4 ms·

I wouldn't call more another massive privatized infrastructure "good" even if it does its job in the the short term. I would rather the government gain autonomy

I wouldn't call more another massive privatized infrastructure "good" even if it does its job in the the short term. I would rather the government gain autonomy even if it means temporary adjustment pain.

tablespoon 5y ago
> I wouldn't call more another massive privatized infrastructure "good" even if it does its job in the the short term. Good in this case means meeting most or all of the project objectives. If they pursue a "perfect" solution, they may not do even that, let alone realize the other social goods you're hoping for.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  I acknowledge your goalposts. I personally value my social good goalposts more important than the project objectives, and JEDI as originally envisioned is negative with respective to my goalposts. It is thus net negative to me. Pithily paraphrased, "Those who would give up essential [self-sufficiency], to purchase a little temporary [efficiency], deserve neither".
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Pithily paraphrased, "Those who would give up essential [self-sufficiency], to purchase a little temporary [efficiency], deserve neither". From the Pentagon's perspective, they're probably meeting that with either AWS or Azure. They probably look at self-sufficiency as a national, not organizational thing. So long as the thing is built and located in the US and owned and operated by Americans, it means they're not giving up any self-sufficiency.
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      Certainly. But until we reign in the military as a portion of government spending, big military investments should have direct civilian benefits not civilian costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism (note the "Keynesianism" is somewhat tongue-in-cheek) does not cut it for the latter.

4 ms·

I wouldn't call more another massive privatized infrastructure "good" even if it does its job in the the short term. I would rather the government gain autonomy

by Ericson2314 5y ago

tablespoon 5y ago
> I wouldn't call more another massive privatized infrastructure "good" even if it does its job in the the short term. Good in this case means meeting most or all of the project objectives. If they pursue a "perfect" solution, they may not do even that, let alone realize the other social goods you're hoping for.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  I acknowledge your goalposts. I personally value my social good goalposts more important than the project objectives, and JEDI as originally envisioned is negative with respective to my goalposts. It is thus net negative to me. Pithily paraphrased, "Those who would give up essential [self-sufficiency], to purchase a little temporary [efficiency], deserve neither".
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Pithily paraphrased, "Those who would give up essential [self-sufficiency], to purchase a little temporary [efficiency], deserve neither". From the Pentagon's perspective, they're probably meeting that with either AWS or Azure. They probably look at self-sufficiency as a national, not organizational thing. So long as the thing is built and located in the US and owned and operated by Americans, it means they're not giving up any self-sufficiency.
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      Certainly. But until we reign in the military as a portion of government spending, big military investments should have direct civilian benefits not civilian costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism (note the "Keynesianism" is somewhat tongue-in-cheek) does not cut it for the latter.