3 ms·

Thanks for this thoughtful analysis. Your framing of the 'buyer vs builder' dynamic really resonates with what I saw at Raytheon and explains a lot. We weren't

Thanks for this thoughtful analysis. Your framing of the 'buyer vs builder' dynamic really resonates with what I saw at Raytheon and explains a lot. We weren't just struggling with a technical handoff - we were watching an organization transform from a builder to a buyer of expertise. The part about 'overseers wanting early results' is especially relevant to defense. Program managers need to show progress to keep funding, which incentivizes quick integration of existing solutions over deep technical work. I saw this firsthand when our most sophisticated signal processing work was subcontracted out. But here's where defense differs from commercial software: When you're building complex systems like radar or signal processing pipelines, the 'buy' approach has serious limitations. You can't just integrate your way to novel capabilities. Those retired experts we had to bring back? They represented irreplaceable domain knowledge that can't be purchased off the shelf. The tools you mention (linters, static analyzers, requirement tracking) are valuable, but they don't solve the core problem: you need people who deeply understand both the mathematics and the implementation. In my current role, I see PhDs struggling because they lack this foundational knowledge - no amount of process or tools can bridge that gap. What I think we need is a model that preserves deep technical expertise while still allowing for integration of existing solutions. But the current funding and organizational structures in defense make this really hard to achieve.

meltyness 2y ago
Well, naively, then, what you might be describing is a new language; because if the software itself can't capture the details of the expertise, then that may imply that something simply isn't being expressed. Languages evolve with expertise, specialties are tailored to and can be permanently and effectively captured; and not just captured, but reused as in the case of libraries. Perhaps there's some core capability missing from the MATLAB ecosystem that isn't so obvious on the surface. What I know about MATLAB is it is primarily focused on simplifying and making performant DAQ / processing cycles, but not necessarily associating concepts to use-cases and correctness/effectiveness (and probably optimality, as an important thought) -- say with how Objects and Types compartmentalize data transformation effectively for user-facing software applications with understandable UIs.
- dapperdrake 2y ago
  Apologies for butting in. Programming language adjustments sound good on the surface but don’t really cut deep enough, as far as the problem domain is concerned. This is both research and implementation of a military grade solution. Think about it this way: both the electrical engineering and the mathematics you are combining are (a) cutting edge in their respective fields (for the most part) and (b) cutting edge in their combination. Finding good ways of expressing that Geometric structure in a programming language feature or as a subroutine library is 10 years and many more applications (read: real world tests) down the road from where original poster’s work takes place for the government. And ipunchghosts seems to have encountered what other people in his position convey behind closed doors: The researchers are sacrificial pawns and even sacrificial chess queens. Your mileage may vary, of course. Edit: Typo
  - ipunchghosts 2y ago
    I guess im wondering if other researchers in DoD are having the same sentiment as me. I find it hard to believe they arent but it's something that not talked about much because from my point of view, there arent many researchers with 20 YoE left in the DoD. If i am wrong, point me to them as i want to join their ranks!
  - meltyness 2y ago
    Again, probably pretty naive take (and without regard to the amount of or quality of outcomes), but when looking at the way academic research occurs, thinkers are often exposed to failures and asked to explain them or expound upon the underlying philosophy -- rather than to participate in the full engineering cycle; that can take different forms such as hands-on development, but particularly in engineering, viewed with skepticism. I think there's even a take that you can tease the patent system as a way to profit from failing to explain ideas effectively. Edit: maybe the consideration then is what are the roles missing? if there's a way to improve off-the-shelf model performance faster than moore, what is it? scaling to teams that specify more specialized roles; simulation, model architecture / quantization specialist, systems-level, hardware-match specialist / minimization? some sort of way to compose, or perform operations on the content of models?

meltyness 2y ago

Well, naively, then, what you might be describing is a new language; because if the software itself can't capture the details of the expertise, then that may imply that something simply isn't being expressed. Languages evolve with expertise, specialties are tailored to and can be permanently and effectively captured; and not just captured, but reused as in the case of libraries. Perhaps there's some core capability missing from the MATLAB ecosystem that isn't so obvious on the surface. What I know about MATLAB is it is primarily focused on simplifying and making performant DAQ / processing cycles, but not necessarily associating concepts to use-cases and correctness/effectiveness (and probably optimality, as an important thought) -- say with how Objects and Types compartmentalize data transformation effectively for user-facing software applications with understandable UIs.

dapperdrake 2y ago
Apologies for butting in. Programming language adjustments sound good on the surface but don’t really cut deep enough, as far as the problem domain is concerned. This is both research and implementation of a military grade solution. Think about it this way: both the electrical engineering and the mathematics you are combining are (a) cutting edge in their respective fields (for the most part) and (b) cutting edge in their combination. Finding good ways of expressing that Geometric structure in a programming language feature or as a subroutine library is 10 years and many more applications (read: real world tests) down the road from where original poster’s work takes place for the government. And ipunchghosts seems to have encountered what other people in his position convey behind closed doors: The researchers are sacrificial pawns and even sacrificial chess queens. Your mileage may vary, of course. Edit: Typo
- ipunchghosts 2y ago
  I guess im wondering if other researchers in DoD are having the same sentiment as me. I find it hard to believe they arent but it's something that not talked about much because from my point of view, there arent many researchers with 20 YoE left in the DoD. If i am wrong, point me to them as i want to join their ranks!
- meltyness 2y ago
  Again, probably pretty naive take (and without regard to the amount of or quality of outcomes), but when looking at the way academic research occurs, thinkers are often exposed to failures and asked to explain them or expound upon the underlying philosophy -- rather than to participate in the full engineering cycle; that can take different forms such as hands-on development, but particularly in engineering, viewed with skepticism. I think there's even a take that you can tease the patent system as a way to profit from failing to explain ideas effectively. Edit: maybe the consideration then is what are the roles missing? if there's a way to improve off-the-shelf model performance faster than moore, what is it? scaling to teams that specify more specialized roles; simulation, model architecture / quantization specialist, systems-level, hardware-match specialist / minimization? some sort of way to compose, or perform operations on the content of models?