3 ms·

And if it had worked as they thought it would, it would have been totally worth it. It’s a different level of money altogether, but 300M is a small amount of 7

by mlac 5y ago

And if it had worked as they thought it would, it would have been totally worth it. It’s a different level of money altogether, but 300M is a small amount of 715 BN dollars in the DoD budget planned for FY 2022. But when you’re operating at that scale, 300M is almost in the “let’s try it and see if it works”. DNI had 60+ BN in appropriations for FY 2020.

woodruffw 5y ago
I'm plenty familiar with the DoD's scale -- I worked at an IC contractor for a few years, and much of my current work is funded by the DoD. The problem isn't the amount of money itself, it's that it can't work and never will: too many stakeholders ruin normal and simple software projects, and the DoD is that at its absolute worst. Asking all of the IC agencies to settle on something common is like asking all of the construction workers at a site to get their tools from a common toolbox: everything is going to be in there, but it's going to be a jumbled mess of different priorities that everybody resents.
- kodah 5y ago
  Except it is working and another commenter pulled a link from the same document that describes the next iteration of the exact same project. https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-reporter/dodiis/2018/08/14/the-second-generation-ic-ite-is-here/ https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-reporter/dodiis/2018/08/14/the...
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    "Iteration" can mean just about anything in DoD-speak. Barring further releases of information (or a HN reader being willing to do a little bit of leaking), I don't think anybody can confidently assert that the $300M spent on DTE will be meaningfully reused in the next "iteration."
- adolph 5y ago
  > a jumbled mess of different priorities that everybody resents Sounds par for the course. Link to Pentagon Wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
- mlac 5y ago
  I hear you, and putting the scale there was something that I wanted to check and why I commented. At that scale it’s almost like one of Google’s moon shots… But yeah - joint programs are fraught with problems and dynamics (tragedy of the commons is one major one).

by mlac 5y ago

woodruffw 5y ago

I'm plenty familiar with the DoD's scale -- I worked at an IC contractor for a few years, and much of my current work is funded by the DoD. The problem isn't the amount of money itself, it's that it can't work and never will: too many stakeholders ruin normal and simple software projects, and the DoD is that at its absolute worst. Asking all of the IC agencies to settle on something common is like asking all of the construction workers at a site to get their tools from a common toolbox: everything is going to be in there, but it's going to be a jumbled mess of different priorities that everybody resents.

kodah 5y ago
Except it is working and another commenter pulled a link from the same document that describes the next iteration of the exact same project. https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-reporter/dodiis/2018/08/14/the-second-generation-ic-ite-is-here/ https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-reporter/dodiis/2018/08/14/the...
- woodruffw 5y ago
  "Iteration" can mean just about anything in DoD-speak. Barring further releases of information (or a HN reader being willing to do a little bit of leaking), I don't think anybody can confidently assert that the $300M spent on DTE will be meaningfully reused in the next "iteration."
adolph 5y ago
> a jumbled mess of different priorities that everybody resents Sounds par for the course. Link to Pentagon Wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
mlac 5y ago
I hear you, and putting the scale there was something that I wanted to check and why I commented. At that scale it’s almost like one of Google’s moon shots… But yeah - joint programs are fraught with problems and dynamics (tragedy of the commons is one major one).