3 ms·
The nuance is likely the govt contracting angle. Charging $20 extra, to US tax payers, to support products that do not benefit US tax payers. Additionally, th
by dogman144 3y ago
The nuance is likely the govt contracting angle.
Charging $20 extra, to US tax payers, to support products that do not benefit US tax payers.
Additionally, these aren’t abstract users at the receiving of the practice - it’s US service members who just want their booze products to “work,” under a very tight budget environment.
US contractors have had the US military over a barrel for so long because of variations on these themes, and it actively hinders Soldiers in harms way, even if way down the supply chain. This is the reason Palantir, Anduril, etc are cleaning up now, to hugely summarize those companies.