3 ms·

> Thankfully, someone somewhere down the line was awake—the contract states that DC will only pay the $680,000 once all 40 units have been shown to be working.

> Thankfully, someone somewhere down the line was awake—the contract states that DC will only pay the $680,000 once all 40 units have been shown to be working. Would be interesting to see what the contract literally states. Although even if DC doesn't pay out (for non-performance) installation of random stuff can damage other things.

fy20 3y ago
That really should have been at the start, as if you look at it from that point of view it doesn't sound bad at all. Governments should be trying to support technology startups, and handing out contracts with conditions like this seems a pretty fair way to do it. It's basically a grant that needs to be proven. The government doesn't have the resources to investigate how scientifically plausible every new technology is, but a simple "we want to see it does X% better" is easy to measure for someone without a scientific background.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- constantcrying 3y ago
  >The government doesn't have the resources to investigate how scientifically plausible every new technology Sure, but just common sense tells you this is nonsense. If you had a device which could do this you wouldn't be negotiating with some state government over some half a million. You would be in talks with various EV and battery manufacturers over licensing fees worth billions. Especially bad since it apparently was sold by a convicted fraudster. If that minimum of effort isn't put in, do you expect the government to do rigorous testing? Also, who is going to pay for removing those devices? Is it certain they aren't harmful or even dangerous?
- MBCook 3y ago
  It’s impossible. They’re wasting time and money installing it even if they get it for free. Then once it doesn’t work they’ll have to waste time and money uninstalling it. It should’ve been tried on one car, not a real part of the fleet. And it should’ve come with some kind of clawback. If it doesn’t work they should have to pay $100,000 or something to make up for all the lost time.
- andreareina 3y ago
  > The government doesn't have the resources to investigate how scientifically plausible every new technology is They can't pick up the phone and ask one of any number of experts also working for the government if it passes the smell test? > a simple "we want to see it does X% better" is easy to measure for someone without a scientific background If they can't tell the claim is very likely bogus, they're liable to be taken in by a fraudulent protocol designed and executed by the sellers.
chrismeller 3y ago
What does “working” mean? That we’ve certified that it can in fact do what it reports to, or that the light turns on and it says it’s working?
rasz 3y ago
"Look here invertors from Asia, out invention is approved and certified by US government. Washington DC already made a purchase and is installing it in all government cars. You dont have to believe us, look at this genuine contract for over half a $mil with signatures and everything."

fy20 3y ago

That really should have been at the start, as if you look at it from that point of view it doesn't sound bad at all. Governments should be trying to support technology startups, and handing out contracts with conditions like this seems a pretty fair way to do it. It's basically a grant that needs to be proven. The government doesn't have the resources to investigate how scientifically plausible every new technology is, but a simple "we want to see it does X% better" is easy to measure for someone without a scientific background.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
constantcrying 3y ago
>The government doesn't have the resources to investigate how scientifically plausible every new technology Sure, but just common sense tells you this is nonsense. If you had a device which could do this you wouldn't be negotiating with some state government over some half a million. You would be in talks with various EV and battery manufacturers over licensing fees worth billions. Especially bad since it apparently was sold by a convicted fraudster. If that minimum of effort isn't put in, do you expect the government to do rigorous testing? Also, who is going to pay for removing those devices? Is it certain they aren't harmful or even dangerous?
MBCook 3y ago
It’s impossible. They’re wasting time and money installing it even if they get it for free. Then once it doesn’t work they’ll have to waste time and money uninstalling it. It should’ve been tried on one car, not a real part of the fleet. And it should’ve come with some kind of clawback. If it doesn’t work they should have to pay $100,000 or something to make up for all the lost time.
andreareina 3y ago
> The government doesn't have the resources to investigate how scientifically plausible every new technology is They can't pick up the phone and ask one of any number of experts also working for the government if it passes the smell test? > a simple "we want to see it does X% better" is easy to measure for someone without a scientific background If they can't tell the claim is very likely bogus, they're liable to be taken in by a fraudulent protocol designed and executed by the sellers.

chrismeller 3y ago

What does “working” mean? That we’ve certified that it can in fact do what it reports to, or that the light turns on and it says it’s working?

rasz 3y ago

"Look here invertors from Asia, out invention is approved and certified by US government. Washington DC already made a purchase and is installing it in all government cars. You dont have to believe us, look at this genuine contract for over half a $mil with signatures and everything."