6 ms·

It's not only not curing cancer or solving poverty, it's killing people.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
While your former is true your latter is just horribly false. I worked in the DoD space for many years and the overwhelming amount of work you're most likely to do doesn't involve killing people even indirectly. More likely you're working on systems to go keep our people safe. For example I worked on software that helped soldiers look at patterns of IED placements to hopefully help them figure out where others were. I wouldn't consider what I worked on even indirectly supporting any type of killing but helping out people stay safer.
- alexeykr 10y ago
  I worked for the Russian military many years, and I believe Matt could do even more good for more people by using his talents in the Russian military. There is so much need there in software systems and support. It would make a great difference if there were more such volunteers. Like your experiences I agree that most of efforts were working on systems to go keep our people safe. It's nothing that involve killing people even indirectly.... But no matter Russia/US it all for a good cause - congratulations
- waterphone 10y ago
  Ultimately, though, aren't you helping soldiers stay safer so they can continue to kill others? I'm not saying that in a judgmental way, but that is the reality of war and military-related work.
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    This is incredibly tone deaf. I'm not sure why every thread about the DoD on Hacker News always ends up with the most extreme comments that lead to: "even if you're sending cards to the soldiers you're lifting their spirits to kill more people therefore you should feel bad about yourself". I get it. You hate war. Most people hate war, even the soldiers in our army hate it. You want change? Vote and get outside and protest. Don't shit on a DoD contractor while sitting there doing nothing. Real change requires real effort.
    - geofft 10y ago
      I mean, I'm doing something. I have a job that doesn't involve working for the DoD. I understand the need for people to have jobs. I'm not unhappy about individual soldiers, individual cops, individual TSA workers deciding that's how they want to get employment. (I'm sort of unhappy at society-as-a-whole for making the military such a good career decision for many people, but the fact remains that it is a good career decision, and I won't begrudge that.) I'm not unhappy about you, because I have no idea what your job is or what your life is like. But this article is about a person who had an extremely good job at Google deciding that he wasn't doing enough for the world and that he could make the world a better place by working for the DoD. He could have stayed at Google; he could have even worked for the USDS for any of the non-war functions of government, if he really wanted to. I think that's fair to criticize.
      - robbiep 10y ago
        How Ayn Rand do you want to go? By the same logic working for a company that pays taxes that supports the military is also helping things along. Best to withdraw entirely the efforts of your labour from the machine?
        merraksh 10y ago
        How taxes support the military is decided by lawmakers. We vote candidates based on their programs. If a candidate promised to lower contributions to defense, (s)he'd have my vote. You can have labour that doesn't feed the military.
        geofft 10y ago
        My logic included an explicit allowance for those people whose best career decision is to work for the military (or for the police, or the TSA, or whatever). I don't expect a general strike, no matter how much I want the workers of the world to lose their chains. So the same logic would be okay with people where all reasonable career decisions require working for a company that pays taxes to the military, and both Matt Cutts and I seem to be in that situation. But I think we're both in the situation where we have plenty of reasonable options other than working for the military directly. And it specifically sounds like he took an option that is worse for him personally, because he thinks it's better for the world. I disagree it's better for the world, simple as that. (Whether this logic would forbid working for companies that support the military indirectly is an interesting question, and I think 'BinaryIdiot has convinced me that it should.)
- cm3 10y ago
  And those IEDs they have to deal with were placed someplace because the actions of the military are mainly peaceful and only reactionary violent and the reason they are in a place fighting another military group is not caused by past and current interventions of the over-funded military? I totally get that the individuals making up the forces deserve all the safety they can get, but that doesn't change the fact why they are deployed in the first place.
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    Yes let's shit on the DoD contractor who worked on software that no one in combat directly used that helped them look at historical events because you disagree with congressional decisions. I don't know what you expect your comment to accomplish here but it's incredibly tone deaf.
    - cm3 10y ago
      Aiding the work of a misguided organization that's primarily used for causing misery in the world, regardless of what tiny piece of the puzzle you've contributed, makes you on some level accountable, if you consider that it's not one's sole option of income. It's not much different from helping violent criminals by hiding them, and most of us would agree you cannot expect immunity if you do that, but somehow we make an exception for the military because of their general proclaimed mission and totally ignore how they're deployed most of the time. In that sense it's good we get more drones, as it reduces the need for on-site forces and makes it clearer what many military tasks actually are. That said, there are certainly peaceful tasks the military is responsible for, and we can make exception for those, like handling natural disasters, providing logistics for weather research, etc., but let's not kid ourselves, the military didn't grant the invention of the Internet for connecting the world population.
      - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
        I'm taken aback by this comment. This is such an out of touch extreme. You would probably do well with getting some exposure to the DoD because you're dragging in an absolute ton of issues unrelated to the conversation. Regardless are you willing to do the same? Just as millions are employed through the various agencies of the DoD through contracting it'sthe same with the large technology companies. Google, Microsoft, Amazon and many others are actively DoD contractors. So they're making money in the exact same way and yet I never hear people telling them to stop or quit . So are you going to continue using Google, Microsoft and Amazon knowing they actively work on DoD projects and profit off of them?
- uola 10y ago
  Eh, what do you think the military is doing when they run into IEDs? The reasons to remove IEDs is of course to grant yourself movement to fight the enemy.
- icebraining 10y ago
  the overwhelming amount of work you're most likely to do doesn't involve killing people I'm sure that's not what you meant, but this sounds like damning with faint praise :)
- ksrm 10y ago
  >the overwhelming amount of work you're most likely to do doesn't involve killing people even indirectly Precisely no part of my current job involves killing people. I think I'll stick with my job.
shrugger 10y ago
Are you aware of the primary purpose of the Department of DEFENSE?
- geofft 10y ago
  It merged the Department of the Navy into the Department of War, because separating the Army and the Navy was inefficient. (And it was briefly called the National Military Establishment.) Let's not buy into these politically-correct renamings; it's still the department of war.
  - shrugger 10y ago
    Yeah what do I know anyways? I just work there, I'm sure your google search lends you more clarity as to what they're doing than my day-after-day exposure. Cool.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Frankly, you're the one that emphasized the name as if it meant anything; maybe you should have left out that argument and made the case based on your personal experience instead.
      - shrugger 10y ago
        There is no argument. What the department is or is not doing is not up for argument. Objective reality doesn't change just because the dept used to have a different name, that's stupid. I work with dozens of peaceful, bright people, on projects that are responsible for keeping people safe without violence or conflict or any nonsense like that. Many of the people whom I work with wouldn't swat a fly, so I don't really concern myself with the thoughts of people who have no clue what they're talking about, like commenters on HN who google "depart of defense not really about defense???" and then think they've stumped me. Honestly.
        icebraining 10y ago
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
And without it, lots of people around the world would not have the freedom to make a comment like yours. Oh the irony.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  Which people exactly?
  - dominotw 10y ago
    south koreans
  - user_0001 10y ago
    all those who were liberated in Operation Freedom obviously. All those who now live life of a zen like peace due to Operation Enduring Peace Reminds me of the clip of the Us Marine pointing a gun in the face of unarmed protesters screaming "GET BACK WE ARE HERE FOR YOUR MOTHERFUCKING FREEDOM"...... yeah right mate, you just keep telling yourself that.
- dleslie 10y ago
  As though America is the only meaningful nation advocating for freedom in the world; or that Americans are themselves living lives of liberty, free from the shackles of systemic oppression.
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    The post and all comments were in the context of America. That does not in any way what so ever imply America is the only meaningful nation advocating freedom. You read what you wanted to read, not what was written.
- mesh 10y ago
  Yes, and there are a lot of people in the world who have less freedom due to US interventions / support.
- 10y ago
dang 10y ago
This is a flamewar comment, which makes it bad for HN regardless of anyone's politics. But you particularly have no right to do this in the context of a personal blog post by someone whose intention to improve society could hardly be clearer. Large institutions are complex, neither completely good nor completely evil. I don't think that's too much to ask users of an internet forum intended for intellectually substantive discourse to understand. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11927587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11927587 and marked it off-topic.
- tacone 10y ago
  Excuse me Dang, what would you expect from a brief blog post linking healthcare to pentagon?
  - dang 10y ago
    What I described in the first two paragraphs there.
    - tacone 10y ago
      > This is a flamewar comment, which makes it bad for HN regardless of anyone's politics. But you particularly have no right to do this in the context of a personal blog post by someone whose intention to improve society could hardly be clearer. > Large institutions are complex, neither completely good nor completely evil. I don't think that's too much to ask users of an internet forum intended for intellectually substantive discourse to understand. Except you did not intellectually substantiated anything, but your own/company's opinions. Nor it makes sense for you or anybody else to arbitrarily mark the parent as a flamewar comment. You are very free to have and express your own opinions, you should others have and express their own, though.
      - dang 10y ago
        I'm a moderator here, so it's my job to set these expectations. That inevitably involves judgment calls, a.k.a. opinions. I'd say the lines we draw are far from arbitrary, but of course I'm biased.

While your former is true your latter is just horribly false. I worked in the DoD space for many years and the overwhelming amount of work you're most likely to do doesn't involve killing people even indirectly. More likely you're working on systems to go keep our people safe. For example I worked on software that helped soldiers look at patterns of IED placements to hopefully help them figure out where others were. I wouldn't consider what I worked on even indirectly supporting any type of killing but helping out people stay safer.

alexeykr 10y ago
I worked for the Russian military many years, and I believe Matt could do even more good for more people by using his talents in the Russian military. There is so much need there in software systems and support. It would make a great difference if there were more such volunteers. Like your experiences I agree that most of efforts were working on systems to go keep our people safe. It's nothing that involve killing people even indirectly.... But no matter Russia/US it all for a good cause - congratulations
waterphone 10y ago
Ultimately, though, aren't you helping soldiers stay safer so they can continue to kill others? I'm not saying that in a judgmental way, but that is the reality of war and military-related work.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  This is incredibly tone deaf. I'm not sure why every thread about the DoD on Hacker News always ends up with the most extreme comments that lead to: "even if you're sending cards to the soldiers you're lifting their spirits to kill more people therefore you should feel bad about yourself". I get it. You hate war. Most people hate war, even the soldiers in our army hate it. You want change? Vote and get outside and protest. Don't shit on a DoD contractor while sitting there doing nothing. Real change requires real effort.
  - geofft 10y ago
    I mean, I'm doing something. I have a job that doesn't involve working for the DoD. I understand the need for people to have jobs. I'm not unhappy about individual soldiers, individual cops, individual TSA workers deciding that's how they want to get employment. (I'm sort of unhappy at society-as-a-whole for making the military such a good career decision for many people, but the fact remains that it is a good career decision, and I won't begrudge that.) I'm not unhappy about you, because I have no idea what your job is or what your life is like. But this article is about a person who had an extremely good job at Google deciding that he wasn't doing enough for the world and that he could make the world a better place by working for the DoD. He could have stayed at Google; he could have even worked for the USDS for any of the non-war functions of government, if he really wanted to. I think that's fair to criticize.
    - robbiep 10y ago
      How Ayn Rand do you want to go? By the same logic working for a company that pays taxes that supports the military is also helping things along. Best to withdraw entirely the efforts of your labour from the machine?
      - merraksh 10y ago
        How taxes support the military is decided by lawmakers. We vote candidates based on their programs. If a candidate promised to lower contributions to defense, (s)he'd have my vote. You can have labour that doesn't feed the military.
      - geofft 10y ago
        My logic included an explicit allowance for those people whose best career decision is to work for the military (or for the police, or the TSA, or whatever). I don't expect a general strike, no matter how much I want the workers of the world to lose their chains. So the same logic would be okay with people where all reasonable career decisions require working for a company that pays taxes to the military, and both Matt Cutts and I seem to be in that situation. But I think we're both in the situation where we have plenty of reasonable options other than working for the military directly. And it specifically sounds like he took an option that is worse for him personally, because he thinks it's better for the world. I disagree it's better for the world, simple as that. (Whether this logic would forbid working for companies that support the military indirectly is an interesting question, and I think 'BinaryIdiot has convinced me that it should.)
cm3 10y ago
And those IEDs they have to deal with were placed someplace because the actions of the military are mainly peaceful and only reactionary violent and the reason they are in a place fighting another military group is not caused by past and current interventions of the over-funded military? I totally get that the individuals making up the forces deserve all the safety they can get, but that doesn't change the fact why they are deployed in the first place.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  Yes let's shit on the DoD contractor who worked on software that no one in combat directly used that helped them look at historical events because you disagree with congressional decisions. I don't know what you expect your comment to accomplish here but it's incredibly tone deaf.
  - cm3 10y ago
    Aiding the work of a misguided organization that's primarily used for causing misery in the world, regardless of what tiny piece of the puzzle you've contributed, makes you on some level accountable, if you consider that it's not one's sole option of income. It's not much different from helping violent criminals by hiding them, and most of us would agree you cannot expect immunity if you do that, but somehow we make an exception for the military because of their general proclaimed mission and totally ignore how they're deployed most of the time. In that sense it's good we get more drones, as it reduces the need for on-site forces and makes it clearer what many military tasks actually are. That said, there are certainly peaceful tasks the military is responsible for, and we can make exception for those, like handling natural disasters, providing logistics for weather research, etc., but let's not kid ourselves, the military didn't grant the invention of the Internet for connecting the world population.
    - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
      I'm taken aback by this comment. This is such an out of touch extreme. You would probably do well with getting some exposure to the DoD because you're dragging in an absolute ton of issues unrelated to the conversation. Regardless are you willing to do the same? Just as millions are employed through the various agencies of the DoD through contracting it'sthe same with the large technology companies. Google, Microsoft, Amazon and many others are actively DoD contractors. So they're making money in the exact same way and yet I never hear people telling them to stop or quit . So are you going to continue using Google, Microsoft and Amazon knowing they actively work on DoD projects and profit off of them?
uola 10y ago
Eh, what do you think the military is doing when they run into IEDs? The reasons to remove IEDs is of course to grant yourself movement to fight the enemy.
icebraining 10y ago
the overwhelming amount of work you're most likely to do doesn't involve killing people I'm sure that's not what you meant, but this sounds like damning with faint praise :)
ksrm 10y ago
>the overwhelming amount of work you're most likely to do doesn't involve killing people even indirectly Precisely no part of my current job involves killing people. I think I'll stick with my job.

shrugger 10y ago

Are you aware of the primary purpose of the Department of DEFENSE?

geofft 10y ago
It merged the Department of the Navy into the Department of War, because separating the Army and the Navy was inefficient. (And it was briefly called the National Military Establishment.) Let's not buy into these politically-correct renamings; it's still the department of war.
- shrugger 10y ago
  Yeah what do I know anyways? I just work there, I'm sure your google search lends you more clarity as to what they're doing than my day-after-day exposure. Cool.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Frankly, you're the one that emphasized the name as if it meant anything; maybe you should have left out that argument and made the case based on your personal experience instead.
    - shrugger 10y ago
      There is no argument. What the department is or is not doing is not up for argument. Objective reality doesn't change just because the dept used to have a different name, that's stupid. I work with dozens of peaceful, bright people, on projects that are responsible for keeping people safe without violence or conflict or any nonsense like that. Many of the people whom I work with wouldn't swat a fly, so I don't really concern myself with the thoughts of people who have no clue what they're talking about, like commenters on HN who google "depart of defense not really about defense???" and then think they've stumped me. Honestly.
      - icebraining 10y ago

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

And without it, lots of people around the world would not have the freedom to make a comment like yours. Oh the irony.

Kristine1975 10y ago
Which people exactly?
- dominotw 10y ago
  south koreans
- user_0001 10y ago
  all those who were liberated in Operation Freedom obviously. All those who now live life of a zen like peace due to Operation Enduring Peace Reminds me of the clip of the Us Marine pointing a gun in the face of unarmed protesters screaming "GET BACK WE ARE HERE FOR YOUR MOTHERFUCKING FREEDOM"...... yeah right mate, you just keep telling yourself that.
dleslie 10y ago
As though America is the only meaningful nation advocating for freedom in the world; or that Americans are themselves living lives of liberty, free from the shackles of systemic oppression.
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  The post and all comments were in the context of America. That does not in any way what so ever imply America is the only meaningful nation advocating freedom. You read what you wanted to read, not what was written.
mesh 10y ago
Yes, and there are a lot of people in the world who have less freedom due to US interventions / support.
10y ago

dang 10y ago

This is a flamewar comment, which makes it bad for HN regardless of anyone's politics. But you particularly have no right to do this in the context of a personal blog post by someone whose intention to improve society could hardly be clearer. Large institutions are complex, neither completely good nor completely evil. I don't think that's too much to ask users of an internet forum intended for intellectually substantive discourse to understand. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11927587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11927587 and marked it off-topic.

tacone 10y ago
Excuse me Dang, what would you expect from a brief blog post linking healthcare to pentagon?
- dang 10y ago
  What I described in the first two paragraphs there.
  - tacone 10y ago
    > This is a flamewar comment, which makes it bad for HN regardless of anyone's politics. But you particularly have no right to do this in the context of a personal blog post by someone whose intention to improve society could hardly be clearer. > Large institutions are complex, neither completely good nor completely evil. I don't think that's too much to ask users of an internet forum intended for intellectually substantive discourse to understand. Except you did not intellectually substantiated anything, but your own/company's opinions. Nor it makes sense for you or anybody else to arbitrarily mark the parent as a flamewar comment. You are very free to have and express your own opinions, you should others have and express their own, though.
    - dang 10y ago
      I'm a moderator here, so it's my job to set these expectations. That inevitably involves judgment calls, a.k.a. opinions. I'd say the lines we draw are far from arbitrary, but of course I'm biased.