then, the others are stuck on your stack due to bad decisions, don't want to admit it, and then sing praises of things they're forced to buy.
VA houses its data and servers and staffs in Austin as well.
Can you provide proof of this somehow?
Original post from U.S. DoD: https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/...
There's several other contracts mentioned in the post. It's a good reminder of how much money goes into the military–industrial complex. The JEDI contract was by far the largest contract awarded in this round. The rest of contracts total roughly 1.5 billion dollars.
There's several other contracts mentioned in the post. It's a good reminder of how much money goes into the military–industrial complex. The JEDI contract was by far the largest contract awarded in this round. The rest of contracts total roughly 1.5 billion dollars.
The official budget of the Pentagon is $693 billion for 2019. In other word, they are allowed to spend $1.9 billion PER DAY.
This is huge.
This is huge.
From the link, could anyone explain why there is a $148 million dollar contract for F35 testing expected to be completed in 2032? Why would it take 12 years to perform testing?
I have no knowledge specific to this case, but it's pretty common for military hardware to have future capability upgrades scheduled for many years out. Which will then also need to be tested. It seems to make sense to have people with pre-existing knowledge do that - thus a longer term contract seems to make sense.
Maybe it's for anticipated platform changes as the landscape of the battlefield changes?
In government funding you ask that they set the money aside for your specific use. So it’s better to get that set aside for as far out as possible so you don’t have to go back to congress every year and risk political machinations. The 12 year funding is likely a 6 year contract with two optional 3 year renewals or one 6 year optional renewal. There may also be a way to move that money into a new program in 6 years more easily than if you had to go back to congress for a totally new budget.
> The effort includes the test article configuration, the test article build, the test plan, the testing itself, and teardown and analysis.
Curiously, how long do you think it should take and at what cost?
Curiously, how long do you think it should take and at what cost?
I'm not sure; that's part of the reason I was asking. I do think, however, that a 12 year timeline seems too long for any project. Usually people can't work effectively toward goals that far in the future. But maybe this contract is more of an extended support contract?
There are 50 year old planes flying and getting upgrades today. I don't think it's unreasonable for the F-35 to still need testing in a decade.
You are looking at it like a single, 12-year-long development project. This is likely a heterogeneous funding bucket that pays for multiple small, possibly overlapping, testing efforts over the contract period. These types of contracts are part of the DOD's effort to reduce the overhead of contracting by not requiring strings of short contracts for efforts they know are going to be multiple years long.
My DESK CHAIR has a 12 year in-home warranty. Twelve years is not that long for a business relationship where reliability is a factor.
> Usually people can't work effectively toward goals that far in the future.
I certainly agree that the scale and longevity of some defense projects can be difficult to justify, let alone comprehend. However, a project that may not seem pragmatic from the outside doesn't make it unnecessary.
FYSA, from this FY18 report[1] under Programmatics - Static Structural and Durability Testing:
ACTIVITY: The program suspended testing of the F-35B ground test article (BH-1) after completing the second lifetime of testing in February 2017. Due to the significant amount of modifications and repairs to bulkheads and other structures, the program declared the F-35B ground test article no longer representative of the wing-carry-through structure in production aircraft, deemed it inadequate for further testing, and canceled the testing of the third lifetime with BH-1. The program secured funding to procure another ground test article, which will be production-representative of Lot 9 and later F-35B aircraft built with a re-designed wing-carry-through structure, but to date does not have the procurement of the test article on contract. The program has not completed durability testing of the aircraft with the new wing-carry-through structure to date.
ASSESSMENT: Based on durability testing, the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected service life of 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Fleet F-35B aircraft are expected to start reaching their service life limit in CY26, based on design usage. The JPO will continue to use Individual Aircraft Tracking (IAT) of actual usage to help the Services project changes in timing for required repairs and modifications, and aid in Fleet Life Management.
Back of the envelope sanity check: assuming this was all technical labor at a conservative enterprise rate of $125/hr in FY20 dollars, that's roughly $12.5MM/yr or 50 unabused man-yrs per annum at face value--nevermind the time-value of money, infrastructure, materials, tooling, turnover, all the unknown unknowns spanning a period of performance in excess of a decade, etc.--for the Navy to purchase a quantifiable level of predictability still 13 years ahead of its time based on an execution plan that doesn't yet exist, using bespoke equipment and new methods that have yet to be developed, on arguably the most complex variant of the platform (at a unit cost which currently exceeds $100MM) whose tech integrations are effectively riding on the bleeding edge state of the art.
Given the limiting speed of government contracting and the high stakes on the table, 12 years doesn't strike me as unreasonable.
[1] https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/dod/2018f35j...
I certainly agree that the scale and longevity of some defense projects can be difficult to justify, let alone comprehend. However, a project that may not seem pragmatic from the outside doesn't make it unnecessary.
FYSA, from this FY18 report[1] under Programmatics - Static Structural and Durability Testing:
ACTIVITY: The program suspended testing of the F-35B ground test article (BH-1) after completing the second lifetime of testing in February 2017. Due to the significant amount of modifications and repairs to bulkheads and other structures, the program declared the F-35B ground test article no longer representative of the wing-carry-through structure in production aircraft, deemed it inadequate for further testing, and canceled the testing of the third lifetime with BH-1. The program secured funding to procure another ground test article, which will be production-representative of Lot 9 and later F-35B aircraft built with a re-designed wing-carry-through structure, but to date does not have the procurement of the test article on contract. The program has not completed durability testing of the aircraft with the new wing-carry-through structure to date.
ASSESSMENT: Based on durability testing, the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected service life of 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Fleet F-35B aircraft are expected to start reaching their service life limit in CY26, based on design usage. The JPO will continue to use Individual Aircraft Tracking (IAT) of actual usage to help the Services project changes in timing for required repairs and modifications, and aid in Fleet Life Management.
Back of the envelope sanity check: assuming this was all technical labor at a conservative enterprise rate of $125/hr in FY20 dollars, that's roughly $12.5MM/yr or 50 unabused man-yrs per annum at face value--nevermind the time-value of money, infrastructure, materials, tooling, turnover, all the unknown unknowns spanning a period of performance in excess of a decade, etc.--for the Navy to purchase a quantifiable level of predictability still 13 years ahead of its time based on an execution plan that doesn't yet exist, using bespoke equipment and new methods that have yet to be developed, on arguably the most complex variant of the platform (at a unit cost which currently exceeds $100MM) whose tech integrations are effectively riding on the bleeding edge state of the art.
Given the limiting speed of government contracting and the high stakes on the table, 12 years doesn't strike me as unreasonable.
[1] https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/dod/2018f35j...
could be regression testing, or testing after each flight to make sure everything is ready to go at a moment’s scramble, like maintenance stuff maybe
[deleted]
"Google dropped out last October without submitting a formal bid, saying the military work conflicted with its corporate principles, which preclude the use of artificial intelligence in weaponry."
<3
<3
That was the PR spin, but in fact they lacked several of the basic requirements for the contract.
The DoD wasn't going to touch them in any case after they pulled out of Maven
Source?
No, after cancellation of maven, it made no sense to pursue it.
Only after their employees revolted. Never forget this. Only after the employees spoke up.
What do we make of the remaining bidders? aws.. the employees would be fired if they revolted. Microsoft the employees didn't care to revolt.
The fact that google employees could revolt and change a big decision says something.
Tons of stories on why google is evil and microsoft and amazon are the toast of the town. I would rather have google in that position vs amazon/microsoft/oracle because there is a soul and heart at the core of google. The core of Microsoft is different same with Amazon.
The fact that google employees could revolt and change a big decision says something.
Tons of stories on why google is evil and microsoft and amazon are the toast of the town. I would rather have google in that position vs amazon/microsoft/oracle because there is a soul and heart at the core of google. The core of Microsoft is different same with Amazon.
Didn't Microsoft employees revolt when Microsoft was making some special Hololens devices for the US army?
What point are you trying to make? The employees make up the company.
That any perceived moral fibre in Google should be attributed to its rank and file, rather than its leadership?
come on... do you really think that's the reason google didn't go after a 10B contract? does google not like money or prefer to avoid working with the US government?? because I think they do...
There was a large internal revolt: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/technology/google-pentago...
10B is not the profit but the entire contract. There is less gravy than it first seems.
Thanks for acknowledging this. They did the right thing at least in my eyes.
Great news for Microsoft, but I hope they don’t end up with the tail wagging the dog. There is a reason that you don’t see many companies straddling the defense/civilian divide that much- the military’s crazy bureaucracy, Legal, contracting, and certification environment means that organizations that work with them often end changing their culture to suit the government, and those cultural changes make them less competitive in non-public sector arenas.
Microsoft has had a variety of government contracts, and even government clouds, for a long time. Not sure this will create much of a difference in culture.
Although $10B might not seem like much in terms of revenue for the cloud companies (that statement feels weird writing), it is potentially worth a lot more.
The DoD drives a lot of the US economy and a lot of companies have DoD contracts. This win, gives Microsoft an advantage n trying to get these companies on Azure and solidifies Windows and Office 365 positions at these companies. The follow on effects will likely be worth many multiples of this contract.
The DoD drives a lot of the US economy and a lot of companies have DoD contracts. This win, gives Microsoft an advantage n trying to get these companies on Azure and solidifies Windows and Office 365 positions at these companies. The follow on effects will likely be worth many multiples of this contract.
Hoping it also ups Microsoft's game on Azure Functions, monitoring, etc. AWS needs a reason to be scared.
Azure Functions are pretty nice, hope they continue evolving the service.
As long as they fix the blasted runtime.
Azure Functions has it's own dll loader, and other complexities that means it doesn't place nice with .net or the larger ecosystem. Currently it does not support .net 3, and I can't even use the most recent version of System.Data.SqlClient.
I like functions it was a good move, but the 'not-quite-.net' keeps getting in the way.
That's exactly what I meant by "up their game" and well stated.
My issue with it is the 10 minute run limit, and the massive memory leak issues if you use durable functions with fan-out. I had to move away from functions and switched to NServiceBus instead.
Ya I don't see them moving their entire infrastructure out of Azure in 10 years unless they use kubernetes/other extremely portable software for nearly everything.
Also other parts of the government may say "If it's good enough for the DoD, good enough for us".
Single supplier has worked out so well for the pentagon so far it’s a relief they did this for cloud computing too. In fact they’ve worked so hard to reduce competition in major suppliers (e.g. aircraft manufacturer consolidation, ULA) I imagine they’ll want to do the same in computing.
/s
/s
There’s not much to the article right now (developing story), but how big of a blow is this to Amazon? And how big of a boon to Microsoft? I realize that this is likely because of the people that I surround myself with, but I don’t know anybody who actually uses Azure. Is Azure’s core business large corporations/government?
$1B/year is quite a bit, would have been 4% of AWS's business. I suspect it will positively impact Azure more but havn't paid much attention to their numbers.
Not that it's relevant, but I actually signed up with Azure a couple months ago just to build an open source project on a cloud copy of Windows 10 with Visual Studio. I still ran into a bunch of problems with licensing type stuff, and wound up getting calls & e-mails from a sales rep. I'm glad there's some decent competition, but definitely prefer Amazon.
Edit: Corrected percentage, thanks to statguy.
Not that it's relevant, but I actually signed up with Azure a couple months ago just to build an open source project on a cloud copy of Windows 10 with Visual Studio. I still ran into a bunch of problems with licensing type stuff, and wound up getting calls & e-mails from a sales rep. I'm glad there's some decent competition, but definitely prefer Amazon.
Edit: Corrected percentage, thanks to statguy.
The monetary benefit is one big thing but in the B2B scheme of things , a big success story like this would be very easy to convince other government organisations and government in other countries to adopt Azure if they haven’t moved to the cloud already. It’s the new “No one ever got fired for suggesting IBM”.
Really? Why would a foreign country trust a firm deeply engrained with the US military?
Then again, there are only a few military in the world that need this kind of service, and those countries are highly unlikely to go with foreign entities as provider.
Then again, there are only a few military in the world that need this kind of service, and those countries are highly unlikely to go with foreign entities as provider.
Yes. Other countries, particularly the "five eyes" are already deeply engrained with the US military, and they are rich countries with lots of money.
Five Eyes: USA, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand
Then you have all the other wealthy countries with close ties to the US: Germany, Japan, etc.
Five Eyes: USA, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand
Then you have all the other wealthy countries with close ties to the US: Germany, Japan, etc.
Agree that not all countries would do this. But Allies? Also don’t other countries use AWS Gov ( or whatever it is called ) even though it AWS is “deeply embedded” in the US gov scheme of things?
It would not be politically expedient. US allies are mostly democracies consisting of people that don't want to spend on the military if they don't have to, and if they have to, better to spend it domestically instead of giving it to a foreign firm.
Europe have its own fighter, armor, command systems despite being US allies militarily.
Europe have its own fighter, armor, command systems despite being US allies militarily.
Suspect the parent poster was thinking primarily about the other five-eyes. The rest of Europe though... has no great cloud options I can think of for genuine national security stuff.
AWS revenue in Q3 2019 was $9B, so it would be about 4% of AWS's business in terms of revenue.
Ah, I remembered the $8.x B last quarter, but for some reason was thinking that was annual. Thanks for actually looking. :-)
Set up a Datascience Virtual Machine next time. Everything prepackaged (Visual Studio, SQL, Python, Julia, lots of other packages for Datascience) and low cost and no licensing problems to deal with.
About 65% of all porn video streaming is on Azure media services. Robust as hell. So should be easy to support all those drone army feeds.
Must really be your bubble. Here in the Netherlands pretty much every company I come across is on Azure. From small companies all the way to massive ones and governments.
Azure is a little under 1/2 the size of AWS in terms of revenue, and growing a little faster.
Assuming your 1/2 number is correct (I'm doubtful), an $18B annual revenue company growing at 59% (+$10.6B) is not growing faster than a $36B annual revenue company growing at 35% (+$12.6B)
Company growth is almost always compared on a percentage basis as individuals don’t own the entire company making that number meaningless to them. What they care about is if they own X$ in some stock today what’s it going to be worth at some point in the future.
I think that's a self-centered PoV (not meant as a criticism) which focuses on the wrong things when trying to understand the state of the cloud market.
What really matters long-term is who is acquiring the new-to-public-cloud customers as they move away from on-prem and who is attracting the new high-value workloads (AI). These are not growth of existing customer base which is why I think raw numbers are more useful in understanding the state of cloud market as we come to the end of the beginning of the public cloud era.
What really matters long-term is who is acquiring the new-to-public-cloud customers as they move away from on-prem and who is attracting the new high-value workloads (AI). These are not growth of existing customer base which is why I think raw numbers are more useful in understanding the state of cloud market as we come to the end of the beginning of the public cloud era.
Revenue growth comes from both new customers and existing customers. As Assure includes many large companies like Walmart and where AWS has more startups that’s likely important. Let’s suppose Assure increases revenue from existing customers by 4% (inflation + growth) 18 * .04 = .7B and AWS increases by 8% (inflation + growth) = 36.1 * .08 = 2.9B. Which would mean 10.6 - .7 = $9.9B revenue from new customers for Assure and 12.6 - 2.9B = 9.7B revenue growth for AWS from new customers. The difference in customer bases may also be important in a downturn as Walmart is far less likely to fail than Imgur.
Granted, I chose those numbers to arbitrarily get that result. But, it also demonstrates the other reason to use percentage growth, inflation on a large customer bases implies growth where none exists.
PS: I realize they both have large and small customers, my point was not about AWS vs Assure but % vs $.
Granted, I chose those numbers to arbitrarily get that result. But, it also demonstrates the other reason to use percentage growth, inflation on a large customer bases implies growth where none exists.
PS: I realize they both have large and small customers, my point was not about AWS vs Assure but % vs $.
The important revenue growth comes from new customers and new workloads. You mention inflation as if it is a meaningful driver of increased revenue, but AWS has never raised its prices for any service AFAIK. Growth is 100% driven by increased usage.
Amazon showing +0$ annual growth would be a decrease in the face of inflation. Decreasing hardware and networking costs muddle the picture, but inflation means standing still is falling behind.
Azure revenue includes O365 revenue though.
We don't know Azure's exact size, but half revenue is the best analyst estimate available. Counting O365, MS cloud revenue exceeds Amazon's
I'm looking at their earning reports and that does not appear to be the case any more.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/microsoft-earnings-trounce...
"Microsoft said that its “Intelligent Cloud” segment recorded revenue of $10.8 billion, higher than the average analyst estimate of $10.42 billion. Microsoft said that Azure grew by 59%; the company does not break out Azure revenue nor operating income specifically, as Amazon does with AWS."
I'm sure Azure is a strong business, but, if they wanted to brag about it, why wouldn't they would break out those numbers? Intelligent cloud includes Azure + 0365 + other stuff.
Google does this with GCP as well. They report Google Docs/Gmail/G Suite + GCP +other combined.
"Microsoft said that its “Intelligent Cloud” segment recorded revenue of $10.8 billion, higher than the average analyst estimate of $10.42 billion. Microsoft said that Azure grew by 59%; the company does not break out Azure revenue nor operating income specifically, as Amazon does with AWS."
I'm sure Azure is a strong business, but, if they wanted to brag about it, why wouldn't they would break out those numbers? Intelligent cloud includes Azure + 0365 + other stuff.
Google does this with GCP as well. They report Google Docs/Gmail/G Suite + GCP +other combined.
100% agree about the bundling to hide ugly details, but it does not look like Intelligent Cloud includes O365 for the most recent earnings unless I'm reading this wrong [1]. Intelligent Cloud seems to include Azure, server licenses and enterprise services while O365 falls under Productivity and Business Processes. Quotes from earnings press release:
"Revenue in Productivity and Business Processes was $11.1 billion and increased 13% (up 15% in constant currency), with the following business highlights:
- Office Commercial products and cloud services revenue increased 13% (up 15% in constant currency) driven by Office 365 Commercial revenue growth of 25% (up 28% in constant currency)
- Office Consumer products and cloud services revenue increased 5% (up 6% in constant currency) with continued growth in Office 365 Consumer subscribers to 35.6 million"
"Revenue in Intelligent Cloud was $10.8 billion and increased 27% (up 29% in constant currency), with the following business highlights:
- Server products and cloud services revenue increased 30% (up 33% in constant currency) driven by Azure revenue growth of 59% (up 63% in constant currency)
- Enterprise Services revenue increased 7% (up 8% in constant currency)"
[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2020-Q1...
"Revenue in Productivity and Business Processes was $11.1 billion and increased 13% (up 15% in constant currency), with the following business highlights:
- Office Commercial products and cloud services revenue increased 13% (up 15% in constant currency) driven by Office 365 Commercial revenue growth of 25% (up 28% in constant currency)
- Office Consumer products and cloud services revenue increased 5% (up 6% in constant currency) with continued growth in Office 365 Consumer subscribers to 35.6 million"
"Revenue in Intelligent Cloud was $10.8 billion and increased 27% (up 29% in constant currency), with the following business highlights:
- Server products and cloud services revenue increased 30% (up 33% in constant currency) driven by Azure revenue growth of 59% (up 63% in constant currency)
- Enterprise Services revenue increased 7% (up 8% in constant currency)"
[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2020-Q1...
Basically every small and medium business in your city has Windows Server running in a closet or on a shelf somewhere doing Exchange, AD, files, and maybe SQL Server for a shrink wrapped line of business app. Every one of them is a candidate for Azure and you can bet their VAR / MSP is pushing it.
Wow what a course change. For the last couple years there have been articles on HN about how the JEDI requirements were written to specifically exclude Microsoft/ibm/gcp because the DoD preferred AWS so its selection was a forgone conclusion. Also coverage of the resulting lawsuits by those companies over the very aws-tailored “requirements”
When I saw this article I figured it would go to MS.
https://www.businessinsider.com/sec-of-defense-to-look-into-...
If it was a political decision in the first place it shouldn’t be surprising that they’ve flip flopped. Politics is fickle.
> Also coverage of the resulting lawsuits
I doubt this is the end. I'm assuming AWS will seek litigation given the circumstances.
I doubt this is the end. I'm assuming AWS will seek litigation given the circumstances.
That was also my impression. Good to see that both were viable contenders though
Owning Post seems to cost Bezos quite a fortune.
Just speculation, but I'm thinking, just like with New York, Bezos and Amazon are happy to be rid of JEDI. Too much politics for 10 bill in revenue easily made up elsewhere in the world.
They just seemed to let go of New York and JEDI wayyy too easily for being one of the wealthiest companies in the world. When someone like that bows out of such large projects so easily, something's off. And I have to take it at face value that they maybe just want revenue and not politics. Because no other reasons seem to present themselves here.
They just seemed to let go of New York and JEDI wayyy too easily for being one of the wealthiest companies in the world. When someone like that bows out of such large projects so easily, something's off. And I have to take it at face value that they maybe just want revenue and not politics. Because no other reasons seem to present themselves here.
10 Billion is quite a lot. And government contract is very stable income.
But I got your point on politics, that is something pretty unpredictable.
But I got your point on politics, that is something pretty unpredictable.
It is for sure a lot. AWS wants it. Everyone wants it.
But, it is a maximum of $10Billion ...over 10 years. Th at is the key thing to focus on. I'm sure both companies have private sector customers right now that pay a quarter to half-billion a year right now.
I think the greater damage is optics vs financial..and optics can cost a lot.
Let's say AWS makes $30-Billion this year. So, losing $1-billion this year is 3.33%? (Though I'm sure the contract starts not this year?)...How much will AWS be making in 10 years?
But, it is a maximum of $10Billion ...over 10 years. Th at is the key thing to focus on. I'm sure both companies have private sector customers right now that pay a quarter to half-billion a year right now.
I think the greater damage is optics vs financial..and optics can cost a lot.
Let's say AWS makes $30-Billion this year. So, losing $1-billion this year is 3.33%? (Though I'm sure the contract starts not this year?)...How much will AWS be making in 10 years?
It's not only about the $10 billion. Microsoft has essentially cemented being the cloud provider for the Pentagon for the foreseeable future.
Once all of the pentagon is integrated with Azure, after the 10 years are up, it will be very unlikely for Pentagon to want to switch, not only due to costs, but everyone will have been trained specifically for handling Azure.
This gives Microsoft a massive lead in terms of government infrastructure and all but guarantees we'll be seeing more and more contracts handed to Azure.
Once all of the pentagon is integrated with Azure, after the 10 years are up, it will be very unlikely for Pentagon to want to switch, not only due to costs, but everyone will have been trained specifically for handling Azure.
This gives Microsoft a massive lead in terms of government infrastructure and all but guarantees we'll be seeing more and more contracts handed to Azure.
Hopefully both sides learn from the long-term downward spiral of HP's contract with the Navy.
https://www.wired.com/2010/08/hp-holds-navy-network-hostage/
https://www.wired.com/2010/08/hp-holds-navy-network-hostage/
Yeah, but if MS wants that headache, why not let them have it?
Politics nowadays are just way too unpredictable and destructive. Just best not to be anywhere near it when, say, cost overruns on this project happen and you still haven't delivered anything the DoD is actually using.
Politics nowadays are just way too unpredictable and destructive. Just best not to be anywhere near it when, say, cost overruns on this project happen and you still haven't delivered anything the DoD is actually using.
> Microsoft has essentially cemented being the cloud provider for the Pentagon for the foreseeable future.
How? AWS already has 3 entire regions dedicated to the US government and those aren't going away anytime soon.
How? AWS already has 3 entire regions dedicated to the US government and those aren't going away anytime soon.
AWS certainly has numerous US government contracts; however, none of those are from the Pentagon. With the awarding of the contract, the Pentagon specifically has chosen Microsoft over AWS.
Note: Pentagon != all US govt agencies
Note: Pentagon != all US govt agencies
it is a maximum of $10Billion ...over 10 years
I'm not sure if there is a "law" around this, but, I assume nearly all contracts go over budget. Private or .gov.
But, government contracts are pretty beholden to a tight, static budget. Once the money is gone, it's gone. You can't necessarily go ask for additional taxes and budget for the year. Many times, you literally cannot go over budget no matter what. The pay-as-you go, variable pricing you get in the cloud, is actually a challenge in government budget.
In the private sector, when you go over budget..funds can be found elsewhere in the company, etc.
But, government contracts are pretty beholden to a tight, static budget. Once the money is gone, it's gone. You can't necessarily go ask for additional taxes and budget for the year. Many times, you literally cannot go over budget no matter what. The pay-as-you go, variable pricing you get in the cloud, is actually a challenge in government budget.
In the private sector, when you go over budget..funds can be found elsewhere in the company, etc.
Politics? Amazon already serves the CIA so that probably wouldn’t be a con. 10B is a massive contract.
Ask Frank Underwood says: When the tits are that big, everybody gets in line.
Ask Frank Underwood says: When the tits are that big, everybody gets in line.
The CIA is not politics though. Politics require highlighting. You'd be surprised how little the CIA highlights of what it's doing, and what that costs. Contrasted against the military, which tends to highlight almost everything of what it's doing, and what that costs.
And 10 billion over 10 years is what? Maybe 3 to 5% of Amazon's yearly revenue? You really want to be at the epicenter of the shitstorm that will happen if the project goes over budget and you still haven't delivered anything anyone in the DoD actually uses? (Maybe I shouldn't have said "if the project goes over" but "when"?) Especially being a big tech firm nowadays?
And you're gonna step into all that unnecessary drama for access to a 10 year / 10 billion project?
I don't think so. Not for a billion a year in revenue when you're already sitting at over 230 billion a year in revenue. (Or even just the over 30 billion a year that AWS alone is sitting at.)
Admit it man, politics being what they are these days, particularly for big tech firms, it's just not worth it.
And 10 billion over 10 years is what? Maybe 3 to 5% of Amazon's yearly revenue? You really want to be at the epicenter of the shitstorm that will happen if the project goes over budget and you still haven't delivered anything anyone in the DoD actually uses? (Maybe I shouldn't have said "if the project goes over" but "when"?) Especially being a big tech firm nowadays?
And you're gonna step into all that unnecessary drama for access to a 10 year / 10 billion project?
I don't think so. Not for a billion a year in revenue when you're already sitting at over 230 billion a year in revenue. (Or even just the over 30 billion a year that AWS alone is sitting at.)
Admit it man, politics being what they are these days, particularly for big tech firms, it's just not worth it.
You must contend with politics working for USG at any level for any department/agency. There are plenty of very nasty, bitter politics within each of the intelligence agencies, as well as, across the larger intelligence community (IC). These are massive organizations with very large budgets. Because these battles occur in classified settings, they are not visible to the public. I highly doubt that AWS hasn't had to content with a myriad of political battles within CIA, not the least of which being, groups within the CIA who remain skeptical about "cloud" and trusting a third-party with their data.
But they don't care about any political battle invisible to the market.
That's the point.
It's the shitstorms that generate the tweetstorms that impact their larger bottom line.
That's the point.
It's the shitstorms that generate the tweetstorms that impact their larger bottom line.
Of course they care about those battles. Not only could they impact their renewal and/or trigger large penalties, but they can (and often do with large contracts) percolate up to Congressional oversight committees. Unless you have experienced intensity of political battles within the IC, it is impossible to understand their stakes (in terms of both money and reputation) for $100 million+ programs of record.
I’m not sure, a lot of people think HQ2 is being built in the capital region just to support JEDI, and as others have mentioned the knock on effects in the ecosystem are much larger.
$10B in this bid, once you win one, others are easier the thinking goes. This is for Department Of Defense, USA has a lot of other departments. Not to mention state and local. "If we were good enough for DOD, surely your county /state can trust us..."
They made a lot of noise about building a new hq in Arlington. I can’t imagine they’re going to build it out at any scale now.
US East is in NoVA I think? Basically, the defacto HQ for AWS. Why would Amazon have a second HQ anyplace else was always the real question?
(They seemed to like the idea of New York a little bit. Probably because of multimodal transport connections to NoVA and the Europe/Africa side of the world. But even that fell through. And as far as I can understand, that too was because of politics.)
(They seemed to like the idea of New York a little bit. Probably because of multimodal transport connections to NoVA and the Europe/Africa side of the world. But even that fell through. And as far as I can understand, that too was because of politics.)
I live about 2 miles away. I can tell you that not only have they been building it out at a prodigious pace (they had people were working in Crystal City by the end of 1Q2019). They have signed construction contracts, leases, extended offers to employees, etc. They are committed to it now.
Also, Amazon has a tremendous footprint here already. Their largest region is located in Ashburn (~25 miles east), CIA is roughly 5 miles for Crystal City, Herndon and Ballston have large AWS sales/engineering offices, and Richmond (roughly 1.5 hours south) hosts one of their largest distribution centers on the east coast. In short, they were committed to this area long before HQ2, let alone JEDI. They cannot be happy about losing the contract award, but it was only one of many things Amazon/AWS are going in NoVA.
Also, Amazon has a tremendous footprint here already. Their largest region is located in Ashburn (~25 miles east), CIA is roughly 5 miles for Crystal City, Herndon and Ballston have large AWS sales/engineering offices, and Richmond (roughly 1.5 hours south) hosts one of their largest distribution centers on the east coast. In short, they were committed to this area long before HQ2, let alone JEDI. They cannot be happy about losing the contract award, but it was only one of many things Amazon/AWS are going in NoVA.
What about the Post is related to this, specifically?
10s of millions of people in US think that Wash Post is colluding with coup orchestrators, trying to overthrow constitutionally elected US president.
With the above sentiment, giving Wash Post owner a 10 bln dollar Gov contract for work with military -- would have be borderline absurd. It is difficult to separate these types of discussion from political bias of commenters, but you would have to create your own views (if you do not have them already)
For pro-president, anti-Coup views on the topic, search for:
To find some examples of Wash Post collusion with the coup crowd, just use:
- "Washington Post forced to correct"
- "Washington Post fabricated" in non-Google non-Yahoo search engines.
- "Washington post Covington no apology"
- "Washington post sandbagged"
With the above sentiment, giving Wash Post owner a 10 bln dollar Gov contract for work with military -- would have be borderline absurd. It is difficult to separate these types of discussion from political bias of commenters, but you would have to create your own views (if you do not have them already)
For pro-president, anti-Coup views on the topic, search for:
To find some examples of Wash Post collusion with the coup crowd, just use:
- "Washington Post forced to correct"
- "Washington Post fabricated" in non-Google non-Yahoo search engines.
- "Washington post Covington no apology"
- "Washington post sandbagged"
It's a lot more absurd to make government contract decisions based on newspaper coverage the president doesn't like.
I agree that Bezos's/ Wash Post disposition relative to the anti-President coup, likely had to be important consideration.
As I noted, 10s of millions of tax payers consider Washington Post is not a newspaper, but a propaganda agent actively involved in to the coup attempt against a constitutionally elected President of US.
Just chucking it of to 'president does not like a news paper' -- is diluting the tremendous affects these things have on the well-being of the country and its citizens, and, (given US position in the world stage) , on the rest of the world.
Additionally, anti-president spying and evidence manufacturing was, in part, orchestrated by leaking to these 'newspapers' and then referencing the generated articles as 'potential evidence' that warrants the investigation.
(eg, leaking the dossier [1] and other fabrications through news organizations )
Some think the anti-president coup attempt in US, is good for the country and for the world.
Some do not.
That probably, defines a big part of person's view, where they stand on awarding contract to AWS vs MS.
(Unless there is tremendous technical evidence that MSs offer will not be competent compared to AWS, or that financial burden on tax budget will be enormously different)
[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/fisa-memo-scarier-wat...
As I noted, 10s of millions of tax payers consider Washington Post is not a newspaper, but a propaganda agent actively involved in to the coup attempt against a constitutionally elected President of US.
Just chucking it of to 'president does not like a news paper' -- is diluting the tremendous affects these things have on the well-being of the country and its citizens, and, (given US position in the world stage) , on the rest of the world.
Additionally, anti-president spying and evidence manufacturing was, in part, orchestrated by leaking to these 'newspapers' and then referencing the generated articles as 'potential evidence' that warrants the investigation.
(eg, leaking the dossier [1] and other fabrications through news organizations )
Some think the anti-president coup attempt in US, is good for the country and for the world.
Some do not.
That probably, defines a big part of person's view, where they stand on awarding contract to AWS vs MS.
(Unless there is tremendous technical evidence that MSs offer will not be competent compared to AWS, or that financial burden on tax budget will be enormously different)
[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/fisa-memo-scarier-wat...
Well, tens of millions of tax payers consider Fox News not a News network at all, but a propaganda agent actively involved in to the coup attempt of a loosely coupled conglomerate of foreign-nation stakeholders and private domestic stakeholders (of which one of them happened to become elevated into presidential office by a minority of the countrys' voters) against the Constitution of the United States.
You should look up the definition of a coup before making statements like that.
Could not modify to add to bullet points above,
but Washington Posts' obituary notice to ISIS head Al-Baghdadi, seems to prove the point...
Washington Post referred to the now dead head of the terrorist organization as: 'austere religions scholar'.
I guess, for Washington Post, Hitler was a dog loving vegan and a self-taught artist.
(they have changed the article by now).
Giving Pentagon business contracts to owner of this 'esteemed news publication', hosting these 'journalists' would, definitely would be absurd.
Washington Post referred to the now dead head of the terrorist organization as: 'austere religions scholar'.
I guess, for Washington Post, Hitler was a dog loving vegan and a self-taught artist.
(they have changed the article by now).
Giving Pentagon business contracts to owner of this 'esteemed news publication', hosting these 'journalists' would, definitely would be absurd.
The White House basically ordered this contract to not go to Amazon because Trump doesn't like how the Washington Post covers him.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted when this is the top news of the day
tanilama(1)
Never mind AWS vs. Azure: I'm thinking that this is very bad news for IBM. If there was one customer they could get, this would be it..
let the blight be purged from this world
A key ammo that Microsoft has to get customers to its cloud is their Windows and Office 365 franchise. It is likely like many traditional companies Pentagon wanted to move their mail, storage, powerpoint/excel/word, etc to this cloud rather than use lambda or other hot features that AWS has.
This contract has nothing to do with Office 365.
Indeed. Just to back up your statement:
https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2019/03/analysts-pe...
https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2019/03/analysts-pe...
But the integration between the two helps...
What does my word processor have to do with my GPU cluster I use for creating ML models?
They're running in the same Government-only datacenter.
Presumably it makes something like this easier: http://www.deepexcel.net/
I meant for things like audit logs based on your account for every single thing you do.
That’s still different? AWS has CloudTrail that lots all actions
Having used O365 + Azure as an administrator, I have found it is much easier to use Azure to trace security events than AWS.
They also have the capability to detect massive file copies/deletions for special locations, etc (i forgot the technical term)
I love AWS, but I have seen some benefits with integrating O365 and Azure.
They also have the capability to detect massive file copies/deletions for special locations, etc (i forgot the technical term)
I love AWS, but I have seen some benefits with integrating O365 and Azure.
Azure has evolved into a mature cloud provider, definently not a bad decision. Although, a bit unusual as we typically see the "noone ever got fired for buying IBM" mentality usually.
It shows that Azure is moving up to challenge AWS's throne. Interesting times to come!
It shows that Azure is moving up to challenge AWS's throne. Interesting times to come!
What do the military need 10 billion US dollars in cloud computing for ? Are they going to fork Bitcoin? DDOS attack? If they are for example going to archive video footage, it's probably much cheaper to print it to film.
Real-time surveillance of the world. Who said what when where to whom. Was that a threat. What were the consequences. Feeds for video, sound, https streams from billions of Internet devices. ML to extract salient features, at multiple levels of resolution. $10B is a drop in the bucket. This is heading into trillions territory. I wouldn't be surprised that in 10 years half the Pentagon budget will be spent on the cloud.
We can glimpse a world-wide stack-ranking system: "Echelon [0], who are the 1000 individuals most threatening to our strategic position and what will be their whereabouts today?". "Matrix [1], please dispose of these individuals at these locations". Let's pray there will still be some humans between step 0 and step 1. Worse, by the logic of MAD, it is possible we are going to end up with 2 such systems, one for USA and one for China, caught in a new cold war. Think distributed Vietnam.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
We can glimpse a world-wide stack-ranking system: "Echelon [0], who are the 1000 individuals most threatening to our strategic position and what will be their whereabouts today?". "Matrix [1], please dispose of these individuals at these locations". Let's pray there will still be some humans between step 0 and step 1. Worse, by the logic of MAD, it is possible we are going to end up with 2 such systems, one for USA and one for China, caught in a new cold war. Think distributed Vietnam.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
distributed Vietnam lmao.
I think most of your description is coming form a high-ranking general's wet dream though. When it comes to actual engineering, it would be between the simple solution that works - or complex solution that doesn't work.
Having worked in a predictive analytics role before, I can guarantee that '1000 individuals most threatening to our strategic position' would consist of 500 innocent villagers, 30 kids playing around and 1 hospital.
I think most of your description is coming form a high-ranking general's wet dream though. When it comes to actual engineering, it would be between the simple solution that works - or complex solution that doesn't work.
Having worked in a predictive analytics role before, I can guarantee that '1000 individuals most threatening to our strategic position' would consist of 500 innocent villagers, 30 kids playing around and 1 hospital.
And a wedding party.
The intelligence community (IC) [1] is not part of the JEDI contract [2]. While many IC components are part of DoD, the IC spans a wider swath of government (e.g. parts are distributed across DOJ, DOE, Homeland Security, State, etc). In addition to different mission sets, they are also governed under a different set of laws. Therefore, DoD (like DOJ, DOE, Homeland, etc) systems connect to IC systems to share information, but there are distinct infrastructures whereby neither has full visibility into the other.
[1]: https://www.intelligence.gov/ [2]: https://www.fedscoop.com/cia-confirms-multi-cloud-procuremen...
[1]: https://www.intelligence.gov/ [2]: https://www.fedscoop.com/cia-confirms-multi-cloud-procuremen...
Quite frankly there are also a lot more boring answers as well, like they need email, they need a cloud office suite, they need servers to run their interanets, more than half a dozen stupid servers and applications that don't quite work right but have to be kept around because it is someone's pet project or X dollars was blown on it, etc. Think of the biggest organization you've worked in think of all the bureaucracy involved and all the stupid decisions and politics and now multiply that by having the CEO change every 4-8 years, people in the millions and just to make things even more fun the executives that make all the decisions are congress.
If anything I don't know if $10 billion is going to be enough for the level of crazy that can go on in the government.
If anything I don't know if $10 billion is going to be enough for the level of crazy that can go on in the government.
[deleted]
P2V a lot of legacy on-premises data centers and reap savings, much as many enterprises have been doing for a while.
Take Mores law for example. Going from 10 transistors to 20 transistors is a small step. We are now going from 1 billion to 2 billion. That is a huge step. So you can now use one server to run many virtual servers. You could probably run the entire enterprise on a NUC.
They spend about a billion a year just on email. Another billion per year of cloud stuff is nothing
With 2 M email accounts that number should be at least one order of magnitude lower. Computers are great at solving problems at scale. The marginal cost of hosting another email account when you already have hundreds
is close to zero.
Well isn’t that the magic of software? The costs to run something flatten out as you increase usage, whereas the licensing costs increase linearly.
In a book slated for publication Oct. 29, retired Navy commander Guy Snodgrass, who served as a speech writer to former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, said Trump called Mattis and directed him to “screw Amazon” by preventing it from bidding on the JEDI contract, according to an excerpt of the book seen by Reuters ahead of its release.
“Were not going to do that,” Mattis later told other Pentagon officials, according to the excerpt. “This will be done by the book, both legally and ethically.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/reuters-america-update-5-mic...
Mattis resigned December 2018, his successor put Amazon's contract up for review in August.
“Were not going to do that,” Mattis later told other Pentagon officials, according to the excerpt. “This will be done by the book, both legally and ethically.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/reuters-america-update-5-mic...
Mattis resigned December 2018, his successor put Amazon's contract up for review in August.
Not sure what you mean by “put Amazon’s contract up for review” - the contract didn’t belong to Amazon, there have been multiple ethical issues with Amazon related to this contract, and there was an ongoing protest from Oracle.
So, did someone just do the same to amazon what amazon has been doing to small businesses?
Assuming "you-are-what-you-eat" dynamics, what sort of impact on msft do >10,000 workers on mother-of-all-enterprise projects have.
Silver lining, ignoring politics, this will strengthen services from Azure and create a better overall market for cloud. 3 > 2
[deleted]
Interesting. If I remember correctly when the contract was initially made public there was a lot of critism as it seemed tailor made for Amazon. Microsoft has pulled a great coup but I have to wonder -- President Trump has brought up this contract in his critism of Amazon and Bezos, was this move political?
The guy in charge of the award bowed out two days ago...
This definitely sound like political pressure.
But maybe Amazon dodged a bullet here, Microsoft employees would have many tales to tell about how their government customer users and their requirements onto Microsoft itself. Assuming this decision stays.
But maybe Amazon dodged a bullet here, Microsoft employees would have many tales to tell about how their government customer users and their requirements onto Microsoft itself. Assuming this decision stays.
“Dear MSFT, enjoy the gift
xoxo,
Oracle”
xoxo,
Oracle”
I'm sure they are a problem child, but can Oracle really afford to lose more big customers? I feel like they are pretty universally reviled, but I am inside the HN bubble. They have done nothing to woo developers and everything to exploit IT management and public budgets AFAIK.
Believe me, the corporate world that actually used Oracle database software (unlike the open-source friendly web company employees over represented in HN) hates Oracle even more with a passion, having actually experienced their racketeering license practices first hand.
Oracle and IBM are engaged in a race for irrelevance.
Oracle and IBM are engaged in a race for irrelevance.
Not terribly surprised to see Microsoft win given the Trump administration's feelings toward Amazon and the DoD coziness towards Microsoft. I'm just happy those poor bastards in the DoD don't have to deal with Oracle. I know if I were still working in the DoD sphere, I'd be looking for somewhere new to go if Oracle won.
It's good to have competition in the cloud space. Amazon
already has two government regions, I guess (1 US and 1 CN). Can someone confirm if these are already operational?
AWS CN regions (there are two) aren't "government" regions, they are "China" regions.
https://www.amazonaws.cn/en/about-aws/china/
China's government makes companies store Chinese data in China and under different privacy and security laws than other nations. In particular, China makes companies enter into joint ventures with a Chinese company and comply with laws related to CCP oversight. (Not saying I agree, just stating the facts).
It's the same as Apple's iCloud for China being under the control of a joint venture company based in China.
https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT208351
AWS's "gov" cloud is a seperate set of regions in the US that are specifically for US government and contractor use and accounts in those regions are separated from the rest of AWS's infrastructure.
https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/
https://www.amazonaws.cn/en/about-aws/china/
China's government makes companies store Chinese data in China and under different privacy and security laws than other nations. In particular, China makes companies enter into joint ventures with a Chinese company and comply with laws related to CCP oversight. (Not saying I agree, just stating the facts).
It's the same as Apple's iCloud for China being under the control of a joint venture company based in China.
https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT208351
AWS's "gov" cloud is a seperate set of regions in the US that are specifically for US government and contractor use and accounts in those regions are separated from the rest of AWS's infrastructure.
https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/
In addition to govcloud, they have 2 entire air gapped (network isolated which is why you cannot see them) regions for the US government, 1 for secret data and 1 for top secret data.
Could be an albatross for Microsoft. Amazon not having control over wired munitions is goodwill outside the US, and especially outside NATO.
I wonder how azure employees feel about this.
I don’t understand the repulsive feelings towards helping the govt. Would we rather have the people in control of the military and our troops use out-of-date tech?
> Would we rather have the people in control of the military and our troops use out-of-date tech
I don't trust or rely on any infrastructure that largely uses microsoft products...I'm sure there's some minor stuff hidden away here and there within systems. MSFT has a software philosophy, which is reciprocated in their culture, that can only be described as byzantine and unpredictable. They are basically 00's Oracle at this point.
I don't trust or rely on any infrastructure that largely uses microsoft products...I'm sure there's some minor stuff hidden away here and there within systems. MSFT has a software philosophy, which is reciprocated in their culture, that can only be described as byzantine and unpredictable. They are basically 00's Oracle at this point.
I thought they have reinvented themselves with the new embrace for linux and the cloud? I've always thought Windows OS is garbage but Microsoft seemed fine without it nowadays. Can anyone with Microsoft knowledge share a little bit about the culture and how it's changed?
MS employee here. No joke, the Microsoft of today is like a 180 from the Microsoft of even 3, or 5 years ago.
Satya Nadella has been on a long-term campaign to transform the culture in some pretty inspiring ways, to be honest. It's led to the departure of long-time fixtures in leadership--the most shocking of which was the head of the Windows team (remember the agonizingly pushy nature of the Windows 10 rollout?). Today, there is no "Windows" team anymore, as they've been absorbed under the "Experiences and Devices" group. And increasingly, open source and embracing of other technologies has become a shocking priority (the decision to move to Chromium-based browser was especially shocking, but on further thought, consistent with Satya's philosophy).
So, yeah! I'm pretty optimistic of Microsoft's future. It's going to take some time to shed a lot of the old image it earned under Bill Gates in the 90's and Steve Ballmer more recently. But in my opinion, I think the company has by now earned what will likely take a few more years to become more apparent to the rest of the world. Basically, the CEO didn't just transform the company from a Windows-based business to a Cloud service provider; he absolutely moved to change the culture as the foundation for that move.
Satya Nadella has been on a long-term campaign to transform the culture in some pretty inspiring ways, to be honest. It's led to the departure of long-time fixtures in leadership--the most shocking of which was the head of the Windows team (remember the agonizingly pushy nature of the Windows 10 rollout?). Today, there is no "Windows" team anymore, as they've been absorbed under the "Experiences and Devices" group. And increasingly, open source and embracing of other technologies has become a shocking priority (the decision to move to Chromium-based browser was especially shocking, but on further thought, consistent with Satya's philosophy).
So, yeah! I'm pretty optimistic of Microsoft's future. It's going to take some time to shed a lot of the old image it earned under Bill Gates in the 90's and Steve Ballmer more recently. But in my opinion, I think the company has by now earned what will likely take a few more years to become more apparent to the rest of the world. Basically, the CEO didn't just transform the company from a Windows-based business to a Cloud service provider; he absolutely moved to change the culture as the foundation for that move.
As a Microsoft employee, do you have any thoughts on whether this will cause Microsoft to start a hiring spree of people with active US Government security clearances?
Microsoft has definitely turned the corner in terms of culture with some projects like Typescript, WSL, .NET Core, etc., but Azure is very much still the "old Microsoft." It was started before this turn and has many of the same old stinks that anyone who's worked in Enterprise Microsoft-land can smell.
They may yet right the ship as time goes on and their growing revenue points in the direction that they will, but anyone who's used all three major cloud-providers knows they're still at the bottom of the totem pole.
They may yet right the ship as time goes on and their growing revenue points in the direction that they will, but anyone who's used all three major cloud-providers knows they're still at the bottom of the totem pole.
Wait 'til you hear about all of those people who use Excel.
Azure, sure, but Windows and Office are at this point very mature products. They're not going to win awards, but they get the job done.
Azure, sure, but Windows and Office are at this point very mature products. They're not going to win awards, but they get the job done.
How is that relevant to the topic or infrastructure comment?
I would rather the military be less capable, because its current capability is being used for offensive, not defensive purposes.
If it's less capable, it's less likely to get embroiled in stupid imperialistic adventures.
Edit: I don't understand why so many people are, at the same time, so enthused by the idea of starving government (Because they think most of its services are a waste of money), while at the same time, insisting on spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
If it's less capable, it's less likely to get embroiled in stupid imperialistic adventures.
Edit: I don't understand why so many people are, at the same time, so enthused by the idea of starving government (Because they think most of its services are a waste of money), while at the same time, insisting on spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
> I would rather the military be less capable, because its current capability is being used for offensive, not defensive purposes.
Same here, that’s why I’m glad this contract went to MS instead of AWS, as I see the latter as being technologically better than MS’s cloud solution.
Same here, that’s why I’m glad this contract went to MS instead of AWS, as I see the latter as being technologically better than MS’s cloud solution.
> insisting on spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
While the US military expenditures are ridiculously high, they're only ~34% of worldwide expenditures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
While the US military expenditures are ridiculously high, they're only ~34% of worldwide expenditures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
> I don't understand why so many people are, at the same time, so enthused by the idea of starving government (Because they think most of its services are a waste of money), while at the same time, insisting on spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
shitgoose(1)
So I take you approve of Trump's decision on Syria?
He advanced a long-term goal that I agree with (disengagement from Syria) in a manner I found stupid and immoral (abandoning the Kurds with no security guarantees and leaving potentially tens of thousands of IS prisoners free to escape).
Because the US government does repulsive things and many of you are enabling them.
What about the fact that privacy is becoming a thing of the past?
I fear Google and Facebook far more than the US Army. I fail to see how rehosting ancient military logistics and business systems translates to a Lojack up our collective derrieres.
This is an important question and also an example of how Satya Nadella played his job really well. By clearly stating that Microsoft will not deny democratic governments access to the latest technology, he deftly put stop to any potential discussions about tech mis-use (e.g. like the employee outburst at Google).
Not saying decision is good or bad but in terms of setting clarity this was really critical.
Not saying decision is good or bad but in terms of setting clarity this was really critical.
Probably really good as many/most are stockholders too. I know I do.
Anyone who would care about this should have left when Windows 10 pushed out forced spying on users.
Very excited!
Probably amazing, while a small minority of the triggered will get all the news time as usual.
Probably happy. Stock is up 3% in after hours trading.
Former Microsoftie here.
I imagine there will be a lot of unrest inside the company about this, and I think things are about to get tricky for Nadella. Up until now he's been largely able to be above a lot of the labor disputes that have been roiling the other FAANGs recently, but that's mostly out of luck: Microsoft's business doesn't involve arbitrating culture war disputes on social media or search reuslts, nor employing underpaid warehouse workers. But now there's going to be no way to wiggle out of the fact that this money is coming from Trump's DoD, and $10 billion isn't a paltry sum that they can just wave off to claim the moral high ground.
Satya's next "fireside chat" is going to be tremendously awkward, I think.
I imagine there will be a lot of unrest inside the company about this, and I think things are about to get tricky for Nadella. Up until now he's been largely able to be above a lot of the labor disputes that have been roiling the other FAANGs recently, but that's mostly out of luck: Microsoft's business doesn't involve arbitrating culture war disputes on social media or search reuslts, nor employing underpaid warehouse workers. But now there's going to be no way to wiggle out of the fact that this money is coming from Trump's DoD, and $10 billion isn't a paltry sum that they can just wave off to claim the moral high ground.
Satya's next "fireside chat" is going to be tremendously awkward, I think.
Maybe.. Microsoft is providing the infrastructure here and the DevOps I guess.. the rest of it is, the applications will be written by contractors etc... Maybe some of the AI technologies developed by MSFT will be used but maybe other providers will port to the Azure platform. At the moment US ships run Windows. Lots of dual use infrastructure so I can't see a major dilemma. Certain AI technologies and applications of them.. maybe.
Its not Trump DoD. Its US DoD.
For a lot of people the thinking will go "ah DoD uses Azure so it is safe to put pur own valuable stuff there". But is the DoD contract actually using the same Azure infrastructure as everyone else or is it running on a physically separated Azure platform with staff w security clearance?
The key point in the briefing (and the “developing” article is fairly brief) is that Amazon was considered the front-runner for contract, but Trump has a personal vendetta against Amazon/Bezos and also made comments that he’d get personally involved in the JEDI decision (Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure).
So of course this invites the question of whether petty politics influenced a $10B govt deal.
So of course this invites the question of whether petty politics influenced a $10B govt deal.
If Amazon losing this deal makes US oligarchs think twice about getting involved in politics, it's probably a good thing.
I can't think of a more ironic statement given that the oligarch named Trump is probably thrilled at this news.
Isn't the Washington Post(and in turn Bezos) that Trump has an issue?
What was Bezos motive for purchasing the Washington Post? It certainly wasn't financial.
Found an article about it here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2018/09/19/why...
TL;DR: Bezos thinks the Post is an important institution for our democracy, and he believed he could help it recover financially by taking advantage of the internet.
TL;DR: Bezos thinks the Post is an important institution for our democracy, and he believed he could help it recover financially by taking advantage of the internet.
Haven't followed Bezos too closely, but, never thought of him to be a political person or saw anything where he made political comments.
Buying the Washington Post certainly forced the world around him to see him as political...even if he considers himself not.
Buying the Washington Post certainly forced the world around him to see him as political...even if he considers himself not.
> Haven't followed Bezos too closely, but, never thought of him to be a political person or saw anything where he made political comments.
You never considered the idea that the richest man in the world may be political?
It'd be more surprising for me to find out that he wasn't political; you don't accrue that kind of cash without playing political games at at least some point in your portfolio -- even if it's just for the opportunity to reduce your tax burdens.
You never considered the idea that the richest man in the world may be political?
It'd be more surprising for me to find out that he wasn't political; you don't accrue that kind of cash without playing political games at at least some point in your portfolio -- even if it's just for the opportunity to reduce your tax burdens.
Oh, I think he's political. I think he carefully tried not appearing that way though.
My point is, I don't think he bought the Post to be political or political reasons. I think he bought The Post because he's a rich collector of nice/novel/rare things..and it seemed like a fun hobby. At the time.
If someone wanted to sell me The Post or let's say WSJ for what I consider pocket change, I would most certainly be interested. Good journalism is something that is going away, but, the obscenely rich can curate and prop up.
My point is, I don't think he bought the Post to be political or political reasons. I think he bought The Post because he's a rich collector of nice/novel/rare things..and it seemed like a fun hobby. At the time.
If someone wanted to sell me The Post or let's say WSJ for what I consider pocket change, I would most certainly be interested. Good journalism is something that is going away, but, the obscenely rich can curate and prop up.
I don't think Bezos is inherently political, but the world/US requires him to be so. Anyone in his position would have to be whether they want to or not.
Whether petty politics influenced it or not, I bet Amazon sues, and just drags out the award even longer.
Was this info not in the original article? It seems to be the most important point, yet nobody else is discussing it in the comments.
No. It just had the announcement and was only a paragraph long with a "This is a developing story, more to come soon" at the bottom."
I was also wondering why it's not being discussed much. It could be because HN is mostly non-political, although when I see political discussions come up there is a noticeable Republican slant.
Here? This site has a decisive leftist slant, with barely a few dissenting opinions that are always immediately downvoted into oblivion.
If you think this site has a Republican slant, your own political perspective must be very badly skewed.
If you think this site has a Republican slant, your own political perspective must be very badly skewed.
I haven’t done any research but I wonder if trump has it in for Amazon since they have a monopoly that so far hasn’t been challenged much.
I don't think he cares about any issue of monopoly. It has much more to do with negative coverage of Trump in the Washington Post. It appears Bezos has a very hands-off approach in terms of editorial direction there, but Trump still blames him for the coverage.
> I wonder if trump has it in for Amazon since they have a monopoly that so far hasn’t been challenged much.
Trump rather openly has it in for Jeff Bezos because of the existence of WaPo, which has spilled over into attacks on Amazon more than once before.
Trump rather openly has it in for Jeff Bezos because of the existence of WaPo, which has spilled over into attacks on Amazon more than once before.
Somewhat related to the ancillary debates around DoD contracting. A very well written longread "In Defense of the War on Terror"
I'm certainly in no position to validate its truth claims. But in the current climate. With Google withdrawing its bid at behest of its employees. Protests at AWS conferences over involvement with ICE. Peter Thiel arguing Silicon Valley companies should "do more" in the form of defense partnerships. And given the historical roots of the Valley. It helps to stay deeply informed and philosophically consistent in figuring out where you stand ;)
https://areomagazine.com/2019/10/25/in-defense-of-the-war-on...
I'm certainly in no position to validate its truth claims. But in the current climate. With Google withdrawing its bid at behest of its employees. Protests at AWS conferences over involvement with ICE. Peter Thiel arguing Silicon Valley companies should "do more" in the form of defense partnerships. And given the historical roots of the Valley. It helps to stay deeply informed and philosophically consistent in figuring out where you stand ;)
https://areomagazine.com/2019/10/25/in-defense-of-the-war-on...
Mr Church is entitled to his opinion but I take issue with two of his points.
As far as his list of Al Qaeda heavies killed by strikes goes, it had become even a staple of late night comedy routines at that point that the newest "Al Qaeda No 2" had been blown up. It felt like the military was writing the press releases for Stars and Stripes and distributing them to everyone.
And with regard to his link about the Muslim Brotherhood and settlement and civilizational jihad, the last I heard about Hizb ut-Tahrir in America they were trying to buy some 40 acre dairy farm in Wisconsin and failing miserably (no word about any mules)
As far as his list of Al Qaeda heavies killed by strikes goes, it had become even a staple of late night comedy routines at that point that the newest "Al Qaeda No 2" had been blown up. It felt like the military was writing the press releases for Stars and Stripes and distributing them to everyone.
And with regard to his link about the Muslim Brotherhood and settlement and civilizational jihad, the last I heard about Hizb ut-Tahrir in America they were trying to buy some 40 acre dairy farm in Wisconsin and failing miserably (no word about any mules)
SV companies should do more if they want a seat at the table. Otherwise defense contractors will pick up the slack.
At least it wasn't Oracle. You can't say Azure, AWS, GCP, et al, aren't highly skilled, experienced, cloud infrastructure builders. There was a lot of wining-and-dining of the Trump administration by Safra Kat which gave the impression they'd be magically awarded the contract. Thank goodness the government isn't that corrupt.
The other day Bank of America saved $2 billion/year by rolling out their own cloud. Why isn't Pentagon saving tax payers money?
Because the Pentagon (and the rest of the federal government) can't match FAANG salaries so they don't get very many good engineers.
Partly explains why Bill Gates characterizes Edward Snowden the way he does (though he might not have the same judgment for someone like James Clapper who lied to congress)
https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/14/bill-gates-says-snowden-is...
How does this 2014 article by an ex boss of Microsoft, who hasn’t been involved in any day to day activities of it for more than a decade, explain this contract in 2019?
....why just one provider, anyway?
I'll bite: do you think this was on merits alone? On one hand, if there was pressure whistle-blowers would be whistling by now but still, I think Amazon was hurt by WaPost (Bezos owns WP and Trump is not happy with them). Maybe "they" tilted the process in such a way that one can't really complain. After all Microsoft is no slouch.
Given the choice between Cadillac and Pontiac, the Pentagon chose....
Pork wins every time...
Amazon will likely be suing, yeah?
It’s embarrassing that something as vital as the military is running on Windows. Boggles the mind
[deleted]
SkyNET 1.0
The Space Force is really ramping up
> ...unlike, say, New York City or Detroit, whose residents found out the hard way that lots of their power comes from Canada.
Interesting that this myth is still alive. It started with Bush falsely claiming the 2003 blackout was Canada's fault before an investigation had even been done. Here is the actual postmortem report.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandM...
Interesting that this myth is still alive. It started with Bush falsely claiming the 2003 blackout was Canada's fault before an investigation had even been done. Here is the actual postmortem report.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandM...
Just a request: if you intend to directly refute another's comment by posting sources, posting a 238 page document without a specific page reference isn't really helpful.
It's called burying the opponent in papers. I watch Suits, so I know how this works.
Refer to the summary of causes on page 17, as seen in the table of contents.
Here's a direct link to that page: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandM...
Nowhere does that say that Bush blamed Canada at any time, nor can I find examples through 3 pages of search. (I found "Schumer blames Bush" but nothing the other direction.)
Perhaps you confuse Petaki with Bush? He blamed Ontario at one point.
Perhaps you confuse Petaki with Bush? He blamed Ontario at one point.
I remember it from news reports at the time. I can't find any documentation now, so it easily could have been Petaki. I can't find a transcript or video of Bush's address to the nation on the day of the blackout though.
Initial rumors were a trip at Niagra Falls on the Canadian side. I believe Petaki spread that rumor.
Article is pay only.
If you mash the "esc" key just as the article loads, and continue tapping it you can read it in its entirety.
I'm really surprised this works. Do you know if that's by design?
It's not. Pressing the escape key stops Javascript from running.
> This is a developing story and will be updated.
Developing story. There are just two paragraphs in the article so far. I can copy paste it here if you'd like but archive.fo is probably more authoritative (should be done archiving in a minute)
https://archive.fo/ASobP
Developing story. There are just two paragraphs in the article so far. I can copy paste it here if you'd like but archive.fo is probably more authoritative (should be done archiving in a minute)
https://archive.fo/ASobP
I cleared my cookies and it let me read it.
Is it? After you hit your number of free articles for the month, then yes.
This has happened to me multiple times on the HN front page today. I try the web links -- no luck. What's the point of having these articles on HN, if the more of them there are, the fewer people can read and discuss them without paying?
It's antithetical to open discussion and analysis.
It's antithetical to open discussion and analysis.
https://bitly.com/ + https://outline.com/
Come on it's hacker news, they specifically say workarounds are ok. I figured the paywalls were just a test honestly. If you're determined you should be able to find a way to read it.
Come on it's hacker news, they specifically say workarounds are ok. I figured the paywalls were just a test honestly. If you're determined you should be able to find a way to read it.
I know this is the rule, and it's always puzzled me. Of course you can do the work every time and find anything, and in most cases it's doable. I just find it a sad state when I have to do this regularly, on top articles. Difference of opinion I guess.
Selectively disabling JavaScript and/or cookies using a browser add-on such as uMatrix will get you around the NYT's paywall and many others. (Some paywalls you can get around just by going into Reader View in Firefox.)
Yea, I really fail to see the point of linking to something that is inaccessible.
Press the "Stop Loading" button after the article loads and before the paywall comes up.
Well there's that.
Interesting
Does anyone else think it's disappointing that an organisation as evil as the Pentagon used the acronym JEDI?
Perhaps this proposal should have been called Synchronised Information Technology Holdings.
Perhaps this proposal should have been called Synchronised Information Technology Holdings.
> an organisation as evil as the Pentagon
Given your feelings about the US Military, you probably also don't like the police. The Jedi order were a law enforcement organization, a police force. I'm not sure you would have liked them much if you were living in the Star Wars universe.
Given your feelings about the US Military, you probably also don't like the police. The Jedi order were a law enforcement organization, a police force. I'm not sure you would have liked them much if you were living in the Star Wars universe.
It's not just the US military I don't like, it's all militaries. I can't say I'm supportive of any organisation which has the killing of human beings as a core function. Especially the modern incarnation of war, which is mainly waged against much weaker, non-threatening opponents for profit.
I would not align myself with the Jedi or the Sith, if I were lucky enough to be living in the Star Wars universe. I'd rather be a trader in some far flung system, quietly going about my business and exploring the universe.
I would not align myself with the Jedi or the Sith, if I were lucky enough to be living in the Star Wars universe. I'd rather be a trader in some far flung system, quietly going about my business and exploring the universe.
The Pentagon is not evil, from my point of view the JEDI are evil.
Taking government money is taking blood money. I'm glad I'm on a trajectory of getting rid of Microsoft tech in my life.
I love the sentiment, but where else would you turn? AWS takes money from the CIA, Google has drones and Dragonfly, and Oracle doesn't even pretend to be a bastion of freedom.
Unfortunately in that regard there is little to no choice. This is why I continue to advocate building a truly peer 2 peer network with all services relying on that infrastructure instead of centralized systems in the hands of a few companies. Everything running and stored on that P2P network. It's coming but taking longer than I'd hope for.
Dragonfly, right, like it's already launched.
I hope you’ll still pay your taxes though!
I don't pay taxes. I get extorted by the government.
Very interesting that the guy in the pentagon in charge of the choice bows out two days before the Microsoft award. Possible trump influence?
If nothing, this will prevent AWS pulling out much further ahead in the cloud computing space.
Wondering if its Jeff Bezos v. Trump or the Office 365 possibility that did it (my bet is on O365)
Wondering if its Jeff Bezos v. Trump or the Office 365 possibility that did it (my bet is on O365)
I wonder how much dirt Microsoft did on the dl to get that contract. Backdooring ElectionGuard?
The crown jewel of the NSA’s MSFT partnership is the San Antonio, Texas data center. The “5150 Rogers Road” data center was chosen because Texas has cheap electricity, which is an enormous cost outlay for the NSA. Additionally, and the FBI chose San Antonio for a significant presence as well because of this, is Texas has a separate electrical grid from the rest of the US.
Also San Antonio has something like 4 military bases. Ft. Sam Houston where the Army medics train, Lackland Air Force Base (home of cybercommand for the Air Force), Kelley Air Force Base, and perhaps even 1 or 2 I can’t recall.
120 minutes to the north is the recently established Army Futures Command in Austin, along with Ft. Hood in Killeen, the Army’s largest base in the world.
AWS does not currently have a data center in Texas, which has always frustrated the Texas government. They did establish a shipping center in San Marcos, but even GCO is building out in Dallas where IBM Cloud has a data center, and Oracle Cloud has an Austin data center.