4 ms·

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 te

by 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.

by fy20 3y ago

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.